Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing

Abstract

On the heels of a campaign in which both major presidential candidates were promoting more standards, more tests, and more accountability, Linda McNeil, author of Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing, provides a dissenting voice. Her critical analysis is based on classroom observations in several Houston, Tex., magnet schools in the aftermath of the Texas education reforms enacted in the 1980s. She makes her views on these reforms clear in the author's preface:Accountability by standardized testing as the panacea for school reform ...is spreading like wildfire through the national debate on education....The sound bites that seduce policymakers always emphasize claims of benefits, not the actual costs.... The costs are great: a decline in the quality of what is taught and a new form of discrimination in the education of poor and minority students (xxi).

Teacher Identity and Agency in School Worlds: Beyond the All‐Good/All‐Bad Discourse on Accountability‐Explicit Curriculum Policies

“…The variability between and among teachers' actions, and the complexities of their actions in relation to accountability-related curriculum policies, have largely been explained by issues of knowledge of subject matter, knowledge of students, and issues related to teacher attitudes and beliefs (Grant, 2000(Grant, , 2001Suárez & Gottovi, 1992;Wideen, O'Shea, Pye, & Ivany, 1997;Zancanella, 1992). With few notable exceptions (see, for example, Grant, 2001;McNeil, 2000;Meyer, 2002), most of the research on teachers and accountability relies most heavily on teachers' perceptions gained through surveys and interviews, not extended classroom observations (Cimbricz, 2002;Grant, 2001). Although such self-reported and interview data cannot and should not be discounted, the lack of observational data based on long-term engagements with teachers leaves underexplored the varied, even contradictory, ways such systems influence the overall quality and equitability of teachers' classroom practices.…”

“…Researchers who have been critical of accountability-explicit curriculum policies conclude that such policies, like "teacher-proof" curriculum materials before them, operate as purely negative mechanisms of teacher control and that this control undermines teacher agency (see, for example, McClaren, 1989McClaren, /1994McNeil, 2000). 4 These researchers conclude that such curriculum policies prevent teachers from delivering more openended, child-explicit instruction that targets higher-order thinking skills (Gallagher, 2000;McNeil, 2000;McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000;Smith, 1991). These researchers also conclude that such policies pressure, in some cases force, teachers to deliver "narrowed," less varied, more routinized instruction focused most explicitly on test preparation (Jones et al, 1999;Suárez & Gottovi, 1992;Wideen et al, 1997).…”

“…On one side are researchers who have concluded that such systems are successfully "leveraging" higher-quality and more equitable education (see, for example, Grissmer & Flanagan, 1998;Reyes, Scribner, & Paredes-Scribner, 1999;. On the other side are researchers who have concluded that such systems are reducing the quality and quantity of curricula delivered to children (see, for example, McNeil, 2000;McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000;Smith, 1991). Which are we to conclude-that test-based systems of accountability are forcing out the best teachers and "de-skilling" those left behind (see, for example, Hoffman, Assaf, Pennington, & Paris, 2001;Jones et al, 1999;McNeil, 2000), or that they have diminished turnover among teachers and increased professional satisfaction ?…”

“…On the other side are researchers who have concluded that such systems are reducing the quality and quantity of curricula delivered to children (see, for example, McNeil, 2000;McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000;Smith, 1991). Which are we to conclude-that test-based systems of accountability are forcing out the best teachers and "de-skilling" those left behind (see, for example, Hoffman, Assaf, Pennington, & Paris, 2001;Jones et al, 1999;McNeil, 2000), or that they have diminished turnover among teachers and increased professional satisfaction ? How can researchers, each of whom is interested in advancing educational improvement, reach such divergent conclusions concerning the effects of accountability on teachers and teaching?…”

“…Drawing on a broader educational quality paradigm, these lifeworld-focused researchers tend to place teachers' and students' experiences vis-à-vis such systems at the center of their works. These critics of test-heavy systems of accountability assert that such systems have undermined the work of teachers and have telescoped the products and processes of education around a narrow skill range that can more easily be assessed by simplified, standardized means (see, for example, McNeil, 2000). They also note that such systems remove students' culture from classroom contexts as a classroom resource or as a source for affirmation.…”