Abstract
As mandated by No Child Left Behind, schools must find ways to improve test scores. How do benchmark tests fare as a means of informing teachers in order to raise achievement for low-income students? This study of English language arts instruction at a low-income high school investigates the administration’s use of standardized benchmark assessments over 3 years. The socioeconomic conditions for students where teachers were implementing this reform had deleterious effects. The study found that teachers had difficulty getting students up to grade level in an under-resourced program, especially with hundreds of skills represented in the standards. The teachers viewed the benchmark tests as an interruption to their classroom instruction and as an inadequate means of measuring their students’ progress. Ultimately, even the administration found the tests an inadequate assessment for their purposes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See the NCLB website: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb.
See the California Department of Education website on Curriculum and Instruction, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/.
The API has a scale of 200–1000 with 800 being the target; the ranking ranges from 1–10.
References
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barnes, C. A. (2002). Standards reform in high-poverty schools: Managing conflict and building capacity. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. SF: Jossey-Bass.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Sage.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
Carnoy, M., & Levin, H. (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over the top. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 12(3), 233–241.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.
California Department of Education. (2009). English Language Arts Content Standards. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/. Accessed March 15, 2009.
Erickson, F. (1985). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Hill, C. (2004). Failing to meet the standards: the English language arts test for fourth graders in New York state. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1086–1123.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Perennial.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). A quantitative synthesis of research on school-level, teacher-level, and student-level variables related to academic achievement. Aurora: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. Meyer (Ed.), Environments and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oakes, J., & Saunders, M. (2004). Education’s most basic tools: access to textbooks and instructional materials in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1967–1988.
Ogawa, R., Sandholtz, J. H., Martinez-Flores, M., & Scribner, S. P. (2003). The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district’s standards-based curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 147–176.
Peter Harris Research Group. (2002). Survey of California teachers. Washington, DC.
Reeves, D. (2002). Making standards work: How to implement standards-based assessments in the classroom, school, and district. Denver: Advanced Learning Press.
Rettig, M., McCullough, L., Santos, K., & Watson, C. (2004). From rigorous standards to student achievement: A practical process. Larchmont: Eye on Education.
Rury, J., & Mirel, J. (1997). The political economy of urban education. Review of Research in Education, 22, 49–110.
Scherer, M. (2001). How and why standards can improve student achievement: A conversation with Robert J. Marzano. Educational Leadership. September. 14–20.
Sandholtz, J., Ogawa, R., & Scribner, S. (2004). Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177–1202.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Shanahan, T., Hyde, K., Mann, V., & Manrique, C. (n.d.). Integrating curriculum guides, quarterly benchmark assessments, and professional development to improve student learning in mathematics. http://focus.web.uci.edu/library/UCI_MSP_Pres_091505.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2008.
Solomon, P. (2003). The curriculum bridge: From standards to actual classroom practice. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Squires, D. A. (2005). Aligning and balancing the standards-based curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Teel, K. M., & Debruin-Parecki, A. (2001). Making school count: Promoting urban student motivation and success. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
Townsend, B. L. (2002). Testing while black: Standards-based school reform and African American Learners. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 222–230.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb. Accessed October 14, 2008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bancroft, K. Implementing the mandate: the limitations of benchmark tests. Educ Asse Eval Acc 22, 53–72 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9091-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9091-1