Testing in Texas - education

School Administrator, Dec, 2000 by Joseph F. Johnson Jr., Uri Treisman, Ed Fuller

Researchers find the Lone Star State's experience shows what works in statewide accountability

In states where accountability systems are being developed or modified, what features of accountability systems might local superintendents seek that build upon the lessons we have learned in Texas? What are the characteristics of a state accountability system that are most likely to contribute to improvements in teaching and learning?

The experiences in Texas over the past several years suggest that a state accountability system is neither a cure-all nor a curse, but rather a tool that if properly sharpened and applied can be used by local school leadership to improve student performance.

In Texas, we have tracked substantial increases in the percentage of students from all population groups who pass the statewide assessment, known as the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills or TAAS. Some of the most impressive gains have occurred in districts serving large numbers of students who are African American or Hispanic or who qualify for the federal school lunch program. Texas students also have made significant progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only exam allowing state-by-state comparisons.

On the other hand, Texas still has its share of low-performing schools and districts. Some of those with acceptable accountability ratings still exempt far too many students from the assessment process. Some schools have focused too narrowly on test-taking routines and have not adequately taught students the concepts and skills the assessment was intended to measure. And while the high school completion rate continues to rise statewide, far too many students still fail to earn a diploma.

While our state's accountability system has received much attention, it is hard to separate its impact from a number of other statewide initiatives over the past decade that have influenced student performance. These include class-size reductions in the early grades, increased local control and state funding of extended-year programs and prekindergarten. Nonetheless, in many of the successful schools and school districts we have studied, the district leadership has pointed to the state accountability system as a key catalyst to their improvement efforts.

Contributing Factors

Our studies of the state's current accountability system, which was initiated in 1992, have identified eight key factors that we think contribute to improvements in academic achievement of all students.

* Alignment with state standards.

An accountability system is more likely to promote improvements in reaching and learning when there is a high degree of alignment between the assessment system and state content standards. Content standards should communicate state expectations for what students should know and be able to do.

If the accountability system is based on an assessment system that is not well aligned to the content standards, teachers are less likely to perceive that they will be able to improve student performance on the state assessment by teaching the state's content standards. As a result, many teachers will try to decide what parts of the content standards to teach and what part of the assessment content to teach. When teachers and administrators feel a strong sense of accountability for getting students to perform well on the assessment, they may be tempted to ignore the content standards and teach solely the content included on the assessments. Potentially, this could narrow rather than broaden the curriculum offered to students.

Weak alignment can cause even greater problems when the content of the assessment is not made clear to teachers. In such situations, teachers are less likely to know what to do in their classrooms that will influence better performance on the state assessment. Teachers will make guesses about what they might teach that will lead to better assessment results. Schools with the greatest needs are the least likely to have teachers who will guess well.

However, it should be noted no such thing as perfect alignment exists (as long as standards are not test items). Alignment is a matter of degrees. Nonetheless, accountability systems are more likely to promote improvements in instruction when there is a greater degree of alignment between assessment systems and standards.

* Results that inform instruction.

If an accountability system is to result in improved achievement, it should provide educators with timely information that helps them know how to improve their teaching. Results that come six months after the administration of the assessment are going to have a much lower likelihood of influencing instruction than results that come within six weeks.

In addition, results that tell teachers something like "most of your students are at the 25th percentile" or "40 percent of your students passed the test" may generate anxiety, but they are not likely to give teachers much information about how to improve their instruction.

The most useful accountability systems provide teachers and administrators with performance data that allows them to identify the specific strengths and weaknesses of schools, classrooms and individual students. Performance data should provide useful information to teachers and administrators about the level of student mastery of the concepts and skills assessed. The data should allow teachers and administrators to gauge the academic growth of students.