High-Stakes Hustle: Public Schools and the New Billion Dollar Accountability

Educational Forum, The, Fall 2004 by Baines, Lawrence A, Stanley, Gregory Kent

Governor Jeb Bush today announced that more students scored on grade level in 2003 than ever before on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). "The greatest improvements over last year were found in reading at the elementary grades. . . . We have seen continued rising student achievement across the state, regardless of ethnic background. This year brings the biggest improvement yet in student performance," said Governor Bush. "These results prove that our common sense approach to education reform through accountability works."

While it is true that the scores of Florida fourth-graders improved a few points on the FCAT from 1994 to 2002, scores of Florida students on the NAEP were still well below the national average. According to the state of Florida, 60 percent of fourth graders were proficient in reading in 2002; but according to the NAEP (2003), only 27 percent were proficient. A few months after Jeb Bush's celebratory note, Florida was notified by the federal government that 90 percent of its students would have failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) as set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act (Newkirk 2004).

One reason for impressive scores on state exams is that the precise contents of the exams typically are published years in advance. A second reason state exams can show increases in achievement is that students eventually become familiar with the content and format of the exam. Since the advent of high-stakes testing, students have started the year with pep rallies designed to drum up enthusiasm for taking the test, taken courses carefully aligned to the state-sanctioned curriculum, been required to answer sample test questions as part of a daily routine, and spent hundreds of hours in courses whose sole purpose is to teach about "test-taking tricks." The vast amounts of time, energy, and money spent on test-taking strategies have resulted in some increases in scores on standardized exams, but have offered little educational value.

From her vantage point as a high school English teacher in Florida, Nancy Williams (2003) noted the deleterious effects the shift from a low- to a high-stakes exam can have on teachers and students. Low-stakes tests involve only a half-day of administration and require no rehearsal or preparation on the students' part. Conversely, high-stakes testing mandates months of heavily monitored, test-preparation sessions followed by several weeks of intensive seatwork and, finally, the administration of the multi-part exam over a period of several days. Not only do high-stakes exams negatively impact instructional time, Williams (2003, 83) also found that they fostered "resentment and decreased motivation."

Of course, some high poverty schools inevitably slide to the state's "low-performing" status. When schools are designated as being "on probation" or "unacceptable" because of scores on the state exam, pressure increases and the curriculum narrows even further. If a state tests only reading and mathematics in elementary grades, then a low-performing school usually decides to abandon music, art, physical education, science, and history in favor of a curriculum consisting of only the subjects to be tested (Johnson and Johnson 2002). After a poor performance on the state exam for the third consecutive year, an elementary school in Lawrence, Massachusetts, even shoved aside core subjects so that they could implement 15 solid weeks of two-hour drills on test-taking tricks expressly designed to raise scores on the state exam (Vogler and Kennedy 2003).