The Uneasy Coexistence of High Stakes and Developmental Practice - accountability in primary education

School Administrator, Jan, 2000 by Donna Harrington-Lueker

That 'fluffy little unit' doesn't exist in an age of stringent state demands for accountability in the earliest grades

Beaufort County, S.C., is familiar with the pinch that can occur when so-called developmentally appropriate practices meet statewide standards and high-stakes assessments. A leader in standards-based reform, the 15,000-student district has encouraged its elementary school teachers to boost achievement by trading in ditto sheets and workbooks for performance assessments, multiage classrooms and a constellation of other approaches that focus on the link between child development and readiness to learn.

But like other states intent on gauging how well their schools are doing, South Carolina tests children at specific grade levels using traditional fill-in-the-bubble tests. And those state-level assessments have put Beaufort and its teachers in a quandary: Multiple-choice tests aren't what their philosophy of early education is about. Neither is the expectation that every young child will be at the same place academically at precisely the same time--something high-stakes tests at specific grade levels take for granted.

The result, says Steven Ballowe, Beaufort's deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction, is clear and chilling. When a state issues a mandate for standardized tests, its actions can retard developmentally appropriate practices.

"We had to wean teachers away from the old practices," says Ballowe. "Now the pressure is on to return to the old routine."

High Stakes, High Stress

Nationwide, schools and school districts committed to a developmentally appropriate philosophy of elementary education share Ballowe's concerns.

In 1999, every state except Iowa had developed statewide standards in core subjects or was in the process of doing so, the American Federation of Teachers reported in "Making Standards Matter," its annual survey of state standards. Most also have published curriculum frameworks, benchmarks, teacher guides and other documents specifying, to varying degrees, the content of instruction.

That's been especially true this past year at the K-4 level, says Heidi Glidden, author of the report. In past surveys, Glidden says, most states had clustered standards that covered grades K-4 in general. This year, more states have developed grade-by-grade standards in these early grades, especially in reading.

Increasingly, too, the AFT survey showed, states have begun to implement high-stakes assessments in which test scores are used to rank schools, reward or sanction teachers or determine whether a child will be promoted.

But while such high-stakes tests are typically delayed until the 3rd or 4th grade, schools nationwide report increasing pressure to prepare 1st and 2nd graders for testing and even to change their curricula.

For at least a decade, North Carolina, a leader in the accountability movement, has prohibited using standardized tests in its K-2 classrooms because of the undue pressure such tests put on young children and the unreliability of the results among children that young. This year, though, at the request of several local districts, the state is piloting a program that allows as many as 10 school systems to administer the state's 3rd-grade pre-test at the end of the 2nd grade.

"Some districts have told us that it's better to allow the test at the end of the 2nd grade, with a teacher children are familiar with, rather than waiting for the beginning of 3rd grade," says Lou Fabrizio, the state's director of accountability services.

Though it hasn't taken action, the Massachusetts Board of Education also has discussed using standardized testing as early as the 2nd grade to increase accountability.

This year, too, Alabama will test all students in grades K-3 in reading and reading readiness. And in Texas, kindergarten teachers were trained this past summer to spot reading problems so that they can help their children prepare for a 3rd-grade assessment in 2003--a test that will determine whether the children will be promoted.

"We're in a time when people are tired of hearing there's a problem and instead want a solution," says Gwen Simmons, president of the Ohio Association for the Education of Young Children. Increasingly, she and other early childhood experts say, that solution becomes that school's need to downplay exploration, hands-on learning and a flexible curriculum and instead drill students in specific, structured academic content.

Teachers especially feel the pressure, says Anita McClanahan, director of early childhood programs for the Oregon Department of Education. Rather than using what they consider best practice, teachers spend time drilling children to prepare them for test-taking. "There's a rub between what teachers know and believe professionally and what they feel they have to do [to comply with state mandates]," McClanahan says.

The message from her state agency office: "We tell teachers to stay the course and not fall into the trap of one more worksheet."

Ironically, in the early '90s, a state task force recommended that districts revamp their K-3 programs to include more developmentally appropriate practices. In the next two years, too, Oregon expects to spend $45 million on a new statewide pre-K program.