Sample Paper: Holding the TAAS Accountable

By Chester Burnette

In the 1980’s, education was actually in the news, but not for good reasons. Taxpayers were mad. Although expenditures on education had been going up (Wright 352), achievements were not. It wasn’t just that students were failing to learn, but that certain schools and teachers seemed to be failing to teach. Articles in papers and magazines related anecdotes about schools where teaching was barely going on, teachers who were ignorant or incompetent but couldn’t be fired, and a widespread practice of social promotion that meant that kids were passed along who hadn’t mastered the most basic skills. Worst of all, it didn’t seem that it could be changed; teachers blamed principals, while principals blamed bad teachers they claimed they couldn’t fire, and both teachers and principals blamed school boards. No one seemed accountable for the bad situation. So, one solution seemed obvious: set consistent standards and make schools, principals, and teachers accountable for reaching them.

The principle of accountability is fairly straightforward. It originated in businesses, but the idea can be applied anywhere. That idea is that people shouldn’t be given large amounts of money year after year on the simple promise that they are using it wisely or well; they have to demonstrate, clearly and objectively, that they are achieving or approaching the organization’s goals. Thus, if a sales team claims that a new strategy will increase sales, there comes a time when they have to show that increase in sales; if the safety division promises that a shift in policy will enable them to reduce injuries, they have to show that reduction in injuries. Legislatures in places like Texas simply applied that concept to education: schools would have to show that they were improving students’ education.

The TAAS was intended to do just that. As a clear and simple test of various basic skills, it would enable people who provide school funding to know what schools were and were not really teaching their students those basic skills.

And, certainly, the TAAS and other basic skills tests have been used to hold teachers, schools, and school districts accountable—so much so that many schools have shifted their curriculum to provide huge amounts of basic instruction on the TAAS (McNeil and Valenzuela). And, famously, scores on the TAAS have gone up. Thus, it may seem that the accountability issue is solved. But to what is the TAAS accountable?

That may seem an obvious, even a silly, question, but it’s worth asking. Texas spends huge amounts of money on the test (which is provided by a private company), as well as on test preparation materials. The cost of the test is uncountable if one tries to take into account the hours of time that teachers spend preparing students for the test. Is that money being well-spent? Can advocates of tests like the TAAS demonstrate, clearly and objectively, that these tests enable schools to achieve or approach the goals of public education? And the answer is surprisingly complicated.

Take, for instance, the goals of sophomore English, one of the years in which students take the TAAS. The “outcomes” for the Language Arts courses are listed at the TEA website, and they encompass much more than the mere ability to write a good five paragraph essay. During sophomore year, the year that the TAAS is given,

Students enrolled in English II continue to increase and refine their communication skills. High school students are expected to plan, draft, and complete written compositions on a regular basis. Students edit their papers for clarity, engaging language, and the correct use of the conventions and mechanics of written English and produce final, error-free drafts. In English II, students practice all forms of writing. An emphasis is placed on persuasive forms of writing such as logical arguments, expressions of opinion, and personal forms of writing. These personal forms of writing may include a response to literature, a reflective essay, or an autobiographical narrative. English II students read extensively in multiple from world literature such as reading selected stories, dramas, novels, and poetry originally written in English or translated to English from oriental, classical Greek, European, African, South American, and North American cultures. Students learn literary forms and terms associated with selections being read. Students interpret the possible influences of the historical context on a literary work.

So, in what ways does the TAAS enable teachers to achieve those goals? At best, the TAAS tests students’ abilities to write logical arguments, only one of three forms of writing the student are supposed to practice. It does nothing as far as the other kinds of writing or the teaching of literature. For the TAAS to be an effective measure of accountability, it would have to assess students’ proficiency on all (or at least a majority) of the desire outcomes, and it does not. Thus, it does not hold teachers or schools accountable for reaching the goals of public education in Texas.

Still and all, it could be argued that the TAAS helps schools and teachers in that it does insist that they focus on the most basic skills. If it doesn’t help students learn critical reasoning or literary analysis, it could still be useful if it helped teachers and schools achieve the most minimal of the basic outcomes. So, can advocates of the test at least demonstrate that it does that?

The TAAS has been in place for some time now, as well as similar “high stakes” tests in other states, so, if such tests have clear and quantifiable benefits, there has been plenty of time for them to show up. And there are lots of studies on that subject. The odd thing is that almost all of the studies conclude that such high stakes tests actually hurt students. Of the numerous studies done on the issue, there is only one that argues positive good. Otherwise, as one proponent of tests says, a brief review of education experts’ views on the matter would lead one to conclude that “experts on testing have never met an actual test that they like and want to see used” (Phelps). And, indeed, while there is one study that concludes beneficial consequences, at least four major studies conclude no measurable consequences (Rand) or active measurable harm (Neill et al, Amrein et al, Clarke et al).

Of course, one can argue that those studies showing harm should be rejected or ignored for various reasons. Sandy Kress claims that the Amrein study showing harm should be “highly suspect” because it was funded by “an anti-testing organization” (“Interview”). In addition, he says, that the real conclusion of the study is that they cannot tell what testing is doing. Similarly, Richard Phelps rejects the anti-testing research, saying, “The claim that high-stakes tests inhibit learning is a weak argument supported by dubious research” (Phelps). But that isn’t the point. In the language of accountability, it is not up to the critics to demonstrate positive harm; it is up to the advocates of the tests to show positive good. And that is a problem.

The one study that has concluded positive good, “Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in North Carolina and Texas” argues that the higher scores on the TAAS are confirmed by higher scores on other standardized tests as well. There are, however, two problems with this study. The first is that it measures the validity of one standardized test by comparing the results to other standardized tests. If, however, there is something wrong with standardized tests in general, then this does not show that the tests aid in the progress toward or achievement of the state’s goals for secondary schools.

But even the notion that the TAAS results are confirmed by other standardized tests is faulty. Amrein et al conclude that such a comparison shows no such gain, and actually a drop. Neill et al show that states without standardized tests did better on those other tests than ones with standardized tests. Neill et al conclude that the rise in test scores is therefore more likely the result of other changes made at the same time as the introduction of standardized tests.

And there is an even more disturbing possibility. Neill et al mention that some of the numbers demonstrate a kind of splitting—while there are more students in the highest category, there are also more students in the worst. In other words, if Neill et al are right, then the gains in achievement have been entirely by the best students, so that high stakes testing has meant that Texas schools have gotten better for the best students and worse for the weakest.

There is one more set of statistics that it is worth considering. The very principle of “high stakes” testing is that students who don’t pass flunk out. If they flunk (or are pushed) out before they take the test, it could look as though the scores have improved simply because fewer students are taking the tests. That is, the students who would have brought down the average scores are no longer taking the test because they’re not in school. Thus, the real outcome of the tests may simply be an increase in the number of students of flunking out of high school. And one statistic that suggests this just might be the case is the fact that Texas’ graduation rate has been consistently dropping since the institution of the TAAS, so much so that the state now ranks 48th in terms of graduation rates (“High School Graduation”). One study claims that, ” Research findings suggest that because of this requirement [passing the TAAS for graduation] some 40,000 of Texas’s 1993 sophomores dropped out of school” (Clarke et al). It just might be that the biggest impact of the test has been to reduce the graduation rate in Texas, and that’s how the scores went up.

Of course, one might point to all the “mights” and “coulds” and speculations in such criticisms of the TAAS and other standardized tests. All those arguments might be wrong, and the TAAS might not be actively harmful. But, again, that isn’t the point. The point is that the tests were brought in with the promise of accountability, with the sense that there is something drastically wrong with spending huge amounts of money on a public school system that cannot demonstrate, clearly and objectively, that it is achieving the goals set for it by the people of Texas. And that is the problem with the TAAS. Taxpayers, in a time of financial crunch, are paying out millions of dollars directly and indirectly for a program with no clearly demonstrable benefits.

Works Cited