Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 345–387 | Cite as

State Testing and Inquiry-Based Science: Are They Complementary or Competing Reforms?

  • Joni FalkEmail author
  • Brian Drayton


The effect of district strategies for improving high-stakes test scores on science teachers’ practice is explored in case studies of six middle schools in six Massachusetts districts. At each school, science teachers, curriculum coordinators, principals, and superintendents shared their strategies for raising scores, their attitudes towards the test, the changes that they were implementing in their curriculum and pedagogical approaches, and the effects that the test was having on staff and on students. Results from these case studies suggest that districts chose markedly different strategies for raising scores on high stakes tests, and that the approaches taken by districts influenced the nature of pedagogical and curriculum changes in the classroom. District strategies for raising scores that were complementary to the district’s prior vision of science reform tended to cause less teacher resentment towards the test than strategies that departed from previously adopted goals. Differing effects on teachers in socio-economically “advantaged,” “middle,” and “challenged” districts are discussed.


accountability educational reform high-stakes tests inquiry middle schools middle school teachers science curriculum science education standardized test 





Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System


Metropolitan Achievement Test


National Research Council


National Science Foundation


Partnerships Advancing the Learning of Mathematics and Science (this is the name of the Massachusetts SSI)


State Systemic Initiatives


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abeille, A., Hurley, N. 2000How Massachusetts Schools are using MCAS to Change Curriculum, Assessment, and Resource AllocationMassachusetts Education Reform Review Commission (MERRC)BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 10(18).Google Scholar
  3. Borman, K.M., Kromrey, J., Katzenmeyer, W. & Delia Piana, G. (2000). How do standards matter? Linking Policy to Practice in four Cities Implementing Systemic Reform. Paper presented to annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, L. & Coutre, J. (2000). Teachers’ Work in the Global Culture of Performance. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLVI(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Miao, J., Li, J. 2003Perceived Effects of State-mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from Interviews with Educators in Low-, Medium-, and High-stakes StatesNational Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Lynch School of Education, Boston CollegeBostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuban, L. 1998How schools change reformsTeachers College Record99453477Google Scholar
  7. Darling-Hammond, L. 1990Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over the top”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis12233241Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. 1994Handbook of Qualitative Research.SageThousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Drayton, B., Falk, J. 2001Tell-tale signs of the inquiry-oriented classroomBulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals852434Google Scholar
  10. Eisner, E. 1992Educational reform and the ecology of schoolingTeachers College Record95610627Google Scholar
  11. Falk, J. & Drayton, B. (2000). The Inquiry-based Classroom in Context: Bridging the Gap Between Teacher’s Practice and Policy Mandates. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, annual meeting, New Orleans April 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Falk, J., Drayton, B. 2001Cultivating a culture of inquiryHands On!231Google Scholar
  13. Firestone, W.A., Mayerowitz, D. 2000Rethinking “high stakes”: Lessons from the United States and England and WalesTeachers College Record102724749Google Scholar
  14. Firestone, W.A., Mayerowitz, D., Fairman, J. 1998Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and MarylandEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis2095113Google Scholar
  15. Gaudet, R. 1999Effective School Districts in MassachusettsThe Donahue InstituteBostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaudet, R. 2000Effective School Districts in MassachusettsThe Donahue InstituteBostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Goertz, M.E. & Duffy, M.C. (2001). Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999–2000. CPRE Policy Briefs, RR-046. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  18. Haberman, M. (2003). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Elsenhower National Clearinghouse. Retrieved from Scholar
  19. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 8(41).Google Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, A. (1999). Teaching in a Box: Emotional Geographies of Teaching. Presentation to Third International Conference on Teacher Education, Beyt Berl, Israel.Google Scholar
  21. Hargreaves, A. 2001Emotional geographies of teachingTeachers College Record10310561080Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A. 2003Teaching in the Knowledge SocietyTeachers College PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., Manning, S. 2001Learning to Change: Teaching Beyond Subjects and StandardsJossey-BassSan FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  24. Heubert, J.P.Hauser, R.M. eds. 1999High Stakes: Testing for Ttracking, Promotion, and GraduationNational Academy PressWashington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoover, R.L. (2000). Forces and Factors Affecting Ohio Proficiency Test Performance, Retrieved from\simrlhoover/OPT.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, M., Gail, B.D., Jones, B., Hardin, L., Chapman, T., Yarbrough, T., Davis, M. 1999The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North CarolinaPhi Delta Kappan81199203Google Scholar
  27. Kersaint, G.K., Borman, M., Lee, R., Boydston, T.L. 2001Balancing the contradictions between accountability and systemic reformJournal of School Leadership11217240Google Scholar
  28. Kohn, A. 2000The Case Against Standardized TestingHeinemannPortsmouth, NHGoogle Scholar
  29. Koretz, ,  et al. 1991State comparisons using NAEP: Large costs, disappointing benefitsEducational Researcher201921Google Scholar
  30. Madaus, G.F., Clarke, M. 2001The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: Evidence from 100 years of test data.Orfield, G.Kornhaber, M. eds. Raising Standards or Raising Barriers? Inequality and High Stakes Testing in Public EducationThe Century Foundation New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Maehr, M.L., Midgley, C. 1996Transforming School Cultures.Westview PressBoulder, COGoogle Scholar
  32. Massachusetts Department of Education. (1996). Science and Technology Curriculum Framework: Owning the Questions in Science and Technology. Maiden, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2000). Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Maiden, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003). Scholar
  35. McNeil, L. 1986Contradictions of Control: School Culture and School KnowledgeRoutledgeNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. McNeil, L. 2000Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized TestingRoutledgeNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. McNeil, L., Valanzuela, A. 2001The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric.Orfield , G.Kornhaber, M.L. eds. Raising Standards or Raising Barriers?Century Foundation Press New York127150Google Scholar
  38. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1994Qualitative Data Analysis2Sage PublicationsThousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Newmann, F.M., Bryk, A.S. & Nagaoka, J.K. (2001). Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: Conflict or Coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  42. Patton, M. 1986Utilization-Focused Evaluation2SageNewbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. Patton, M. 1987How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation.SageNewbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  44. Pedulla, J.J., Abrams, L.M., Madaus, G.F., Russell, M.K., Ramos, M.A., Miao, J. 2003Perceived Effects of State-mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from a National Survey of TeachersNational Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Lynch School of Education, Boston CollegeBostonGoogle Scholar
  45. Powell, R.R., Skoog, G. 2000Middle level integrative curriculum reform: A study of teachers’ epistemological theoriesResearch in Middle Level Education Annual23134Google Scholar
  46. Robinson, G.E., Brandon, D.P. 1994NAEP Test Scores: Should They Be Used to Compare and Rank State Educational Quality? ArlingtonEducational Research ServiceVAGoogle Scholar
  47. Roderick, M., Engel, M. 2001The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testingEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis25197228Google Scholar
  48. Rothstein, R. 1998The Way We Were? The Myths and Realities of America’s Student AchievementCentury Foundation PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Sarason, S. 1996Revisiting “The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change”Teachers College PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Settlage, J., Meadows, L. 2002Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America’s urban schoolsJournal of Research in Science Teaching39114127Google Scholar
  51. Smith, M.L. 1991Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachersEducational Researcher20811Google Scholar
  52. Smith, M.L., Rottenberg, C. 1991Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schoolsEducational Measurement: Issues and Practice10711Google Scholar
  53. Smith, M.L., Heinecke, W., Noble, A.J. 1999State assessment becomes political spectacleTeachers College Record92157191Google Scholar
  54. Spillane, J.P. 1996School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policyEducational Policy106387Google Scholar
  55. Spillane, J.P., Callaghan, K.A. 2000Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hooplaJournal of Research in Science teaching37401425Google Scholar
  56. Stake, R. 1995The Art of Case Study Research.SageThousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  57. Stiggins, R.J. 1999Assessment, student confidence, and school successPhi Delta Kappan81191198Google Scholar
  58. Weiss, I.R., Banilower, E.R., McMahon, K.C., Smith, P.S. 2001Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Math Education.Horizon Research, IncChapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  59. Wideen, F., O’Shea, T. 1997High Stakes Testing and the Teaching of ScienceCanadian Journal of Education22427444Google Scholar
  60. Worcester Public Schools. (1998). Science Curriculum for Worcester. Worcester, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations