Introduction
High-stakes testing is itself a simple concept: if students and
teachers are held to account they will each work harder to achieve
better results. Under accountability measures schools, teachers and
students will strive to do their best to receive rewards and to avoid
punishment. However, as H.L. Mencken observed, 'There is always an
easy solution to every human problem: neat, plausible and wrong'
(William, 2010, p. 107). Such a neat and plausible solution as using
accountability to increase standards in schools was recommended by a
Royal Commission into education in England and Wales, published in 1861
(William, 2010). The Commission took place in response to expansion of
the state's role in funding education; presumably, the state was
concerned about what their money was being used for. Across the
Atlantic, concern regarding the impact of high-stakes testing in schools
was unmistakably articulated by Emerson E. White in his Elements of
Pedagogy:
They have perverted the best efforts of teachers, and narrowed and
grooved their instruction; they have occasioned and made well-nigh
imperative the use of mechanical and rote methods of teaching; they have
occasioned cramming and the most vicious habits of study; they have
caused much of the overpressure charged upon schools, some of which is
real; they have tempted both teachers and pupils to dishonesty; and last
but not least, they have permitted a mechanical method of school
supervision. (in William, 2010, p. 109)
Despite the massive technological, social, professional and
economic changes that have taken place in the last 150 years, the
high-stakes debate continues to cyclically recur. Currently in
Australia, the accountability-pendulum has swung firmly in favour of
high-stakes testing.
Prior to exploring the contextual factors surrounding the
implementation of high-stakes testing, the term itself must first be
defined. The American Educational Research Association lists a range of
aspects that contribute to tests being regarded as high-stakes: they
carry serious consequences for students or educators; schools may be
judged by their school-side average; high results may bring public
praise; while low results may bring public embarrassment (Marchant,
2004). Accountability testing, often used interchangeably with the term
high-stakes, simply means that teachers and students will be held to
account for their performance (William, 2010). Given the publication of
National Assessment Program--Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test-results
on the MySchool website and subsequent media identification of high and
low-performing schools, it is indisputable that NAPLAN tests have become
high-stakes. The rapid implementation of the recommendations contained
in the Masters (2009) report into poor performance on the 2008 NAPLAN
tests in Queensland also indicates that the tests have become
high-stakes (Lingard, 2010).
The global context
The introduction of high-stakes testing within Australia is
indicative of what Lingard (2010) describes as a global policy
convergence, with testing a key part of the globalised educational
policy discourse. The international educational focus has shifted from
inputs and processes to outputs and outcomes: governments are
increasingly more concerned with the ends than the means (Lingard,
2010). Australia's educational policy is belatedly following the
path established by Britain and the United States.
Increased accountability was pivotal to England, Wales and Northern
Ireland's 1988 Education Reform Act. Stressing the need for greater
accountability, the Act sought to refocus schools upon fundamental
academic knowledge after the progressive policies of the late 1970s
(Rustique-Forrester, 2005). This was achieved through the introduction
of a national curriculum, national assessments, national performance
targets and the ranking and comparison of schools (Rustique-Forrester,
2005). The reforms were both assertive and uncompromising, and having
been endorsed by New Labour have only recently been reconsidered in two
widely publicised reports: the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander,
2009) and the House of Commons Inquiry into Testing and Assessment
(House of Commons, 2008).
The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander 2009) describes itself as
the first comprehensive review of English primary education in 40 years.
Lingard (2010) summarises the findings of the report as a devastating
attack on the effects of the Education Reform Act. The Review raises
particular concerns about the impact and inaccuracy of high-stakes
testing and encourages a shift of focus from testing and accountability
to producing good quality teachers. While the House of Commons inquiry
agreed that extensive accountability testing was distorting
students' educational experiences, it still supported national
testing as a means of validating achievement and found that
accountability drives up standards and leads to more confidence in
education. Despite some differences, both the Review and the Inquiry
raised concerns about the long-term impacts of high-stakes testing,
primarily the consequence that schools were focusing exclusively on test
scores.
In many ways the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) act, introduced in
the U.S. by George W. Bush in 2002, mirrors the Education Reform Act.
NCLB has four main aspects: accountability; flexibility and local
control; enhanced parental choice; and focus on what works (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007). The accountability component of the Act
monitors schools for sufficient yearly progress based upon student
achievement in annual assessments. Koretz (2002) succinctly summarises
the 1100 pages of the Act: 'You assess student performance using
measures that you think are sufficient to summarise what kids have
learned over a long period of time; you set very ambitious targets for
improvements in scores on those tests; you require continual
improvement; and then you reward and punish.' Indeed, carrots, such
as financial rewards, and sticks, such as school restructuring, are
central to NCLB.
The current educational reforms taking place in Australia are
clearly indebted to the U.S. and Britain. Lingard (2010) believes this
is due to the policy borrowing and the flow of people between Australia
and Britain, and to a lesser extent between Australia and the U.S.
However, neither of these countries is seen to represent educational
best practice. The Queensland Studies Authority (QSA), in an article
critiquing the move to high-stakes testing, urges Australian
policy-makers not to repeat the mistakes of the UK and the USA (2009).
Lingard also wonders why Australian policy is being borrowed from the UK
or USA when Australia outperforms these two nations on key international
measures.
One nation that does score higher than Australia and the rest of
the world on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
evaluation is Finland. Finland has bucked global educational trends by
resisting standardisation, a focus on literacy and numeracy, and
consequential accountability (Sahlberg, 2007). Instead, Finland has
embraced loose standards, holistic learning, and has entrusted teachers
to monitor student progress. The focus of the Finnish system appears to
be on producing and empowering high-quality teachers (Sahlberg, 2007),
which contrasts with moves to increase centralised control and reduce
the authority of teachers in the UK, USA and now Australia.
The need for further research
As Australia embraces the policies of the USA and the UK and
pursues a nationalised system that employs high-stakes testing as an
accountability mechanism, it is pertinent to consider the potential
effects. As Australia is, in comparison to the USA and UK, a recent
convert to high-stakes testing at a national level, international
research can be analysed to anticipate the potential effects in the
Australian educational context (Mills, 2008).
While policy-makers are likely to have been focused on quantitative
data, this report will also draw upon qualitative data that considers
the local impact upon individual schools and classrooms. Luke (2010)
believes that evidenced-based policy disregards qualitative studies,
regarding them as soft and non-generalisable. In educational policy
there is, according to Luke (2010), a perceived binary distinction:
The disregarding of studies of actual classroom, pedagogical
practice in the formation of high-stakes testing policy, reveals that
this is an area that requires further consideration (Luke, 2010). Thus,
this research report will explore both the intended and unintended
consequences of high-stakes testing by referring to both qualitative and
quantitative research.
Also, the impact of high-stakes testing on literacy education is
significant given that literacy is one of two areas of focus of the
NAPLAN testing system. This suggests that improving literacy standards
in Australian schools is an underlying objective of the shift towards
highstakes testing and increased accountability. Literacy has also been
at the forefront of the accountability debate in Australia, amid
concerns regarding the 'dumbing-down' of literacy education,
echoing the concerns expressed in England in the late 1980s (Mills,
2008). These concerns have already seen a curriculum shift in Queensland
from critical literacy to a renewed emphasis on grammar and
comprehension, vividly expressed in Masters' (2009) review of
literacy learning in Queensland primary schools.
This report will address the following question: What are the
potential impacts of highstakes testing on literacy education in
Australia? Given the potential research gap identified by Luke (2010) in
the formation of Australia's high-stakes testing policy, the focus
upon literacy of NAPLAN and the relative novelty of national high-stakes
testing in modern Australia, this question is clearly pertinent. In
explaining the purpose of the Cambridge Primary Review, Alexander
succinctly justified the role of the report: 'Primary education
suffers more than its fair share of scaremongering and hyperbole, not to
mention deliberate myth-making ... Wherein lies the truth? And
isn't it time to move on from the populism, polarisation and name
calling which for too long have supplanted real educational debate and
progress?' (2009, p. 5). Further research into high-stakes testing
could be similarly warranted.
Impact upon curriculum
The introduction of high-stakes standardised tests into Australian
schools is likely to have a profound effect on the literacy curriculum
in two ways. Firstly, literacy's role within the broader school
curriculum will be emphasised. Secondly, the literacy curriculum itself
will become aligned with the content being tested. The curriculum impact
of standardised testing has been explored in a range of qualitative
studies that have sought feedback from teachers, principles and local
authorities (Alexander, 2009; Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Au, 2007; Bourque,
2004; Clarke, Shore, Rhoades, Abrams, Miao & Li, 2003; Collins et
al., 2010; Jones & Egley, 2004; Jones, Jones and Hargrove, 2003;
Powell, Higgins, Aram and Freed, 2009).
The scope and implications of this evidence has led Jones et al.
(2003, p. 34) to observe, 'Of all the consequences of high-stakes
testing, the impact of testing on the curriculum is perhaps the most
dramatic.' Similarly, two extensive reviews of standardised testing
in England, the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2009) and the House
of Commons (2008) review, both found consistent agreement that
standardised testing has led to a narrowing of the curriculum. While
there is agreement that the curriculum has become focused on tested
content, opinions differ relating to the impact of this upon literacy
education.
Whole-school curriculum
In terms of the general curriculum teachers have noted a range of
positive effects. This includes observations that alignment with
large-scale testing instruments has resulted in greater consistency
within and across schools (Clarke et al., 2003; Crocker, 2004; Jones,
2007). Teachers have also noted that they have been provided with more
explicit expectations relating to what they should be teaching, which in
turn has resulted in a renewed emphasis on key content (Clarke et al.,
2003; Jones, 2007). Jones and Egley's (2004) analysis of teacher
perceptions of high-stakes testing in Florida found only a minority of
teachers were concerned with the loss of curricula autonomy, although
the views of this minority are emphasised in the findings. These studies
suggest that the literacy curriculum will become more focused and
consistent as it aligns with standardised tests.
Evidence from the United States and the UK indicate that literacy
will have a prominent role within a narrowed curriculum (Bourque, 2004;
Clarke et al., 2003; Collins et al., 2010; Crocker, 2004; House of
Commons, 2008; Jones, 2007; Jones, Jones & Hargrove, 2003; Powell et
al., 2009). This is likely to be replicated in Australia given
NAPLAN's focus on literacy and numeracy. The limited scope of
standardised testing has seen a reduction in time spent teaching social
science and science and an extensive marginalisation of the arts and
physical education, particularly in the US (Jones et al., 2003). This
effect is defended by the British Department for Education and Skills
(DfES), which argues: 'There is nothing that narrows a pupil's
experience of the curriculum so quickly as a poor preparation for the
level of literacy ... that the subject demands' (House of Commons
2008, p. 50). Literacy education is likely to benefit from this renewed
focus.
A tangible effect of the narrowed curriculum within the US and the
UK has been an increase in the time spent teaching literacy. Exploring
the impact of NCLB on curriculum reform, Bourque (2004) found that time
devoted to the explicit teaching of reading and reading strategies
increased 22 per cent after the introduction of accountability testing.
Similarly, 67 per cent of primary teachers in North Carolina claimed
they were spending more time on reading and 65 per cent were spending
more time on writing, in response to testing (Jones et al., 2003). The
same study found 499 minutes were being spent each week teaching reading
and writing compared to 102 minutes for social science and 99 minutes
for science (Jones et al., 2003). A comparable analysis of teachers in
Maine and Missouri revealed an extra 10 minutes being spent each day
teaching reading (Powell et al., 2009). Teachers in England also
revealed that they emphasise literacy instruction in order to prepare
students for Key Stage tests (Collins et al., 2010). Powell (2009) also
found that schools were choosing to emphasise reading professional
development over other subject areas. Clearly, literacy's
prominence within standardised testing regimes is leading to a focus on
reading and writing within the classroom and in teacher development.
The consequence of this focus upon literacy has resulted in
improving performance on high-stakes tests (Bourque, 2004). The emphasis
upon literacy is leading to an instructional focus, as well as schools
investing in the improvement of literacy instruction (Jones et al.,
2003). However, while experiences in the US and UK suggest that time
spent teaching literacy will increase in response to NAPLAN tests and
that literacy education will become more focused and consistent, the
literacy curriculum itself may become aligned with the tests, leading to
the exclusion of non-tested concepts.
Literacy curriculum
Masters (2009) suggests that for Queensland to improve outcomes in
literacy, teachers should align their practice with the levels of
literacy expected by NAPLAN. While the positive aspects of this
alignment have been explored above, concerns arise given the limitations
of what can be tested (Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Mills, 2008; QSA, 2009;
Williams, 2009). The QSA (2009, p. 3) claims that testing encourages
'methods of teaching that promote shallow and superficial learning
rather than deep conceptual understanding and the kinds of complex
knowledge and skills needed in modern, information-based
societies'. Analyses of the literacy aspects of NAPLAN papers
support this concern.
Williams's (2009) dissection of the role of grammar in the
2008 NAPLAN language conventions test found that of the paper's 50
multiple choice questions 28 related to spelling, nine to punctuation
and only six to grammar. The grammatical questions required students to
identify particular aspects within clauses, with the tests not asking
students to consider why features are being used or how they are
functioning within a text (Williams, 2009). The analysed test did not
require students to engage in critical or higher-order thinking, instead
resorting to closed questioning that relied upon recall of concepts.
This leads Williams (2009, p. 12) to state that NAPLAN testing 'has
the potential to encourage teachers to return to a superficial and
largely discredited approach to teaching grammar'. This is a
concern echoed by Mills (2008) who regards the renewed emphasis on basic
literacy as addressing minimum standards of the past that do not equip
students with the skills to navigate the current multimodal textual
landscape. Alignment of the literacy curriculum with NAPLAN testing will
thus result in an emphasis upon non-contextualised, non-critical,
recall-based skills.
Such an effect was observed in relation to student engagement with
literature in Chicago, a pioneer of accountability testing in the US
(Anagnostopoulos, 2003). The study observed urban students completing a
unit on To Kill a Mockingbird in preparation for a test. Despite
students wishing to explore how race is explored in the text and compare
it to ethnic differences in their own school, the teacher sought to keep
discussions related to content that would appear on the test. Given the
emphasis on test preparation the teacher focused on text reproduction
and encouraging the students to uncritically accept the author's
perspectives. Anagnostopoulos (2003) observed that the focus on the exam
neutralised the political and ideological content of the text, with an
emphasis instead on concepts such as plot and character, with the
students regarded as 'minimally skilled consumers of texts who
accept, uncritically, the narrator's perspective' (p. 190).
The alignment of the unit with the test instrument thus reduced To Kill
a Mockingbird to a stimulus for students to demonstrate their ability to
write a well-constructed essay. Their knowledge of the text was
superficial and unconnected to their own experiences.
Impact on curriculum: findings
The curriculum impact of standardised testing upon literacy is
clearly multi-faceted. The alignment of the curriculum with the tests is
likely to lead to greater consistency in literacy education, as well as
to teachers being provided with clearer expectations about what they are
expected to teach (Clarke et al., 2003; Crocker, 2004; Jones, 2007).
Evidence from the UK and USA also suggests that the emphasis of the
tests upon literacy will result in an increase in the amount of time
spent teaching reading, writing and language skills (Bourque, 2004;
Collins et al., 2010; Clarke et al., 2003; Crocker, 2004; House of
Commons, 2008; Jones, 2007; Jones et al., 2003; Powell et al., 2009).
However, the limited content tested by NAPLAN may result in the extra
time being spent teaching basic skills at the expense of critical
literacy (Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Mills, 2008; QSA, 2009; Williams,
2009). McCollow (2006) argues that NAPLAN has supplanted critical
literacy with an emphasis on traditional knowledge and values, resulting
in limited educational outcomes. The prominence of literacy in schools
is likely to increase in response to standardised testing, however the
focus of literacy education will be reduced to an emphasis on basic
skills unless the scope of tested content is increased.
Impact upon pedagogy
The current debate surrounding the pedagogical effects of
high-stakes testing is typified by William Hatfield's comment from
1916: 'Twelve years of school life has made them adept at
memorising, but many of them are novices in thinking ...' (Mills,
2008, p. 213). Hatfield's concern is that students are merely
taught by their teachers to pass exams, and it is a concern that is
likely to be amplified within a high-stakes testing environment. However
the pedagogical impact of high-stakes testing is not, although it is
prevalent, limited to a teach-to-the-test approach.
Negative impact upon pedagogy
Research indicating that high-stakes testing has a negative
pedagogical effect is extensive (Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Au, 2007; QSA,
2009; Alexander, 2009; Groves, 2002; House of Commons, 2008; Jones,
2007; Jones & Egley, 2004; Ryan & Weinstein, 2009; Scot et al.,
2009; Williams, 2009). The dominant argument is that high-stakes testing
discourages teachers from being creative, and instead encourages
didactic teach-to-the-test approaches that reduce motivation.
The House of Commons (2008) found that there is a clear tension
between accountability and inspired teaching. This results from a loss
of pedagogical autonomy, requiring teachers to adopt standardised
approaches that fail to engage their students (Jones & Egley, 2004;
Jones et al., 2003; Scot et al., 2009). Jones et al. (2003) argue that
high-stakes testing has taken the art out of teaching, encouraging what
they term a cookbook approach to teaching where one simply delivers the
prescribed lessons. A survey of teachers' perceptions of testing in
Florida supports this argument, finding that teachers believe testing
has stifled their creativity and enforced a formulated approach (Jones
& Egley, 2004). An interviewed teacher claimed that, 'School is
becoming a drudgery for teachers and students alike' (Jones &
Egley, 2004, p. 19). Scot et al. (2009), interviewing teachers of gifted
students, reveal that districts were using curriculum-pacing guides that
provide teachers with a step-by-step manual telling them what to teach
each day. Such an approach has resulted in students losing their
excitement and interest in learning as teachers are discouraged from
teaching innovatively (Scot et al., 2009). Such approaches have led to
parents observing the adoption of pedagogical methods that 'stifle
natural creativity and emotional intelligence' in students
(Alexander, 2009, p. 33).
Teaching to the test is a much-discussed pedagogical impact of
high-stakes testing (Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Au, 2007; Groves, 2002;
Jones, 2007; QSA, 2009; Williams, 2009). The QSA (2009) claims that
tests encourage methods of teaching that promote shallow and superficial
learning. This concern is justified by a Florida-based study that found
teachers spent 40 per cent of instructional time practising test-taking
strategies (Jones, 2007). The same study also found that, when they were
not discussing approaches to exams, teachers focused on low-level
knowledge and skills through the use of role level drill and skill
practice. Au (2007) has also found that in response to high-stakes
testing the majority of surveyed teachers resorted to merely lecturing
test-related facts. In these cases the alignment of pedagogical
practices with test instruments has led to superficial,
non-contextualised engagement with the course content that embraces
discredited teaching methods (Williams, 2009). This is typified by a
Principal of a low socio-economic standing school in North Carolina who,
in response to accountability measures, admitted to replacing quality,
inclusive instructional approaches with pedagogies focused on test
preparation that marginalised much of the school's cohort (Groves,
2002).
Anagnostopoulos' (2003) observations of the impact of
high-stakes testing on the teaching of To Kill a Mockingbird also
reveals pedagogical concerns. Essentially, the two observed teachers
were more concerned with test preparation than with exploring the novel.
The teachers spent only three weeks reading the novel compared with 12
weeks spent preparing for the exam. In order to cover the text in such a
brief period one of the teachers stopped reading the novel and read the
screenplay instead. The study also revealed that conventional, didactic
teaching methods were applied that positioned students as passive
uncritical readers; a claim supported by evidence that 65-70 percent of
posed questions were literal and 90 percent of written tasks involved
students completing worksheets. While there is a danger in generalising
the results of a study limited to two teachers in one school in Chicago,
it does provide an example of the potential effects of accountability
regimes on the way in which teachers teach literacy.
High-stakes testing may also encourage teachers to rely upon
extrinsic motivation, the threat of the test, to engage students and
encourage compliance. Ryan and Weinstein (2009) reveal that teachers
explicitly instructed to produce high-standards were more likely to
employ techniques relying upon extrinsic motivation that have been shown
to negatively impact students' long-term interest. They support
their argument with reference to a study that examined the use of tests
in primary schools. The group of students who were told they would be
tested and graded had less depth of processing and less conceptual
knowledge, while those told that they would be tested to check for their
understanding showed higher levels of conceptual learning and reported
more interest and enjoyment in the material. Pedagogical approaches that
use testing as an extrinsic motivator thus may lead to students not just
enjoying school less, but also engaging with the content in isolation
and at a superficial level.
No impact upon pedagogy
As shown, there are a variety of ways in which high-stakes testing
can lead to the adoption of ineffective pedagogical practices. The
studies discussed so far suggest that in response to high-stakes tests
teachers are less likely to utilise innovative practices, will focus on
test preparation at the expense of depth of understanding, and will rely
on extrinsic motivation to engage students. However, two studies
representing significantly different contexts suggest this effect may be
overstated.
Maier (2009) explored the impact feedback from recently implemented
standardised tests had on teachers' pedagogical decisions in
Baden-Wurttemberg in the south-west of Germany. It was found that only a
small minority of teachers altered their teaching strategies in response
to test results. Despite the Government's apparent focus on using
the test results to catalyse an improvement in teaching standards,
teachers dismissed the tests as a new form of bureaucratic control
(Maier 2009). Firestone, Mayrowitz and Fairman (1998) similarly explored
the pedagogical effects of testing on Maths education in Maine and
Maryland. They also found that teachers did not adjust their
instructional methods irrespective of the results achieved by their
students, and ignored professional development opportunities focused on
test achievement. The findings of these two studies, which contrast
significantly with research referred to earlier, may be explained by the
lack of consequential accountability systems being attached to the test
results. Firestone et al. (1998) undertook their study prior to the
implementation of the NCLB policy in the US, while Baden-Wurttemberg was
still developing an external accountability system at the time of
Maier's (2009) study.
Positive impact upon pedagogy
Research indicating that high-stakes testing has a positive impact
upon pedagogy is limited (Au, 2007; Clarke et al., 2003; Firestone et
al., 1998). A qualitative metasynthesis undertaken by Au (2007) found
that, in a small number of cases, testing led to an increase in
student-centred instruction. Firestone et al. (1998) also found that
confident teachers responded to the implementation of high-stakes tests
with an intellectually challenging, inquiry-orientated approach. An
extensive study of teachers in Kansas, Michigan and Massachusetts
revealed a renewed emphasis on writing, critical thinking skills,
discussion and explanation after the introduction of accountability
systems (Clarke et al., 2003). These positive effects are related to
either the perceived quality of the testing instrument (Au, 2007), or
the professional development opportunities provided in certain areas to
assist teachers in addressing the expectations of accountability
systems. This suggests professional development may play a pivotal role
in influencing teachers' pedagogical responses to high-stakes
testing.
Pedagogy and professional development
The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2009) observes that it is
not testing that raises standards, but good teaching. However, this does
not mean that testing and good teaching are incompatible. Masters (2009)
advises that literacy teachers having access to high quality,
evidence-based professional development in conjunction with
accountability testing. Research findings support this recommendation.
Lamb (2007), exploring the testing culture in a rural Mississippi school
found that inexperienced teachers were more likely to limit their
pedagogical approaches in response to tests. Firestone et al. (2004)
similarly found that more experienced teachers and those who had been
involved in analysis of the testing instruments responded with
intellectually challenging, inquiry-orientated approaches, while
teachers who were uncertain of their teaching ability resorted to
didactic instruction. Jones et al. (2003) also state that the type of
professional development undertaken by teachers determined their
pedagogical responses to the tests. Professional development that
focuses on applying test results to address students' strengths and
weaknesses is likely to have a different effect than training focused
exclusively on improving cohort averages. Thus it is arguable that the
short-term, teach-to-the-test approaches revealed earlier can be
addressed by accompanying high-stakes testing with professional
development that provides teachers with the skills to improve test
results through enhanced pedagogical practices. While this may seem
obvious, the depth of data highlighting poor pedagogical responses
suggests that the implementation of accountability systems have often
been accompanied by a belief that they alone will improve teaching
practices.
Impact upon pedagogy: findings
There is clearly a depth of evidence to justify Hilliard's
(2000) observation that 'there is a fundamental disconnect between
high-stakes standardised testing and the movement towards excellence in
education' (p. 298). However further analysis reveals that
confident, experienced teachers with access to effective professional
development are able to connect high-stakes testing with excellent
teaching. Studies, although limited, suggest that the impact of
accountability testing on the pedagogical approaches of literacy
teachers depends upon the provision of effective professional
development. Nevertheless, such an approach has thus far been rare.
Conclusion and recommendations
This literature review has sought to reveal the potential impacts
of high-stakes testing on literacy education in Australia. Such a review
is deemed necessary due to the disregarding of teachers'
perspectives and experience by policy makers (Luke, 2010), the focus
upon literacy of NAPLAN testing and the recent implementation of
national high-stakes testing in Australia. In order to address this
concern, two key issues have been discussed in detail: curriculum and
pedagogy.
Within these areas of concern a consistent theme emerges.
Throughout the research a recurrent finding is the resistance of
teachers to the implementation of high-stakes testing. Such a finding
supports Fullan's (1995) claim that 'teachers and educational
systems are known more for their capacity to resist change than for
their roles as agents of reform' (p. 8). This resistance is due to
the failure of those implementing change to address teachers'
entrenched beliefs (Fullan, 1991). The negative effects of high-stakes
testing are unintended consequences resulting from the inability or
resistance of teachers to implement the reforms in the manner they are
intended. This perspective suggests that high-stakes testing itself is
not the key concern, for example the House of Commons (2008) report on
testing and assessment found consistent support for accountability
measures, it is the failure of policymakers to effectively manage the
introduction of accountability testing that encourages teachers to
'buy-in'.
This finding is consistent with the recommendations of Koretz
(2002), Lingard (2010) and the QSA (2009). Koretz (2002) suggests that
policymakers need to collaborate with teachers in the design and
evaluation of testing systems. Lingard (2010) also emphasises the need
to 'Reject the top-down, one-way gaze upon teachers as the sole
source and solution to all schooling problems' as well as
recognising the 'centrality of informed teacher judgement and
quality of pedagogies to achieving better learning outcomes for all
students' (p. 144). Finally, the QSA (2009) recommends that future
and current teachers are equipped with the support and training to
enable them to improve their teaching and student learning in the
changing educational landscape.
The potential impact of high-stakes testing on literacy education
in Australia is therefore dependent on how the change-process is
managed. A failure to engage educators will result in the good
intentions articulated at the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA 2009) being
derailed by unintended consequences resultant from resistant, unengaged
and uninformed teachers. For literacy education to benefit from its
increased emphasis provided by NAPLAN, teachers must be involved with
the process of designing, implementing and evaluating the tests, as well
as supporting the distribution and application of test data. For this
involvement to be productive, teachers will require professional
development in designing and evaluating assessment. High-stakes testing
will provide both challenges and opportunities for literacy education in
Australia, and whether these challenges can be overcome and
opportunities capitalised upon depends upon the support of classroom
teachers. International research suggests such an approach that empowers
and entrusts teachers within an accountability framework would be
unique.
References
Alexander, R. (2009). Introducing The Cambridge Primary Review.
Retrieved June 27, 2010, from http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/.
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with
literature in urban clasrooms: a multi-layered perspective. Research in
the Teaching of English, 38(2), 177-212.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a
qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
Bourque, M.N. (2004). Leave No Standardized Test Behind. In R.P.
Phelps (Ed.) Defending Standardized Testing (pp. 227-253). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Miao, J. & Li,
J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on
teaching and learning: findings from interviews with educators in low-,
medium-, and high-stakes states. Retrieved September 24, 2010 from
Boston College, National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy
website: http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/nbr1.pdf
Collins, S., Reiss, M. & Stobart, G. (2010). What happens when
high-stakes testing stops? Teachers' perceptions of the impact of
compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and
its abolition in Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
& Practice, 17(3), 273-286.
Crocker, L. (2004). Teaching For the Test: How and Why Test
Preparation is Appropriate. In R.P. Phelps (Ed.) Defending Standardized
Testing (pp. 159-174). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Firestone, W.A., Mayrowitz, D. & Fairman, J. (1998).
Performance-based assessment and instructional change: the effects of
testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 20 (2), 95-113.
Fullan, M. (1995). Contexts: Overview and Framework. In
O'Hair, M.J. and Odell, S.J. Educating Teachers for Leadership and
Change (pp. 1-11). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press, Inc.
Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London:
Cassell Educational Limited.
Groves, P. (2002). 'Doesn't it feel morbid here?'
High-stakes testing and the widening of the equity gap. Educational
Foundations 16(2), 15-31.
Hilliard, A.G. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes
standardized testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4), 293-304.
House of Commons--Children, Schools and Families Committee. (2008).
Testing and Assessment: Third Report of Session 2007-08. Retrieved
September 27, 2010 from
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/
cmchilsch/169/169.pdf.
Jones, B.D. & Egley, R.J. (2004). Voices from the frontlines:
Teachers' perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12 (39). Retrieved September 19, 2010, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n39/.
Jones, B.D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23 (2), 65-86.
Jones, M.G., Jones, B.D. & Hargrove, T.Y. (2003). The
Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Koretz, D. (2002). No Child Left Behind? A Faculty Response to
President Bush's Education Bill. Retrieved August 12, 2010 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/koretz10012002.html.
Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing
times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51 (2)
129-147.
Luke, A. (2010). Documenting Reproduction and Inequality:
Revisiting Jean Anyon's 'Social Class and School
Knowledge'. Curriculum Inquiry, 40 (1) 167-182.
Maier, U. (2009). Towards state-mandated testing in Germany: how do
teachers assess the pedagogical relevance of performance feedback
information? Assessment in Education: Principles, policy & Practice,
16 (2), 205-226.
Marchant, G.J. (2004). What is at Stake with High Stakes Testing? A
Discussion of Issues and Research. Ohio Journal of Science, 104 (02),
2-7.
Masters, G.N. (2009). A Shared Challenge: Improving Literacy,
Numeracy and Science Learning in Queensland Primary Schools. Retrieved
September 27, 2010 from
http://education.qld.gov.au/mastersreview/pdfs/final-report-masters.pdf
The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs. (2009). MCEETYA four-year plan 2009-2012. Retrieved
September 20, 2010 from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/
MCEETYA_Four_Year_Plan_(2009-2012).pdf
Mills, K.A. (2008). Will large-scale assessments raise literacy
standards in Australian schools? Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy. 31 (3), 211-224.
Powell, D., Higgins, H.H., Aram, R. & Freed, A. (2009). Impact
of no child left behind on curriculum and instruction in rural schools.
The Rural Educator, 31 (1), 19-28.
Queensland Studies Authority (2009). Student assessment regimes:
Getting the balance right for Australia (Draft discussion paper).
Retrieved September 27, 2010 from
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/
qsa_paper_assess_balance_aust.pdf.
Rustique-Forrester, E. (2005). Accountability and the pressures to
exclude: A cautionary tale from England. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 13 (26). Retrieved September 20, 2010 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n26/.
Ryan, R.M. & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching
and learning: a self-determination theory perspective on high-stakes
testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 224-233.
Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student
learning: the Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2),
147-171.
Scot, T.P., Callahan, C.M. & Urquhart, J. (2009).
Paint-by-number teachers and cookie-cutter students: the unintended
effects of high-stakes testing on the education of gifted students.
Roeper Review, 31 (1), 40-52.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). No Child Left Behind: A
Desktop Reference. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/ lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg4.html.
William, D. (2010). Standardized Testing and School Accountability.
Educational Psychologist, 30 (2), 107-122.
Williams, L. (2009). Down and dirty with grammar. Literacy
Learning: the Middle Years, 17(1), 11-20.
Between qualitative 'critical work' which has been portrayed as
scientifically 'soft', politically correct and ideological by the
press, politicians and educational bureaucrats--and empirical,
quantitative scientific research, which is presented as unbiased,
truthful and the sole grounds for rational policy formation. (p.
178)