In a series of focus groups conducted by NCAE across the state, educators (including teachers from all grade levels and subject areas as well as school administrators and non-licensed personnel) reported the following positive outcomes regarding the state’s testing program:

• The need to close the achievement gap is even more evident.
• Underserved schools are identified.
• New resources are provided to some schools.
• The focus is on curriculum and not just textbooks.
• There is greater awareness within the school community regarding standards.
• Remediation programs help students.
• Changes needed in University Teacher Education Programs are identified.
• Measurement of student growth, rather than only performance, is a good thing.
• NC’s status in education is improving nationally.

While not de-emphasizing the positive outcomes listed above, it is essential to note that the concerns far exceeded the aspects that were reported as positive, including:

• Educators lack diagnostic information on individual students in order to maximize the usefulness of the test data.  They need more than raw scores for groups of students. 
• Educators have been provided little or no professional development in understanding and utilizing test data, formulas, or the components of recognition.
• The formulas for computing and determining school recognition are complicated, leading to confusion and misunderstanding among educators.  As well, the public and media do not understand the recognition categories and tend to publicize performance rather than growth.
• The Promotion Gateways are interpreted differently in different school systems.
• Schools are cutting back or eliminating PE, art, music, and other enrichment classes in order to focus on tested subjects and to provide remediation.
• Social Studies and Science instruction has decreased at the elementary and middle school levels.  High School Science and Social Studies teachers report that students are not as prepared.
• Some teachers are required to use drill and practice at the expense of providing instruction that promotes a love of learning in their students.
• K-2 assessments are taking far too much time away from instruction.  Since licensed teachers must conduct assessments, valuable instructional time is lost while the teacher conducts these time consuming assessments.
• Labels, in particular “low-performing,” have a serious impact on morale in a school for both staff and students. The “No Recognition” category is confusing and has had a negative impact on those schools, particularly those in which 90% of the students are at or above grade level.
• Parent and student apathy greatly impact student success, yet parents are not held accountable.
• Tests are not developmentally appropriate for exceptional children.
• Alternative Portfolio Assessments for exceptional children take too much time away from direct instruction and are often redundant paperwork since many of the same items are already included in the student’s IEP.
• The NC Writing Assessments are based on a formula and not on skill.
• Teachers report that students are not taking field tests seriously and field-testing has minimized the importance of the “real” tests.
• Teachers have reported greater than usual amounts of stress-induced illnesses in their students who are taking end-of-grade and end-of-course tests.
• The length of testing time is overly demanding on young children.
• Counselors need to be able to counsel instead of spending all of their time as test coordinators.
• Some students do well on the tests but do not perform in class, creating a problem for the teacher in validating the daily work of students.  Teacher assessment should be valued.
• Some students do exceptionally well in class but do not perform well on high stakes tests due to stress and other factors.  The result of a standardized test does not provide a comprehensive assessment of student abilities.
• It is extremely difficult to design standardized multiple-choice tests that are free of cultural and socioeconomic bias.
• Multiple-choice tests, no matter how well crafted, do not measure deeper understanding of concepts.  They are simply the most convenient and least expensive assessments available.

Recommendations for Improving the ABCs Program

For North Carolina to continue as the model of school accountability for the nation, NCAE asserts that there are crucial modifications needed to the current system. At the same time, we remain optimistic that with the more than $8,000,000 that the state is expected to receive through the Federal ESEA, we will be able to correct the lack of adequate funding which resulted in some highly publicized “glitches” in the system.  NCAE believes that it is possible for the development of a statewide system of accountability that all stakeholders understand and support.  To do so will require those in policy-making positions to truly listen to the concerns of the educators upon whose shoulders the accountability system will be carried.  Following are some specific recommendations.

Increased Communication of Information:  To expect all stakeholders to endorse a system that few truly understand has been an uphill battle for the state.  The average educator has been provided little understanding of the formulas/methods that are used to determine the “labels” placed on their schools.  Rumors and misinformation abound. A statewide campaign to improve understanding for educators, parents, and citizens is critical.  

Professional Development:  Our policymakers should be reminded of the analogy  “the cow will not grow just because you weigh it.”  Educators need professional development that promotes informed decision-making about instruction based on the test data of their students.  Instruction in the interpretation of test data well deserves to be a major focus in our universities that prepare educators.   Additionally, as teachers feel greater pressure to focus on “teaching to the test,” the delivery of professional development geared to best practices is even more essential.  Educators must be allowed to share strategies that encourage teaching practices that instill a love of learning rather than making teachers feel that they must stifle creativity and innovative teaching for the sake of one test on one date.  In the current school day, little if any time exists for collaboration among educators.  Furthermore, with the emphasis on Reading and Math in state tests, it is incumbent upon all educators to address these skills with their students, regardless of the content area they are assigned.  Professional development in the integration of curriculum should be a high priority.  Although NCAE encourages the state to provide statewide standards for professional development, we believe that a “one size fits all” mandate for professional development would be counterproductive.  The state should set the standards that will ensure quality professional development delivered by the LEAs. Finally, new teachers to the profession as well as those new to North Carolina need additional support in understanding the myriad of issues regarding state testing.

Test Development:  One of the major complaints about the ABCs reporting is a lack of data on individual students.  Although group data is helpful, individual data is essential.  Results of content standards should be reported standard-by-standard for each student, school, and district. This information is what teachers need most in order to maximize instructional time. It would add value to the ABCs program.

Repeatedly, exceptional children’s teachers resounded the amount of time required for preparing portfolios.  This issue must be addressed.  There are other states that have implemented the Alternate Assessment Portfolio by only assessing one domain each year instead of all four. This is a valid assessment measure and is less time consuming, therefore allowing more instruction.  Given that the current NCAAP is costly and very time consuming, the State Board of Education needs to adjust the current requirement for these severe and profoundly cognitively challenged students.  

In order to develop sound, valid, and well-aligned tests that will provide diagnostic data, the Accountability Services division at NC DPI needs greater resources.  It is no secret that some of the problems that have lessened the integrity of the ABCs program are a direct result of the understaffing at DPI.   If high stakes testing is here to stay, then providing adequate resources to those in test development and reporting is absolutely essential.  Furthermore, the state must include classroom teachers in the development of tests. The voices of those who are delivering the instruction must not be ignored.

Test Administration:  A few simple adjustments to the rules for test administration could easily make a difference in the scores for many of our students.  During the focus groups held around the state, NCAE listened to repeated examples of teachers who clearly understood the implications of brain research but were forced to ignore this important knowledge due to testing procedures and policies.  Research shows that allowing students access to water during testing, allowing stretch breaks every 15-20 minutes and assuring that students are tested in the same environment (classroom) where instruction has taken place could make a positive difference in the performance of students on these high stakes tests.  Tests are often given to large numbers of students in the cafeteria while lunch is prepared. Surely, this is not an acceptable testing environment.  The testing conditions of exceptional children must be similarly addressed. Secondly, the state cannot afford to ignore the intrusion that testing has placed on the school day.  With many LEAs implementing their own benchmark testing, field testing, and practice testing, teachers are reporting that time to teach has further diminished.  When testing occurs in a school building, everything else is put on hold.  Both state and local policy makers should take a more serious look at the amount of time that testing is taking away from instruction as well as the impact that testing has on the school day and schedule.  Thirdly, teachers are offended by the manner in which regulations for testing are delivered and imposed on them.  This apparent lack of trust builds barriers. 

Prioritization of Curricula:  One of the major frustrations expressed during our focus groups centered around the demands of attempting to cover all of the objectives in a given curriculum while fully realizing that students do not have a deep understanding of an objective before they are forced to move on by pacing guides.  An open process that involves all stakeholders in prioritizing content standards would assist both educators as well as test developers in directing their attention to a limited and manageable set of standards.  These prioritized standards should represent the most enduring skills and knowledge that students need to learn in school. Standards should emphasize the application of knowledge that requires higher order thinking skills. Recognizing that even the most carefully considered prioritization of content standards could inadvertently lead to a “watered down” curriculum, NCAE asks the state to encourage optional classroom assessment procedures, by educators, that can measure students’ progress in attaining content standards not measured on state tests.

K-2 Assessment:  With the first promotion gateway at Grade 3, it is even more imperative to do all that we can to make sure students are achieving at grade level as early on as possible. We have heard repeated concerns regarding the length of time that it takes to administer K-2 assessments.  We recommend a combination of small class sizes, continued funding of teacher assistants, and a streamlining of the assessments themselves if they are to be conducted without sacrificing precious time for teaching and learning.  While NCAE applauds the recent efforts at class size reduction for Kindergarten and remains hopeful that reductions will continue to take place, it is critical that funding remain for assistants in the early grades.  With the time consuming nature of K-2 assessments, even with smaller numbers of students, someone must monitor the children’s work while the individual assessments take place.  Funding for class size reduction should not take place at the expense of cutting teacher assistant positions.

Stakeholder Accountability:  It seems illogical to hold public school personnel entirely responsible for test results when clearly there are many stakeholders involved in the success of our students, including the students themselves, parents and guardians, teachers, school support staff, central offices, businesses, and community. We all know that there are communities that have more resources than others and are better able to contribute to the schools, whereas the majority of priority schools are in locations with low wealth and generally low community support.  Where is the accountability for home and community?  We must all work to build solid partnerships that value collaboration between home, school, and community if we are to ever fully address this issue. A contract between the student, parent, and school similar to the Johnston County Schools model demonstrates the importance of shared responsibility. We also encourage the state to explore the possibility of assigning a “stakeholder report card” for each school. The goal is not to “shame” those communities, but to reinforce the importance of having broad based support for our public schools.  Making public the released versions of the test could also generate more understanding and support of the accountability program by parents and the community. 

English as a Second Language Students: ESL means more than Spanish.  While the number of Hispanic students grows, there are other students in the classroom representing many world languages other than English.  Additionally, children from impoverished backgrounds often speak non-standard English.  Understanding the language used on state tests is a challenge for those students as it is for ESL  students. Teachers have observed firsthand that while students may understand the subject matter, they struggle over the wording used in the tests. This is an obstacle for students and teachers that must be recognized.  We strongly urge the state to provide ESL Students adequate time to become proficient in the language before they are required to take the tests in English.  One year is not enough time. Students with limited English proficiency must be provided the accommodations that will give them the opportunity to succeed.   

Respect and Support for Educators: A decrease in morale among educators since the inception of the ABCs cannot be ignored.  There is an underlying implication to the whole system of accountability that says “teachers are not doing their jobs, so we must identify and shame them into improvement.”  Further, there is a lack of trust that prevails. The vast majority of educators are competent, dedicated, and working against all odds to help students succeed in school and in life. In fact, it is the work of NC’s educators that has catapulted the state to the forefront nationally in educational reform. In the report from the National Educational Goals Panel, North Carolina was ranked among the five states showing the most improvement in math at grades four and eight.  In the same report it was noted that only two states, Georgia and North Carolina had reduced the gap between white and minority students.  Another example to cite regarding the growth and dedication of educators in our state is the Education Week – Quality Counts Report.  In this report, North Carolina received a B in Student/Accountability, a B+ in Teacher Quality (the highest grade any state received), but a C and C- in Resources and Equity of Resources.  So, it is clear that even without adequate resources, the educators in our state are doing an above standard job in regards to meeting the benchmark of accountability.

The state could send a powerful message to the public as well as to the educators themselves by advocating for salaries that reflect the recognition they deserve. Not only would this help with the recruitment and retention of excellent teachers, but would also show that the diligence of educators is valued and appreciated.  The most important reminder for those in policy-making capacities is to LISTEN to the concerns of educators.  Involve us by routinely asking for and using our expertise.

Conclusion

In order to provide the kind of school accountability system that can be a model for the nation, immediate action regarding the concerns we have outlined is necessary. Students in North Carolina and ultimately those in states across the nation will benefit from the lessons learned during the period of time that our ABCs program has been in place.  Let us all work together to make it right by:

• Increasing and improving communication to all stakeholders.
• Moving to diagnostic testing while using classroom teachers in the development of all new tests.
• Allowing for modifications in test administration to help decrease anxiety and improve performance.
• Finding ways to prevent testing from intruding excessively on the school day/year.
• Prioritizing curricula into a manageable set of standards.
• Providing meaningful professional development.
• Reducing class size in the early grades while keeping positions for Teacher Assistants.
• Increasing efforts to improve stakeholder accountability at the family and community level.
• Making increased efforts to show support and respect for educators, especially by asking for feedback and listening to concerns.

 

Addendum

NCAE encourages examination of Building Tests to Support Instruction and Accountability, A Guide for Policymakers, prepared in October 2001 by The Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. This group of nationally recognized experts in assessment, curriculum, and instruction was convened by the American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Education Association and the National Middle School Association.   The report, which calls for states to create assessment systems that improve both learning and accountability, can be accessed through the websites of any of the aforementioned associations.  The nine requirements for state testing programs as outlined in the report are as follows:

Requirement 1:  A state’s content standards must be prioritized to support effective instruction and assessment.

Requirement 2:  A state’s high-priority content standards must be clearly and thoroughly described so that the knowledge and skills students need to demonstrate competence are evident.

Requirement 3:  The results of a state’s assessment of high-priority content standards should be reported standard-by-standard for each student, school, and district.

Requirement 4:  A state must provide educators with optional classroom assessment procedures that can measure students’ progress in attaining content standards not assessed by state tests.

Requirement 5:  A state must monitor the breadth of the curriculum to ensure that instructional attention is given to all content standards and subject areas, including those that are not assessed by state tests.

Requirement 6:  A state must ensure that all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of state standards; consequently, it must provide well-designed assessments appropriate for a broad range of students, with accommodations and alternate methods of assessment available for students who need them.

Requirement 7:  A state must generally allow test developers a minimum of three years to produce statewide tests that satisfy the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing and similar test-quality guidelines.

Requirement 8:  A state must ensure that educators receive professional development focused on how to optimize children’s learning based on the results of instructionally supportive assessments.

Requirement 9:  A state should secure evidence that supports the ongoing improvement of its state assessments to ensure those assessments are (a) appropriate for the accountability purposes for which they are used, (b) appropriate for determining whether students have attained state standards, (c) appropriate for enhancing instruction, and (d) not the cause of negative consequences.