| Chapter 1: | Story of the Research |
|
|
Like Rex and Nelson, Kubow and DeBard also noted that teachers were separating test preparation from curriculum and giving it secondary status.
Another piece of data came out of the Sipple, Killeen, and Monk (2004) study providing insight into how teachers may indirectly invoke their autonomy differently depending on which group or groups of students they teach. The questions in this part of the study centered on administrators’ and teachers’ beliefs relative to student ability. Do they believe that all students can learn, as learning is measured by external testing? Superintendents and central office administrators in 80% of surveyed districts answered with a resounding yes. However, principals were not so enthusiastic; they often wondered whether or not all students could meet these high standards and feared increased dropout rates as a result. Teachers were least likely to believe that all students could meet the high standards as measured by the Regents exams and cited three specific reasons for their beliefs. First, teachers said that the exam “rewards and encourages” (p. 155) only certain learning styles. Second, teachers felt that demographics affected student performance, specifically citing a perceived lack of parental support for certain groups of students. Third, teachers cited concern about a lack of material resources. Without the proper equipment and materials, they felt that it would be difficult for all students to meet the demanding levels of achievement defined by successful performance on the Regents exam.
The Effect of High-Stakes Accountability on Autonomy Over Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Assessment
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Another way to note the effect of external accountability on teacher autonomy is to examine the disconnect between standards that require high levels of inquiry-based thinking and the modes of assessment designed to test these standards.