SALVADOR JUAREZ

Introduction

Why Use a Standardized-based Educational System?

Why and How to Use Assessment?

Are Standardized Tests the Enemy?

Do Students With Special Needs Need Assessment?

Hidden Curriculum

Consequences

Accountability

Vision

References

Currently the trend in many states is to use standards as a measurement tool of what knowledge and expected outcomes students should be achieving in their schools. More than thirty states are beginning or have adopted standards with only a small group of states not changing with the trend (Pipho, 1997). With all but a few states using or in the process of using standards, the question needs to be asked, What are the effects of Standards on student achievement?

According to the Association of California School Administrator (ACSA) Middle Grades Committee (Zon & Ackley & Olds & Wainio, 1998), a standards-based education system will improve student performance and learning. Standards will set expectations for curriculum and performance to be communicated to students and the public regularly. The students will be setting goals and practice activities to help them reach the Standards, while teachers review the progress towards the Standards regularly. Under standards-based education, the students take responsibility for their own learning. According to Zon, Ackley, Olds, and Wainio (1998), the curriculum and the instruction and the assessment must match the Standards in order to be a coherent effort. The authors also point out, Standards do not intend to standardize teaching but to create the boundaries without inhibiting creativity of the students or teachers.

Constructivist approaches such as Mathwings, based upon the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards for the purpose of enabling a wide range of teachers to succeed with a wide range of students, has been highly successful in states such as California, Maryland, and Texas. One of the criticisms of Standards based education is that the instruction, curriculum, and assessment are not in alignment with the Standards. Mathwings bases the instruction, curriculum, professional development, and assessment on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards. Part of the success of Mathwings lies in the acceptance of closely related standards by many states, including California and Maryland and Texas, with the development of performance tests used for state accountability purposes.

Most people view Standards as a form of assessment and the foundation of measuring accountability. Assessment is seen as a necessary part of the process to see if students are achieving the goals or objectives set out in the curriculum or learning from the instruction or meeting the standards. Peel and McCary (1997) describe assessment as that which makes standards the measuring tool of student accomplishments and the vehicle for putting those standards into practical strategies for designing and learning to do quality work. In linking standards to the other components, instruction and curriculum, assessment can be used for diagnosis, instruction, and improving student performance (McCary and Peel, 1997).

Each state has or is in the process of setting State Standards in each of the curriculum areas. In turn, each state has some form of assessment mandated to the schools either for accountability of programs such as Chapter 1, proficiency assessment, diploma certification, vocational assessment, retention, et cetera. What some school districts have done is to use these tests for multiple purposes, mostly in the form of feedback for students, teachers, parents, districts, and states. Recently the trend of everyone from teachers, to parents, to school boards, to President Clinton is to use the term "assessment" linked with other words such as "standards," "alternative," "authentic," or "performance." Mengel and Schorr (1992) from Colorado Springs Public Schools, have referred to this phenomena as being a "romance" with alternative forms of assessment. When the alternatives and the pros and the cons of assessment are analyzed, each of the states refer back to some form of norm referenced testing. Places such as Colorado Springs are trying to use norm reference testing to measure their Chapter 1 accountability. In the past, schools have used a test such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills to measure multiple functions, such as diagnosis of individual student learning difficulties, instructional grouping, course selection, school accountability, and district accountability. It was perceived that if the students performed generally well on this singular test, then the school and district were also achieving relatively well in some or all of the multiple functions. Assessment has generally been used for multiple purposes providing feedback for students, teachers, parents, districts, and states, usually in the form of standardized tests. The current trend is to measure standards through standardized tests to see if students are doing well in meeting standards.

Test scores are often used to make decisions about students, usually in the form of standardized tests. Standardized tests are easy to use and can provide a good first glimpse of analysis for people wishing to improve their schools (Schmoker, 1996). Currently in the state of California, tests such as Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition (SAT9) have been aligned more closely with the State Standards. In some states, the State Standards and the tests are not aligned closely. Whereas, test scores may impact the placement of the student in subject area tracks, remedial programs, enrichment classes, advancement to the next grade level, vocational placement within a program, or the current educational topic of retention. The results of tests often determine inclusion or exclusion of the students.

There are exit tests in seventeen states that are perceived as high motivation for students, with more states planning to adopt them. According to Neill (1997), associate director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, using such tests mean that some deserving students do not obtain diplomas, which raises the dropout rate, hence schools react by turning curriculum into a "test-coaching" program. Neill states, "neither important individual decisions, such as high school graduation or special placement, nor collective sanctions or rewards for a school should be made on the bases of a test used as a single, required hurdle. The work students actually do should be used to make these decisions" (1997, p.38).

Research (Mengel & Schorr, 1992) now indicates that the National Norm Referenced Assessment that was being used in Colorado Springs served only a few narrow purposes and that such tests cannot be used again and again to meet all the "new" needs of assessment or the Standards. Schools are needing to form an assessment program to meet all the "new" needs. Directors in planning, evaluation, and measurement take on the role of assessment in steering and/or responding to the needs of instruction and curriculum and of the State Standards of Colorado. It was not until the issue of accountability was taken up by the State of Colorado, that the establishment of proficiencies became connected to State Standards. The impetus was provided when the State of Colorado wanted evidence of state mandated achievement goals. In the past, teachers giving the tests and reviewing the information from the tests were not using the information to improve instruction. It was not until the State of Colorado became more strict in their requirements for measuring accountability in the School Improvement Plan and the establishment of proficiencies that coincided with the District Achievement Levels Tests scores. It was then that the teachers began requesting the results (Mengel & Schorr, 1992). Assessment has been used more recently such as in Colorado, trying to measure more than one thing rather than focusing on improvement of instruction. The issue of inclusion or exclusion has been a topic that remains in the forefront since standardized tests have became the prominent form of assessment.

Critics of norm reference testing raise some of the same questions being asked today that have been asked over the last thirty years: What is the assessment (i.e. Standards or curriculum or instruction) purpose? What is the actual utility of the tests? What is the range and adequacy of the criterion variables in evaluating student and school performance? What is the interaction between school achievement and student achievement? If the Standards have not had sufficient minority group representation and professional input then on whose standard of evaluation is being performed?

Taylor and Walton (1997) advocate interventions, even though there is a national trend of performance-based assessment, norm-referenced tests will probably be used concurrently. Accordingly, the two forms of assessment will need to be understood by students, who in the end have the most to lose. Schmoker describes the use of standardized test balanced with a "wider array of assessments" (Schmoker, 1996, p.76). For students not prepared for such tests that are based upon Standards, the consequences can be devastating to their futures. The problem is that studies indicate that poor and minority students are scoring worse on performance assessments than their counter-parts—relative to middle-class students—than on traditional standardized measures (Madden et al., 1997).

Schmoker describes that the problem is not in the test itself but in the teachers that are not results driven. According to Schmoker, teachers want to avoid the public talking about results and must begin marking progress such as win-loss records on baseball cards. The baseball cards would not only have standardized test information but also, richer and more precise indicators of student achievement (Schmoker, 1996).

Past practices have often targeted poor or minority students as those with special needs. States have moved past targeting only poor or minority students and have included defining students with disabilities such as psychological or behavioral or emotional, impaired speech, visually impaired, or health impaired. All states have included teaching all learners including "different" type of learners. Hence, assessing all students becomes equally important. According to Neill (1997), when the state or federal government mandates assessment society has deemed learning important to all students. Hence, society finds Standards, assessment, curriculum, and instruction, all important and necessary for change. For some, the interpretation of making the learning accessible to everyone including "different" type of learners, is to water down the curriculum. This in turn implies low expectations and low-level curricula, therefore this waters down the vision of Standards-based education. The current trend in California as in many other states is to not water down the education of the students but to raise the standards. Parrish and other educators (1992) argue that this is also the case for meeting the needs of students such as Limited English Proficiency or vocational, where the bar is lowered, but should be raised. Some of the critics of standardized tests, such as Neill cites the work of Norman Frederiksen (1992), states the bias is that "multiple-choice tests tend not to measure the more complex cognitive abilities," hence need not be taught to these "different" type of students ( Neill, 1997, p.36).

Those involved in testing acknowledge that assessment is necessary and can be extremely helpful if all those involved are clear of its purpose. If students are going to be assessed in different forms, Taylor--assistant director for the assessment and academic policy—Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, and Walton-- faculty of Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington--suggest that educators must help all students learn the "ins and outs" of the assessment methods being used (Taylor & Walton, 1997). It is also at this time, the assessors need to make adjustments that are collinear with the classroom curriculum, that helps assessment to improve the instruction and curriculum. Taylor and Walton suggests that the teachers should know what is being assessed or know if the assessment tool has been aligned with the State Standards as part of those "ins and outs." Teachers should also find out if the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and State Standards are aligned with one another. Taylor and Walton (1997) argue that schools need to incorporate, in the form of "interactive workshops," ways of preparing students for standardized tests that maintain the integrity of the school’s curriculum and methods of learning. Taylor and Walton (1997) find that for reasons of accountability and economics and despite trends toward performance-based methods of assessment, norm-referenced, multiple-choice tests are here and likely will be in demand for years to come.

Taylor and Walton (1997) see the trend continuing along with superintendents’ being compensated monetarily based on the achievement test performance of students in their districts, making the power of the tests very real to all involved, including the students.

Those convinced that logic and persuasion will ultimately lead to the demise of state-mandated achievement tests might ask themselves how frequently substantial changes are made to long-standing public policies. The standardized testing industry and the general American public are unlikely to be moved by school reform advocates’ criticisms of multiple-choice items on statewide tests. Forty-one states report using multiple-choice items as part of their state assessment programs. Over time, alternative assessments may gain wider acceptance and a more prominent place in public education. However, as we work toward that time, we can fulfill part of our responsibility to children better by teaching them how to become more adept at showing what they know under standardized, multiple-choice conditions (p.67).

Currently the public deems Standards by way of assessment, important for all students, including those with "special" needs, as a way of seeing what they are and should be learning.

Are schools failing to meet the demands of America? Many people such as Hirsch answer, "yes!" There are people in business, education, and international "experts" all agreeing through different studies (Bracey, 1998) such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). "Because of the low academic levels of entering students, post-secondary occupational/ technical curricula contain approximately 35% course work that should have been learned before the students left high school" (The National Center for Research in Vocational Education, 1994, p. 22). Research has shown that the countries whose students are achieving the highest performance levels in standardized test take an applied approach which includes applying knowledge across disciplines, and applying knowledge to "real-world" situations"(Daggett, 1994, p.55).

About 20% of the students are being prepared for vocations, and another 20% for college, while the rest of the "educationally neglected youths" received no specific training (Hirsch, 1987). What these children needed were ‘life adjustment education,’ which consisted of guidance and education in citizenship, home and family life, use of leisure, health, tools of learning, work experience, and occupational adjustment" (Hirsch, 1987, p.65).

Some of the same arguments are still being heard today. Parish and Aquila (1996) describe the "cultural ways" as the hidden ways that language, dress, tradition, covenants, history, values, structure, and rewards are still being reinforced in our public school system. According to Parish and Aquila, teachers do very little to disturb the expected mean, which they label it as the "work of schools"(Parish et al., 1996, p. 299).

Parish and Aquila (1996) further explain that those challenging the system are always seen negatively. They even go one to say that most people who think they are reforming their schools are only tinkering with improvement but they leave intact the existing structural system. Parish and Aquila cite Goodlad’s, author of A Place Called Schools: Prospects for the Future, description of the schools as being opposed to the basis of the structure and its failure in doing anything about it. The authors describe the last 30 years and 40 billion dollars as "doing my work" and not being responsible for the outcomes. This argument, in terms of the public’s perception of education, is a signal for accountability either in the form of State or Federal Standards, District or State or Federal Assessment.

The public and some advocates of Standards or state mandated testing sometimes equate test scores as defining the learning and knowledge of the students. This in turn, usually exerts more pressure upon students not showing growth on such tests. These students tend to be "disadvantaged" students, according to authors such as Madden and others (1997). Currently in education the motivation of promotion or retention was removed from the students but will once again be reexamined. Neill (1997) indicates that unless the students are engaged with learning then it has nothing to do with the results of learning or testing. Hence, they will not think very much about their school work and their learning will not progress. Neill explains that a "drill and kill" type of curriculum which is sometimes used for preparing for testing, does not promote learning.

It is usually the "disadvantaged" or "special needs" students that feel any of the long-term negative effects of testing, motivation and fear in testing, or performance anxiety. Teachers that tell their students not to worry about these tests, in an effort to reassure their students, do them a disservice by misleading them, because the tests will affect the students’ lives. Secondly by doing this, they negatively motivate the students and do little to help them deal with any feelings of fear or incompetence. According to Taylor and Walton (1997), research indicates that repeated experiences with low achievers can have a negative impact on students that can be summarized in three general trends: growing disillusionment with education, decreasing motivation to give genuine effort, and increasing use of inappropriate strategies in learning. The assumption is that if serious consequences such as retention or promotion are dangled in front of students, then it will motivate students to achieve and hence if the children do not learn, they should keep repeating the material until they do.

During the 1980’s, grade retention increased when school districts linked standardized test scores to student placement and promotion ( Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997). One of the major flaws of this idea was the use of scores from norm-referenced or multiple-choice tests that act as the basis for deciding upon retention. The flaw being these tests are not constructed to measure mastery. They are designed for ranking students based upon their test score (Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997). In addition multiple-choice tests are confusing for younger children to understand due to the artificial format that includes "distracters" that often do distract children from the reasoned answer by using different information that the test-makers assumed. Hence, the scores of these tests have relatively low reliability and predictive value for placement purposes ( Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997).

Harcourt Brace, publisher of Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition (SAT9), is not designed to measure mastery of State Standards. In California, an augmented addition is to be given during the 1998-1999 school year for the purpose of measuring whether students are achieving the State Standards. If such a test were to be used for the purpose of retention or promotion, the results would be questionable. For example, a score of sixty could mean that there is a two-thirds probability the "true" score is between fifty-three and sixty-seven, and a one-third probability that it is outside this range of scores (Harkte, 1999).

Darling-Hammond and Falk also cite that retention is a major problem for students of low socioeconomic backgrounds whose retention rates are twice that of high socioeconomic backgrounds. This disproportionality is also exhibited for students who have English as their second language. Using any one tool for retention or promotion of students is always questionable due to the argument of "gaps" and a "hidden" curriculum.

To a student what does it matter? Critics of testing describe it as a means of sorting students into the "haves" and the "have-nots." The critics describe the testing process filtering out the best students to fulfill the needs of the institution and that it really doesn’t matter whether the tests measure knowledge or not because when minorities can’t do well on tests, they can’t get good jobs. In response to the critics, Taylor and Walton state that people in education need to know how to help children do better on tests, especially when those tests are aligned with the Standards, so the tests do not act as barriers to educational and economic needs. (Taylor & Walton, 1997).

According to Neill (1997) these are reactionary times, where states like Arizona and California have dropped performance testing and are heading in the same direction in states like Kentucky and others. In California, Ex-Governor Wilson rid the state of performance assessment, portfolios, and learning records rather than take the time to improve what was a strong beginning, in favor of multiple-choice testing (Neill, 1998). In 1993, the then Governor Wilson raised questions during the implementation of the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). For many advocates of performance-based testing, CLAS shows the difficulty in implementing more "authentic" forms of assessment and moving away from testing basic skills such as multiple-choice tests (Kirst & Masseo, 1996).

Often when someone is calling for "basics" what is seen in response is a form of a basic skills tests. Whenever the issue of a National Assessment is brought to the forefront, it is assumed that it will be in the form of a standardized test. There exist a paradox that the old tests cannot meet our real needs and the new tests are not entirely clear. For example, with the introduction of the Mathematics Standards in California, the State mandated test--SAT9--is not closely aligned with the test. Hence, most schools only tinker with the old form of assessment with no vision of what are the needs or how to measure them.

Assuming the public is unaware of the changes taking place in education, such as the Mathematics Standards in California, when results are reported to the public, educators often see such results as taken out of context. In response, most educators when faced with mandated "basic skills" multiple-choice tests can implement a high quality classroom form of assessment and share the results with administrators, parents, and community, trying to build support of learning occurring in the classroom.

Keeping teachers accountable for the students learning is a public concern. Schools and district are being judged on the basis of the test scores whether or not these scores truly represent what the students know or are capable of achieving or how closely aligned that test is to the Standards for that state. This brings about the issue of cheating by students and teachers. Researchers have raised the concern of the wide array of educators’ opinions about the fairness of various practices, noting that "cheating" may be defined differently by many people based upon their many different practices, but blurred by the fact that the test scores are often used for purposes other than they were intended (Taylor & Walton, 1997). This brings about the paradox, "public demand for a high-priced product that is poorly understood and used is frustrating to educators who feel powerless to alter the status quo" (Taylor & Walton, 1997, p.68).

The frustration of the educators is whether the state is interested in the integrity of the test instead of the integrity of the children. For example, the state of California has mandated testing that is heavily guarded to ensure the integrity of the test. The public, usually non-educators, worry about interventions that make the test unfair. Taylor and Walton (1997) state the impossibility that nearly all states were reporting scores on standardized achievement tests that were above average. The implication being that there must be cheating through inappropriate test preparation.

For many advocates of testing, testing is a way of measuring accountability. The public is looking for teachers and students and administrators to be more accountable for student learning. This raises such questions as, If the people in the educational community are displeased with the schools and the people in business industry as well, then how about the parents who are sending their children? Parents are those who deal with the schools on a daily basis, who when all things are said and done, parents have the most to gain or lose--the future of their children. Amazingly, after hearing all the other people that say that things need fixing the parents in general are pleased with what their school is doing on a national level that includes parents of children in the public schools and parents with students in private schools and people with no children in schools. In general, people are generally displeased with the nation’s public schools, most notably it is the other schools that their children do not attend or the ones they do not know (Rose et al., 1998).

When research takes on more than the local or national level, but international level the results are very different in some respects. On the international level the United States is said to be far behind some of the other countries such as Japan or Korea (Bracey, 1998). In part, this becomes the impetus for reform. Biddle (1997) used the data sets of the Second International Mathematics and Science Study, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, National Assessment of Educational Process, and found that no countries were satisfied with its existing programs in science and mathematics. Accordingly, the attitude of others that a swift kick in the behind as described by Biddle (1997) will not make educators fix what they have proceeded to misdirect in education in accepting low standards. Biddle (1997) does propose that one of the main differences in achievement is the funding for public schools. Biddle states that this is correlated to family advantage. This argument coincides with arguments that minority groups are being punished for events beyond their control. In part, if the students are not meeting expectations on norm-referenced testing then their lower scores lead to lower morale and reduce effectiveness of educators teaching. Biddle (1997) advocates the majority of Americans acknowledging fairness and a more effective system of education for those that are disadvantaged.

The 29^th Annual Phi Delta Kappan/ Gallup Poll of the Publics’s Attitudes Towards the Public Schools, shows that the public is generally satisfied on the local level but thinks that on the national level the schools in the United States are average at best, whereas TIMMS has almost completely different levels of satisfaction with the schools in the United States. There is confusion about how and what the assessment tools are trying to measure or indicate. Communication to the public is average at best.

Administrators have the opportunity to communicate what the schools are trying to achieve with students. Administrators must be "conscious" and keep their vision of what they want students to achieve and how it will be measured. Visionaries and many administrators in education that want to implement change regardless of whether it is in the standards or curriculum or instruction or assessment or all of the above. According to Parish and Aquila (1996) part of the problem with education is that visionaries are punished. An effective administrator with the vision of changing the existing culture gets busy being the enforcement, managing the hierarchy of things, controlling the environment, discussing or making policy, and doing central office work. The authors describe the administrator as "non-conscious

The literature on the effects of Standards on student achievement indicates positive results can occur when there is a vision or purpose for learning that is communicated throughout each entity—students, teachers, parents, administrators, and the public. The public which is a portion of the population that may include some of the people in education, but also includes people outside of the field of education, in general are content with the job their own schools are doing. At the same time, they also want to make other schools more accountable by prescribing assessment in a form of accountability. Literature reveals that if the schools communicate for what and how the assessment or standards are being used, then the public is more accepting of any results caused by change.

Evidence from the studies imply that if the emphasis is placed upon improving student achievement, not ranking or separating the "haves" from the "have-nots", then improvement in curriculum and instruction become the focus for learning. The literature reveals that assessment or standards will not make schools more accountable as some people have suggested. Some findings have shown inconclusive evidence that the "gaps" are closing due to other variables. One of the problems is a lack of long-term studies that isolate variables such as home environment, school attendance, emigration, assimilation, or social programs for reducing any "gaps." These are some of the same variables that have also produced inconclusive evidence that there is a "hidden curriculum."

Research gives evidence that supports the idea that a vision is important for any type of program, such as a standards-based system, and needs to be realized and communicated to the students, teachers, administration, parents, and public. When a standards-based system is communicated to all those involved then the results become more accessible to teachers, administrators, and districts for improving schools.

From the literature reviewed it could be concluded that education is in need of change and is in the process of change in many states in the form of Standards; steps must be taken by a Principal or administration to implement change such as a standards-based system. There is a need to provide teachers with help in integrating assessment with improved curriculum and instruction and student learning; helping schools develop a partnership between school districts, the community, and the state is a necessary step in the progress of educational change.

Biddle, B. J. (1997, September). Foolishness, dangerous, nonsense, and real correlates of state differences in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 9-13.

Bracey, Gerald W. (1998, September). Tinkering with TIMMS. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 32-35.

Daggett, W. (1994). A report on defining excellence for American schools.

International Center for Leadership in Education.

Falk, B. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997, November). Using standards and

assessment to support student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 190-199.

Hirsch Jr., E.D.. (1987). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To

Know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kirst, Michael & Mazzeo, Christopher. (1996, December). The rise, fall, and Rise of State Assessment in California, 1993-96. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 319-323.

Madden, Nancy A. & Slavin, Robert E. & Simons, Kathleen. (1997). MathWings: Early Indicators of Effectiveness., Baltimore, MD, 1-59

Mengel, B. E. & Schorr, L. L. (1992). Developing Item Bank Achievement

Tests and Curriculum-Based Measures: Lessons Learned Enroute., Colorado Springs, CO, 1-13.

Neill, D. M. (1997, September). Transforming student assessment. Phi Delta

Kappan, 79, 34-40.

The National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (1994).

School-to-Work-Facts. U.C. Berkley, California, The National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Parish, R. & Aquila, F. (1996, December). Cultural wars of working and

believing in schools: preserving the way things are. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 298-305.

Parrish, L. H. & Others. (1992, April). A Statewide Analysis of Vocational

Assessment Instruments Used with Students with Special Needs. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, 1-25.

Pipho, Chris. (1997, May). Standards, assessment, accountability: The Tangled

triumvirate. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 673-674.

Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M., & Elam, S. M. (1997, September). The 29th annual Phi Delta Kappan/ Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes towards the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 656-664.

Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1998, September). The 30th annual Phi Delta Kappan/ Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes towards the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 29, 41-56.

Taylor, K. & Walton, S. (1997, September). Co-opting standardized tests in the service of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 66-70.