----

##  The State of State Proficiency Testing in Science. ERIC Digest.              

Schools across the United States are striving to improve student                performance in science by adjusting curricula and teaching practices            to meet national and state standards. "Standards-based reform" is               the rallying cry for these efforts to enliven the "National Science             Education Standards" (NSES: National Research Council, 1996).                   Ongoing reform in science education has intensified in response to              the results of widely reported national and international studies of            student understanding.  Despite rapid advancements in science and               technology within the nation, most U.S. school students have not                performed all that well on tests of scientific knowledge and                    understanding. 
The most recent results in science from the                    National Assessment of Educational Progress show no statistically               significant changes in average student scores at grades 4 or 8 since            1996, but the average scores for students in grade 12 have                      declined (See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/                             science/results/). Results from the Third International Mathematics             and Science Study (TIMSS) were even more jarring.  Though results               across the states were highly variable, U.S. students overall                   achieved mediocre scores compared to the students of other developed            nations  (U.S. National TIMSS site: http://ustimss.msu.edu/;                    International TIMSS site: http://timss.bc.edu/).  After years of                ongoing science education reform, U.S. schools are now beginning to             be held accountable for higher levels of performance among                      students. THE MOVE TO HIGH STAKES TESTINGOne prominent new                strategy for ensuring accountability and higher performance among               students has come to be known as "high-stakes" testing, the use of              test scores to determine which students will graduate or which will             be promoted from one grade to the next.  In some cases the stakes               may also include decisions about which teachers will get salary                 bonuses, or which schools will get extra funds to support academic              improvements. This rapidly spreading practice was once described                as "the latest silver bullet designed to cure all that ails public              education" (Kunen, 1997).  But is it a bullet that cures, or does it            kill?  Does high-stakes accountability testing support                          standards-based reform efforts, or hinder them? 
While proponents              see high-stakes testing as a means of holding schools, teachers, and            students to high standards, some view testing as being inconsistent             with the stated goals of the NSES (Huber & Moore, 2000).  Indeed,               the NSES (pp. 52, 72, 113, & 239) call for less emphasis on external            assessments and standardized tests unrelated to "Standards"-based               programs and practices. 
Response to standardized tests by the                 general public seems mixed.  According to the most recent Phi Delta             Kappa/Gallup Poll. (Available online at:                                        http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0109gal.htm). Of those polled, 44%               thought there was just the right amount of emphasis on standardized             testing, but 51% of public school parents opposed "using a single               standardized test --to determine whether a student should be                    promoted from grade to grade."  Interestingly, only 45% of public               school parents opposed "using a single standardized test --to                   determine whether a student should receive a high school                        diploma." 
Stronger support is provided by a survey sponsored by               The Business Roundtable (Available online at:                                   http://www.brtable.org/press.cfm/453).  Indicating that 65% of                  parents and 70% of the general public support a policy of requiring             students to "pass statewide tests before they can graduate from high            school, even if they have passing grades in their classes." This is             viewed as good news for the business community that has supported               the push for rigorous education standards for some                              time. UNINTENDED OUTCOMES OF HIGH-STAKES TESTINGDespite                   broad-based support for high-stakes testing, there is organized                 opposition (Schrag, 2000). Complaints: range from concerns that the             testing is "killing" innovative teaching and driving out good                   teachers to claims that tests overstress young students and are                 unfair to poor and minority students and others who lack test-taking            skills. Others say that such tests limit the curriculum and "snuff              out both creative teaching and the joy of learning" (Blair & Archer,            2001). 
At a more fundamental level, questions about the validity              of high-stakes tests and the ways they are being used and                       interpreted threaten to undermine the entire standards-based reform             movement (Domenech, 2000).  Objectivity and "teaching to the tests"             are real concerns.  In addition to narrowing the focus of                       instruction and assessment, there is an added risk of overburdening             students and teachers through practices that may lead to                        inappropriate inferences about student performance (Ananda &                    Rabinowitz, 2000). 
Finally, some claim that high-stakes testing               creates a system that is unfair and destructive to learning, and                that tougher standards and standardized testing are uniquely harmful            to low-income and minority students (Kohn, 2000).  While high-stakes            testing may raise the level of education overall and raise the level            of success by some students after graduation, the tests will                    exacerbate the problems of those already at risk or struggling to               overcome disadvantaged backgrounds (Orfield & Kornhaber,                        2001). STATUS OF TESTING IN SCIENCEDuring Fall, 2001, the                 Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) published                        the "1999-2000 Annual Survey of State Student Assessment                        Programs" (See                                                                  http://publications.ccsso.org/ccsso/publication_detail.cfm?PID=350).            Of states surveyed, 39 reported some form of proficiency testing in             science being included in the state testing program.  The results of            state testing programs were used in making decisions about student              promotion or retention in nine states, and passing scores were                  required for graduation in 17 states.  Test results were included in            reports of school performance in 37 states, and test results were               used in making school improvement plans in 30 states.  In only six              states were test results used for staff accountability purposes,                with four states using results as a basis for monetary rewards, such            as bonuses. 
The impact of one state testing program has been                  closely examined (Huber & Moore, 2000), and evidence indicates that             the highly publicized, model program has "derailed efforts to                   implement standards-based reforms" in science.  Though high-stakes              testing programs and the NSES appear to be at cross-purposes in                 several regards, two areas are of particular concern: equity and                excellence. 
With regard to equity issues, the testing program                 accentuates well-documented barriers to learning science among                  selected groups of students.  In addition to evidence that the tests            are biased (see Huber & Moore, 2000), they provide the basis for                sanctions against the low-performing schools that are in need of                most help in develop locally relevant programs. 
Even if equity                issues were adequately resolved, there remains a fundamental clash              between high-stakes testing and the central features of the NSES.               The NSES place great importance on learning through inquiry,                    de-emphasizing science as a body of factual knowledge to focus on               science as a way of knowing.  It is hoped that students will learn              how to frame questions and use inquiry to find answers,                         investigating real problems.  High-stakes standardized testing has              the opposite thrust, focusing on a broad body of factual knowledge.             May have claimed that this emphasis will pressure teachers to "teach            to the test" and focus on particular subjects, and that appears to              be happening.  In a survey of teachers  (Jones, Jones, Hardin,                  Chapman, Yarbrough, & Davis, 1999), 80% of participating teachers               reported spending over 21% of their instructional time practicing               for End-of-Grade tests, with over 28% of the teachers spending from             61% to 100% of their instructional time practicing for the                      tests. NEXT MOVESIt has been pointed out that assessment must             be aligned with curriculum and instruction to support                           learning (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, and Glaser, 2001), so this is an               issue that needs much attention as the practice of high-stakes                  testing spreads. Webb (1999) has described the development of new               procedures for determining the degree of alignment of science and               mathematics standards with assessment.  Three states volunteered to             have their science standards and assessments analyzed for two or                three grade levels, and the results of analysis are highly                      variable.  Four criteria were used in measuring the degree of                   alignment: 
* Categorical Coherence-the extent to which the                    categories of content appear in both standards and assessment                   documents. 
* Depth-of Knowledge Consistency-the extent to which               the cognitive demand of tests reflects what students are expected to            know. 
* Range-of Knowledge Correspondence-the extend to which the             span of knowledge required on the assessment matches the span of                knowledge expected of students. 
* Balance of representation-the               extent to which test items are evenly distributed across                        objectives. 
Though the results of this case study are not                     generalizable beyond the participating states, it is interesting to             note the pattern of correspondence between science standards and                assessments across the criteria. Though there was judged to be 100%             alignment in terms of "Balance of representation," there was                    little "Range-of Knowledge Correspondence" (0% to 33%).  Though                 somewhat better, the "Categorical Coherence" (38% to 67%)                       and "Depth-of Knowledge Consistency" (25% to 83%), ranged from                  poorly to highly aligned among individual states. 
The most                    important outcome of the study is the emergence of a process to                 judge the alignment between science standards and assessments, and              more states much carefully consider this issue. The CCSSO has                   developed a research tool base on these results, the Surveys of                 Enacted Curriculum (SEC), that provides a practical, efficient means            of obtaining consistent data on mathematics and science education               practices through teacher reports. This approach enables schools,               districts, or states to analyze current classroom practices in                  relation to content standards and facilitate program evaluations,               curriculum improvements, interpretation of student assessment                   results, and alignment of curricula with standards (See                         http://www.ccsso.org/sec.html).   It is imperative that states                  basing important decisions about students, teachers, and schools on             high-stakes tests begin using or developing tools like this.  States            must quickly begin a process of alignment between standards and                 assessment so that "teaching to the test" becomes "teaching to the              standards" in science. REFERENCESAnanda,S. & Rabinowitz,                  S. (2000).  "The High Stakes of HIGH-STAKES Testing" (Policy                    Brief).  San Francisco, CA: WestEd. [ED455254] 
Blair, J., &                   Archer, J.  (2001, July 11).  NEA members denounce high-stakes                  testing.  "Education Week,"  20 (42), Web-only at                               http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=42neatest_web.h20.                    
Domenech,D. A. (2000, December).  My Stakes Well Done.  "School               Administrator," 57 (11), 16-19. 
Huber, R. A. & Moore, C.                      J. (2000)  Educational reform through high stakes testing-Don't go              there. "Science Educator," 9 (1), 7-13. 
Jones, B. D., Jones, G.               M., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M.  (1999,                 November). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and                    students.  "Phi Delta Kappan," 199-203. 
Kohn,A. (2000,                        September-October). Burnt at the High Stakes. "Journal of Teacher               Education," 51 (4), 315-27. 
Kunen, J. S.  (1997, June 16). The                test of their lives. "Time," 149 (24), 62-63. 
Miller,D.W.  (2001,             March). Scholars Say High-Stakes Tests Deserve a Failing                        Grade. "Chronicle-of Higher Education," 47  (25),                               A14-A16. 
National Research Council.  (1996). "National science                education standards." Washington, D C: National Academy                         Press. (Available online at:                                                    http://stills.nap.edu/html/nses/) 
Orfield, G. & Kornhaber, M.                 L. (Eds.). (2001). "Raising standards or raising barriers?"                     Washington, DC: The Century Foundation Press. 
Pellegrino, J. W.,              Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). "Knowing what students              know: The science and design of educational assessment." Washington,            DC: National Academy Press.  (Available online at:                              http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html). 
Schrag, P. (2000,                     August). "High stakes are for tomatoes." "The Atlantic Monthly,"                286 (2); 19-21. (Available online at:                                           http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/08/schrag.htm) 
Webb, N.                L. (1999). "Alignment of science and mathematics standards and                  assessments in four states" (Research Monograph No. 18). Washington,            DC: Council of Chief State School Officers). 
----- 
This digest              was funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,               U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0024.                 Opinions expressed in this digest do not necessarily reflect the                positions or policies of OERI or the U.S. Department of Education.           **Title:** The State of State Proficiency Testing in Science. ERIC Digest.              **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental                  Education, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1080. Tel:                       800-276-0462 (Toll Free); Fax: 614-292-0263. For full text:                     http://www.ericse.org.                                                       **Descriptors:**  Achievement Tests, Elementary Secondary Education,  National                   Standards, Science Instruction, Science Teachers,  State Standards,              Testing                                                                     **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]