Abstract
This chapter provides a historical context of events, circumstances, and conditions in the United States that shaped our school system into one that is firmly entrenched in traditional instruction, leaving little room for reform practices such as formative assessment. The educational system as we know it today was formed out of dire necessity to educate the masses during the early nineteenth century and was heavily influenced by an industrial economy, resulting in instructivist practices that endure to this day. Johann Pestalozzi and, later, John Dewey sought to reform education and create an environment that was learner centered rather than teacher centered, but their ideas were met by social, political, and economic factors that worked against them. Formative assessment—a learner-centered practice—began to take shape in the late 1960s but found itself in tension with high-stakes testing and an era of accountability that reinforced established norms of teacher-centered, instructivist practices. Achievement results for American students on international tests have been mediocre thus far in comparison to other developed countries and should serve as an indicator that traditional instruction is not working. Additionally, what we do test is not necessarily what prepares students for twenty-first-century challenges. Students need to be able to regulate their own learning as they strive to keep pace with the rapidly changing world around them.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Works Cited
66 Special Message to the Congress on Education Reform. March 3, 1970. (2001). American Reference Library – Primary Source Documents, 1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 18.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: nferNelson Publishing Company.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 249–261.
Blazar, D., & Pollard, C. (2017). Does test preparation mean low-quality instruction? Educational Researcher, 46(8), 420–433.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Box, C., Dabbs, J., & Skoog, G. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice assessment theories and complexities of implementing formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal – Teaching, Learning and Human Development, 52(5), 956–983.
Box, M. C. (2008). Formative assessment: Patterns, personal practice assessment theories, and impact on student achievement and motivation in science (PhD dissertation), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2007). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14–19.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Office of Education.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cureton, L. W. (1971). The history of grading practices. National Council on Measurement in Education, 2(4), 1–9.
Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285–313.
Drury, D., & Baer, J. (2011). The American public school teacher: Past, present, and future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gradwell, J. M. (2006). Teaching in spite of, rather than because of, the test: A case of ambitious history teaching in New York State. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States. Research in curriculum and instruction (pp. 157–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Gutek, G. L. (1991). An historical introduction to American education (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Achievement growth: International and U.S. state trends in student performance. PEPG Report No.: 12–03. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED534652
Hassenpflug, A., & Hassenpflug. (2010). Harris, William Torrey (1835–1909). In T. C. Hunt, J. C. Carper & T. J. Lasley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational reform and dissent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageerd/harris_william_torrey_1835_1909/0
Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
van Hover, S., & Pierce, E. (2006). “Next year will be different:” Two first-year history teachers’ perceptions of the impact of Virginia’s accountability reform on their instructional decision-making. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(2), 38–50.
Koretz, D. (2005). Alignment, high stakes, and the inflation of test scores. CSE report 655. California University, Los Angeles Center for the Study of Evaluation. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED488711
Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 41(1–2), 275–288.
Leidecker, K. F. (1946). Yankee teacher: The life of William Torrey Harris. New York: The Philosophical Library.
Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., & Higgins, J. (2009). The paradoxes of high stakes testing: How they affect students, their parents, teachers, principals, schools, and society. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). NSTA position statement beyond 2000 – Teachers of science speak out. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/beyond2000.aspx
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 21(2), 155.
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 14–18.
Nixon, R. (2001). 66 Special Message to the Congress on Education Reform. March 3, 1970. American Reference Library – Primary Source Documents, 1.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks.
Public Law 103-227. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 103-227 C.F.R.
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Conclusion: The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 726–746). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scriven, M. (1967). Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), The methodology of evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sheils, M. (1975). Why Johnny can’t write. Newsweek, December 8.
Spring, J. H. (2001). The American school, 1642–2000 (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
St. John, M., Hirabayashi, J., Helms, J. V., & Tambe, P. (2006). The BSCS National Academy for Curriculum Leadership: Contributions and lessons learned. An evaluation brief. Inverness Research Associates.
Thorndike, E. L. (1904). Theory of mental and social measurements. New York: The Science Press.
Wright, W. E. (2002). The effects of high stakes testing in an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education, 5.
Yeh, S. S. (2005). Limiting the unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Box, C. (2019). The Evolution of Assessment and Accountability in the United States. In: Formative Assessment in United States Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03092-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03092-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03091-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03092-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)