Special education teachers' impressions of high-stakes testing and student preparation

Special Education Teacher's Impressions Of High Stakes Testing And How That May Impact Preparing Their Students To Take Those Tests

SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER'S IMPRESSIONS of HIGH STAKES TESTING and HOW THAT MAY IMPACT

PREPARING THEIR STUDENTS to TAKE THOSE TESTS

This objective of this work is to understand how special education teachers' attitudes, preparation, background and so forth may be contributing to the low scores of special education students as mandated by the NCLB. The focus in on LD and BD students who have to take the regular exams not the small percentage of special education students who qualify for alternative assessments. The topic involves the conundrum of the current climate of data driven decision making (because of NCLB) and its impact on special education students and safeguarding their rights under IDEA 2004.

INTRODUCTION

The movement toward an increased accountability in schools has been put in place through state-mandated standardized testing of students. These assessments have a great influence on the decisions and practices of educators and specifically in regards to special education students learning experience. While the work of Kathleen Cotton is not considered the hot off the academic press having been published in 1989, Cotton reveals timeless and priceless knowledge in her review relating to the expectations of the teacher and the academic achievement of students. It is with Cotton this review of literature to follow shall begin and then move on into the literature of the present concerning the attitudes and expectations of teachers and the impact that those attitudes and expectations have upon the achievement of students and specifically in this study, the achievement of special education and students with disabilities on standardized testing scores.

REVIEW of the LITERATURE

I. Historical Review of Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement

The work of Kathleen Cotton (1989) entitled: "Expectations and Student Outcomes" published in NWREL's School Improvement Research Series Close-Up #7 begins with a quotations from George Bernard Shaw's play PYGMALION which states:..."You see, really and truly, apart from the things anyone can pick up (the dressing and the proper way of speaking and so on), the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves but how she's treated. I shall always be a flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he always treats me as a flower girl, and always will; but I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady, and always will." Cotton states: "Just as the character, Eliza Doolittle, suggests that a person's place in society is largely a matter of how he or she is treated by others, the Rosenthal/Jacobson study concluded that students' intellectual development is largely a response to what teachers expect and how those expectations are communicated. Just as the character, Eliza Doolittle, suggests that a person's place in society is largely a matter of how he or she is treated by others, the Rosenthal/Jacobson study concluded that students' intellectual development is largely a response to what teachers expect and how those expectations are communicated." (1989) Cotton relates the original Pygmalion study, which involved teachers providing information concerning the learning potential of students that was false to the teachers of these students. The teachers were informed that the students had undergone testing and found to be: "...on the brink of a period of rapid intellectual growth..." (Cotton, 1989)

In reality, these students had been randomly selected for the study. Amazing are findings that state: "At the end of the experimental period, some of the targeted students -- and particularly those in grades one and two -- exhibited performance on IQ tests which was superior to the scores of other students of similar ability and superior to what would have been expected of the target students with no intervention. These results led the researchers to claim that the inflated expectations teachers held for the target students (and, presumably, the teacher behaviors that accompanied those high expectations) actually CAUSED the students to experience accelerated intellectual growth." (Cotton, 1989) Cotton states that the 1989 report presents 46 supporting documents offering research evidence about the relationship between expectations and student outcomes (achievement, IQ scores, attitudes).An additional 21 documents are presented in the bibliography providing information on related topics "such as teacher expectations develop and how to minimize the negative effects associated with low expectations." (Cotton, 1989) Cotton states as well that: "Of the 46 key documents, 22 are primary sources (studies and evaluations), 23 are secondary sources (reviews and meta-analyses), and one presents the results of both a study and a review effort. Twelve reports are concerned with the effects of schoolwide expectations, 30 focus specifically on the effects of teacher expectations in classroom or experimental settings, and four look at both schoolwide and in classroom expectation effects. Nineteen of the documents are concerned with students at the elementary level, seven focus on secondary students, nineteen report findings regarding the entire elementary-secondary range, one presents findings regarding postsecondary subjects, and one is concerned with elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students. The investigations focused on a variety of outcome areas, including student 'achievement' in areas such as reading, mathematics, language arts, French, history, geography, physics, and biology; 'IQ measures'; student 'attitudes' toward school, toward particular subject areas, or toward the expectations of them which they perceived their teachers to hold (15); 'social behavior'; and 'self-efficacy/expectations for success'. Several of the investigations were concerned with more than one outcome area." (Cotton, 1989) Cotton states that the method of communicating high expectations for students are the methods as follows:

Setting goals which are expressed as minimally acceptable levels of achievement rather than using prior achievement data to establish ceiling levels beyond which students would not be expected to progress (Good 1987)

Developing and applying policies which protect instructional time, e.g., policies regarding attendance, tardiness, interruptions during basic skills instructional periods, etc. (Murphy, et al., 1982)

Developing policies and practices which underscore the importance of reading, i.e., written policies regarding the amount of time spent on reading instruction daily, use of a single reading series to maintain continuity, frequent free reading periods, homework which emphasizes reading; frequent sharing of student reading progress with parents, and strong instructional leadership (Hallinger and Murphy 1985; Murphy, et al. 1982)

Establishing policies which emphasize the importance of academic achievement to students, e.g., minimally acceptable levels of achievement to qualify for participation in extracurricular activities, regular notification to parents when academic expectations aren't being met, etc. (Murphy and Hallinger 1985)

Having staff members who hold high expectations for themselves as leaders and teachers, taking responsibility for student performance (Brookover and Lezotte 1979; Edmonds 1979; Murphy and Hallinger, 1985; Murphy, et al. 1982)

Using slogans which communicate high expectations, e.g., "academics plus," "the spirit of our school," etc. (Newberg and Glatthorn 1982)

Establishing a positive learning climate, i.e., the appearance of the physical plant and the sense of order and discipline that pervades both non-instructional and instructional areas (Edmonds, 1979; Newberg and Glatthorn 1982; Murphy, et al., 1982)

Insistent coaching" of students who are experiencing learning difficulty (Good 1987; Taylor 1986-87) (Cotton, 1989)

Cotton states that research shows that "teacher expectations can and do affect students' achievement and attitudes and that Good and Brophy (1980) describe the process as follows:

Early in the school year, teachers form differential expectations for student behavior and achievement.

Consistent with these differential expectations, teachers behave differently toward various students.

This treatment tells students something about how they are expected to behave in the classroom and perform on academic tasks.

If the teacher treatment is consistent over time and if students do not actively resist or change it, it will likely affect their self-concepts, achievement motivation, levels of aspiration, classroom conduct, and interactions with the teacher.

These effects generally will complement and reinforce the teacher's expectations, so that students will come to conform to these expectations more than they might have otherwise.

Ultimately, this will affect student achievement and other outcomes. High-expectation students will be led to achieve at or near their potential, but low expectation, students will not gain as much as they could have gained if taught differently. (Cotton, 1989)

Cotton states the following fact: "It has been concluded by Brophy, 1983; Brophy and Good, 1970, 1976, Cooper and Good, 1983; Cooper and Tom, 1984; Good, 1982, 1987; Meyer, 1985, Raudenbush, 1984; and Winburg, 1987 that "the majority of teachers both form initial expectations on the basis of viable information and are able to adjust their expectations and instructional approaches as changes in students' performance occur..." (Cotton, 1989)

It was found that a minority number of teachers "hold unjustifiably low expectations for student achievement on the basis of actors such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status..." (Cotton, 1989) Inappropriate expectations may well be formed based on cumulative folder data, recent achievement tests) and as stated by Cotton if the student has been placed in a low track group and this can mean to include special education or disabilities students. Kathleen Cotton stresses the fact that: "According to research, those teachers who hold low expectations for students based on factors such as those listed above are rarely acting out of malice; indeed, they are often not even aware that their low expectations have developed based on specious reasoning. Thus, efforts aimed at helping teachers to avoid harmful stereotyping of students often begin with activities designed to raise teachers' awareness of their unconscious biases." (1989) Cotton goes on the relate that there are specific ways in which differential expectations are communicated to students according to the work of: "Brookover, et al. (1982); Brophy (1983); Brophy and Evertson (1976); Brophy and Good (1970); Cooper and Good (1983); Cooper and Tom (1984); Cotton (1989); Good (1987, 1982); Good, et al. (1980); Good and Brophy (1984)" which are the ways as follows:

Providing fewer opportunities for high-expectation students to learn new material than for low-expectation students to learn new material;

Allowing less waiting time for low-expectation students to answer questions in class than is allowed high-expectation students;

Providing low-expectation students with the answer or calling on another student "rather than trying to improve their responses by giving clues or repeating or rephrasing questions;

Providing inappropriate reinforcement to low-expectation students which is not contingent on performance;

Criticism of low-expectation students for failure more severely and more often than high expectation students and praising low-expectation students less frequently.

Failing to provide feedback to responses of low-expectation students;

Paying more attention to high-expectation students than low expectation students;

Seating the low-expectation students farther from the teacher than high-expectation students.

Providing less feedback and briefer feedback to low-expectation students;

Interacting with low-expectation students more privately than publicly and structuring their activities much more closely

Conducting differential administration or grading of tests or assignments, in which high-expectation students -- but not low-expectation students -- are given the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases

Conducting less friendly and responsive interactions with low-expectation students than high-expectation students, including less smiling, positive head nodding, forward leaning, eye contact, etc.

Asking high-expectation students more stimulating, higher cognitive questions than low-expectation students

Making less frequent use of effective but time-consuming instructional methods with low-expectation students than with high-expectation students, especially when time is limited." (Cotton, 1989)

Cotton states in the summary of the report that: "Teacher expectations and accompanying behaviors have a very real -- although limited -- effect on student performance, accounting for five to ten percent of student achievement outcomes.

There is more power in the communication of low expectations in limiting student achievement than communication of high-expectations in raising student achievement.

Low-expectation students have better attitudes in classrooms where differential treatment is low than in classrooms where it is high."

In the hands of some teachers, low groups and low tracks are subject to the same kinds of limiting treatment as are individual low-expectation students-- with the same negative effects. "

The negative effects of differential teacher treatment on low-expectation students may be direct (less exposure to learning material) or indirect (treating students in ways that erode their learning motivation and sense of self-efficacy)."

Training can enable school staff members to become aware of their unconscious biases and differential treatment of students, and help them to make positive changes in their thinking and behavior." (Cotton, 1989)

The work of Brattesani, Weinstein, and Marshall (1984) Presents two studies with results after examination of the relationships among expectations of teachers and the perception of students in relation to differential treatment for students who the teachers held different expectations "...student perceptions of teachers' treatment of them personally, and student achievement levels. Results indicate that differential teacher treatment emanating from different expectations sustains and even increases differences in student achievement." (Cotton, 1989) the work of Findley and Good entitled: "Relations between Student Achievement and Various Indexes of Teacher Expectations" published in the Journal of Educational Psychology (1982) makes examination of the expectations of teachers on the student achievement in reading. Thirteen classes of sixth graders and their teachers participated. Findings state that changes in student achievement levels were affected by the teachers' perceptions of the ability of students. The work of Cotton (1989) entitled: "Classroom Questioning: Close-Up #5" is a synthesis of findings from 37 studies relating to the relationship between the questioning behaviors of teachers and students achievement. The findings state that the use of longer waiting times between questioning sessions increases high cognitive questions in students. The work of Crohn entitled: "Toward Excellence: Student and Teacher Behaviors as Predictors of School Success" states that research exists showing that the expectations of teachers communicated to students "profoundly affects students performance." (1983) the work of Edmonds entitled: "Effective Schools for Urban Poor" published in the Educational Leadership Journal (1979) states that "high expectations" are a critical component of "effective schooling." The work of Feldman and Theiss (1982) entitled: "The Teacher and Student as Pygmalions: Joint Effects of Teacher and Student Expectations" also states research findings that teacher expectations do most definitely "influence student achievement..." The work of Gaddy entitled: "High School Order and Academic Achievement" published in the American Journal of Education makes a review of several major studies and reports that "holding high learning expectations for students is an essential part of an effective school climate." (1988) the work of Good entitled: "Two Decades of Research on Teacher Expectations: Finding and Future Directions" published in the Journal of Teacher Education summarizes the research findings on the effects of expectations of teachers on student achievement and finds that "self-fulfilling prophecy" impacts, sustains impacts on student's individual, groups, classroom, and schoolwide achievement. The work of Marshall and Weinstein entitled: "It's Not How Much Brains You've Got, it's How You Use it: A Comparison of Classrooms Expected to Enhance or Undermine Students' Self-Evaluations" compares techniques of classroom management and strategies of instruction in two fifth-grade classrooms " -- one in which students perceived that the teacher treated different students very differently, and one in which students perceived that the teacher treated all students similarly. Students treated similarly held higher achievement expectations for themselves." (1985; as cited in Cotton, 1989) Rosenthal writes in the work entitled: "Pygmalion Effects: Existence, Magnitude and Social Importance" published in the Educational Researcher Journal that: "meta-analytic work conducted with the teacher expectations research since the original Pygmalion study demonstrates that "there is a phenomenon to be explained...[and] that the phenomenon is nontrivial in magnitude." (1987) the work of Stockard and Mayberry entitled: "The Relationship Between School Environments and Student Achievement: A Review of the Literature" reviews the research on the effects of expectations for student achievement and finds that schoolwide and classroom expectations for high achievement were among the strongest predictor of this outcome. (1986) the work of Weinstein and Marshall entitled: "Ecology of Students' Achievement Expectations" makes comparison of the classroom management methods, instructional strategies and attitudes toward students of teachers who were "perceived by students as treating "different" students "very differently" and teachers who were perceived as treating "students similarly. The study states findings that "attitudes of students in low-differential classrooms were more positive and achievement results were mixed. (1984) it is also noted in the work of Woolfolk and Brooks entitled: "The Influence of Teachers' Nonverbal Behaviors in Students' Perceptions and Performance" published in the Elementary School Journal that the effects of nonverbal behaviors of teachers on student's achievement is real and that this holds implications for teachers in terms of classroom behavior toward students. The work of Dusek and Joseph entitled: "The Bases of Teacher Expectancies: A Meta-analysis" published in the Journal of Educational Psychology" presents a meta-analysis of 77 studies of the factors on which teacher expectations of student achievement are based. Teacher expectations are found to be based on factors such as: "attractiveness, student classroom conduct, cumulative folder information, race, and social class." (1983) the work of Grant and Rothenberg: entitled: "The Social Enhancement of Ability Differences: Teacher-Student Interactions in First- and Second-Grade Reading Groups" published in the Elementary School Journal relate the results of a study of ability grouping strategies and effects in eight elementary classrooms. The study concludes that: "ability grouping for reading is both a cause and an effect of teacher expectations, and that this expression of expectations is academically and socially damaging to students placed in "low" groups.

II. Teacher's perceptions of standardized testing and special education student's achievement

In the work entitled: "Including Students with Disabilities and Achieving Accountability: Educator's Emerging Challenge" the author, Martin J. Ward, Nicole Montague, and Thomas H. Linton report the examination of the issue of inclusion of students and accountability in view of the attitudes and practices of educators in Texas in view of inclusion and testing. It noted that the Individual's with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education in the 'least restrictive environment." (Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) in other words special educational programs should be as much "like regular education as possible." (Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) it is additionally related in this work the fact that concerns are increasing among educators as to how: "...important issues such as multicultural education, multiple intelligences, character education, collaborative networks, service learning and others fit with the state-mandated standardized testing agenda (Bigelow, 1999, Bohn & Weeter, 2000; ERIC/OSEP, 2002, Glickman, 2000/2001; Kohn, 2001) Providing the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities may be a secondary concern in schools where educators feel pressure to achieve high scores on standardized tests." (Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) Making things even more difficult is the fact that teachers are subject to state and school policies yet simultaneously holding a great sway among students. The teacher who is a 'general' education teacher has a great influence on the special education students because of inclusion and the presentation of special learning needs now present in the general classroom.

Treder, Morse & Ferron, 2000 state: "Regular education teacher's acceptance is a critical component in how this type of service delivery will play out...Research has indicated that the level of responsibility a teacher will assume for educating students with behavior or learning problems is related to specific attitudes that the teacher holds." Among the barriers faced by students with disabilities, the greatest barriers presented are the "...attitudinal barriers of teachers." (Pivik, McComas & LaFlamme, 2002; cited in Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) Ward, Montague and Linton (nd) ask the question of: "How does a school's efforts to include students with disabilities compliment its efforts to demonstrate high quality through standardized test results?" Ward, Montague and Linton (nd) investigated the similarities and differences in the attitudes of administrators, regular education teachers and special education teachers in south Texas about the TAAS test and the inclusion of special education students in the classroom. The specific questions asked in the research are stated to be those of:

1) Do administrators, regular education teachers, and special education teachers differ in their attitudes about special education students, about special education students and their inclusion in the classroom?; and 2) Do administrators, regular education teachers and special education teachers differ in their attitudes toward the TAAS and its impact on regular and special education students? (Ibid)

Six school districts in a metropolitan area in south Texas with district size ranging from 1,800 to 40,000 were the accessible population for the study. The sample was chosen from directories from the school districts in which categorization of 'regular', special education, and administrator teachers was accomplished. A stratified random sample technique was used to "insure adequate representation of the three groups." (Ibid) the sampling was selected as follows: Regular education teachers -811 surveys mailed; 286 returned; Special education teachers - 200 surveys mailed; 91 returned (45.5%); and (3) Administrators - 362 surveys mailed, 164 surveys returned (45.3%). Return rates were stated at below 50% for all groups and this is thought to be due to data collection procedures used to distribute the surveys. The instrument of the surveys was a "locally developed cross-sectional survey instrument which consisted of 18 questions, 10 of which dealt with attitudes of the respondents and 8 of which dealt with demographic and background information of the respondents." The questions dealing with respondent' attitudes were grouped in two categories as follows: (1) Attitudes about special education students and their inclusion in the regular educational classroom; and (2) Attitudes toward the TAAS and its impact on regular and special education students. (Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) a Likert scale was used for assessing six items because those items measure attitudes, which is viewed in this study as a continuous variable. Four of the items used a dichotomous scale or yes-no format. The data was collected through a cross-section survey research design and all surveys returned were entered into an SPSS database for analysis. Two sets of analyses were used for comparison of the responses across the three groups. Used for the Likert Scaled items was a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a chi-square analysis was used on the items in the dichotomous scale. The results are shown to each of the questions of the survey in the following chart labeled Figure 1.

Comparison of Regular Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers, and Administrators Attitudes Concerning Teaching Students with Disabilities

Source: Ward, Montague and Linton (nd)

The following table labeled Figure 2 shows the 'Comparison of Regular Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers, and Administrators Attitudes Concerning Students With Disabilities and the TAAS Test.

Comparison of Regular Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers, and Administrators Attitudes Concerning Students with Disabilities and the TAAS Test

Source: Ward, Montague and Linton (nd)

The chi-square analysis (c2 = 27.19, p

The work of Howard Weiner, Ph.D. entitled: "A Matter of Confidence and Meaningful Support: Teacher's Perception of their Personal Impact on Teaching and Learning" states the fact that: "One of the most powerful ways teachers can change the culture of a school is to alter the way students are treated. When teachers volunteer to integrate the general education environment with students who were previously segregated in special education classrooms, beliefs, values and behaviors can change significantly."(Weiner, 2007) in a recent survey of several hundred parents and teachers of students in inclusion classes Weiner (2007) asked the parents and teachers to "rank in order eight often-cited factors responsible for successful inclusion. The eight factors can be viewed in terms of internal (teacher beliefs and values) and external factors (school resources outside of teacher control). The two internal factors were a teaching taking a personal interest in each child, and an environment in which all students are valued members of the class. The external factors differed in terms of classroom teacher involvement. Three factors describe training, scheduling and materials for the classroom teacher. The other three factors defer to someone else (teachers and parents) to address the needs of student with deficits." (Weiner, 2007) There were 121 sets of responses received from the parents of the students. The study states that the reflection and getting in touch with the rationale of why they are teaching resulted in the higher achievement rates of students. The work of Silva and Morgado entitled: "Support Teachers' Beliefs about the Academic Achievement of Students with Special Educational Needs" is a study of support teachers' beliefs "about the academic achievement of school students with special education needs. (2004) Results of the study suggest that "the support teachers consider that factors including 'school climate', 'curriculum design' and 'teaching approach' contribute significantly to achievements among these pupils. On the other hand, analysis reveals that the support teachers attribute difficulties and lack of achievement significantly to 'out-of-school' contextual variables." (Silva and Morgado, 2004) the work of Rolison and Medway entitled: "Teachers Expectations and Attributions for Student Achievement: Effects of Label, Performance Pattern and Special Education Intervention" published in the American Educational Research Journal makes examination of the "...formation of teacher expectations produced by information about a student's past academic performance, previous special education placements, and label. Previous performance and whether the student was labeled "learning disabled" or "mildly retarded" had the strongest influence on teacher expectations." (Cotton, 1989)

III. Teachers and Standardized Testing - Negative and Positive Impacts of Testing

It is generally acknowledged in current literature relating to standardized testing of special education students that the majority of teachers do not believe that standardized testing can accurately assess learning among special education students. Perhaps lack of exposure to testing is directly linked to the attitudes of teachers concerning special education standardized testing. The work of Ahearn (2000) entitled: "Students with Disabilities in State Assessments: The NCEO state reports. Synthesis Brief" summarizes the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) report on special education outcomes as well as making provision of an overview of the changes in assessment policies and practices for students with disabilities over the past ten years.

Three areas of focus in the report on issues in the assessment of special education students are stated to be:

1) Rates of participation in assessments;

2) Alternative assessments; and 3) the reporting and use of assessment results. (Aheam, 2000)

Stated is: while states have made significant progress in all three areas, only 23 states were able to provide participation data for students with disabilities in 1999 and the rates of participation varied from 15% to 100%. Issues influencing participation include attaching high stakes to test performance and the lack of exposure for students with disabilities to the content of the tests." (2000)

The work of Herbert C. Rudman entitled: "Integrating Testing with Teaching" (1989) states that: "Testing and teaching are not separate entities. Teaching has always been a process of helping others to discover "new" ideas and "new" ways of organizing that which they learned. Whether this process took place through systematic teaching and testing, or whether it was through a discovery approach, testing was, and remains, an integral part of teaching." (1989) Rudman states: "There is a gap between what teachers and administrators think, and what those who write about them say that they think about the value of testing. Teachers generally seem to be more supportive of testing than typified in the literature. Teacher's attitudes are in part a function of their experience and their knowledge of testing. Those who are more experienced and who have had measurement training and experience in administering tests show greater support for the use of them than do those who are less experienced and less knowledgeable. School superintendents report a higher level of satisfaction with the use of tests for decision making than do measurement specialists whose perceptions of practitioners' attitudes tended to be more pessimistic." (1989) Rudman states in relation to student's attitudes toward testing that: "Students feel that frequent testing helps them retain more content, reduces test anxiety, and aids their own monitoring of their progress. Students report a higher level of test anxiety over teacher-made tests (64%) than over standardized tests (30%). But while 88% of the students wanted to know the results of their tests, only 44% wanted to discuss them with their teachers." (1989)

The work of Gail L. Thompson entitled: "It's Not My Fault: Predicting High School Teachers Who Blame Parents and Students for Students' Low Achievement" published in the High School Journal states that in the study using regression analysis to identify "the characteristics of teachers in an underperforming high school who were most likely to blame students and their parents for students' low achievement. The results revealed that the teachers who were most likely to do so can be characterized mostly by negative and contradictory attributes. The need for professional development that aims at improving teacher attitudes and beliefs about students and parents, and helping teachers to understand how their attitudes affect the quality of instruction that students receive is underscored. Introduction Each decade has brought reforms to improve student achievement in low-performing schools -- schools mainly composed of students of color and students from a lower socioeconomic status (LSES). Nevertheless, researchers acknowledge that little has changed (Fullan, 1993; Humphrey, 2001; Muncy & McQuillan, 1996). Low achievement, disproportionate assignments to low academic tracks and special education classes, high drop-out rates, and academic disengagement and alienation of LSES students and students of color continue to plague many schools (Keleher & Johnson, 2001). Although, numerous researchers have argued for systemic change, some researchers believe that the actual classroom environment-particularly the impact of teacher attitudes and expectations on student achievement-deserves more attention..." (2004)

The work of Russell and McCombs (2006) reports a study conducted in the states of California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania in the work entitled: "Superintendent, Principal and Teaching Understanding of and Attitudes about Accountability." The following table labeled Figure 5 shows the district samples within those three states.

Sample Sizes for Each State

Russell and McCombs (2006)

Questions asked in this study were the questions of:

1) to what extent are principals and teachers familiar with the state content standards? To what extent do they find them useful?;

2) What are superintendents', principals', and teachers' views regarding the state assessment?; and 3) What are superintendents', principals', and teachers' view about the state's accountability system as a whole - including standards, assessments, adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets, rewards, and sanctions?" (Russell and McCombs, 2006)

While superintendents were overall positive concerning the state assessment testing, when teachers were asked the same question they were not as positive in their responses as were the superintendents. One reason that teachers may believe "state assessments are not good measures of students' mastery of content standards is because they believe that the state assessment is too difficult for the majority of their students and secondly because the teachers believe that the assessments are not "well aligned with the curriculum." (Russell and McCombs, 2006)

Percentage of Teachers Agreeing to Statement Regarding the Quality of State Assessments

Russell and McCombs (2006)

Percentage of Mathematics Teachers Reporting Some Misalignment Between the Curriculum and State Assessment

Russell and McCombs (2006)

Percent of Teachers Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing with Statements about Accountability Pressures

Russell and McCombs (2006)

Percentage of Teachers Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing with Statement about Accountability Pressures, by School Title 1 Status

Russell and McCombs (2006)

Some teachers in the study reported positive changes for students due to the accountability system of the state however "relatively few agreed that overall the state's accountability system has been beneficial for their students - approximately one-third in California; 29% in Pennsylvania; and a little over half in Georgia." (Russell and McCombs, 2006) the work of Jim Ysseldyke, Amanda Dennison, and Ruth Nelson, entitled: "Large-scale Assessment and Accountability Systems: Positive Consequences for Students with Disabilities, Synthesis Report 51 published in May 2004 states that: "Educators report that participation of students with disabilities in assessments is leading to higher academic expectations." The authors cite the example as indicated by Thompson and Thurlow (2001) that: "...12% of states (N=6) reported raised academic expectations for students with disabilities and an increased focus on achievement in IEP planning." (Ysseldyke, Dennison and Nelson, 2004) it is stated in this study report that a district director of assessment in a focus group participation stated: "I think with special education students, generally speaking, expectations were raised for those kids. I think a lot of caring people who work with them [didn't] want to damage their [students with disabilities] psyches, they don't want to see the bar set too high, and I think in the course of that, most often times, the bar was set too low and those kids can achieve more sometimes. And they [students with disabilities] get into the mode of doing less and getting by with less and less...as they go through school because of that expectation...it's the self-fulfilling prophecy thing. If people are going to expect less, then I will do less...now [in context of raised expectations and large-scale tests] we have lots of special education students who passed [the Minnesota Basic Skills] test. (Nelson, 2002, p. 65; as cited in Ysseldyke, Dennison and Nelson, 2004) and it is not only the teachers and other educators and professionals who hold raised expectations for students with disabilities, but as well the families of the students and the students themselves are "also beginning to have higher expectations." (Ysseldyke, Dennison and Nelson, 2004) Ysseldyke, Dennison and Nelson state in their report that: "The Boston Globe reported a story of a parent named "Nancy (last name withheld)" of Waltham, Massachusetts pushing for her son to take the regular state exam (MCAS), even against the advice of her son's teachers. The end result for the student was that he not only passed the state exam, but was so encouraged by the success he is also contemplating attending college (Vashinav, May 12, 2002)" (2004)