Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volume 8 Number 41

The Texas Miracle in Education

Walt Haney

6. Educators' Views of TAAS

          When it was learned in early May 1999 that the trial in the GI Forum case was to be postponed from June until September 1999, I realized that this delay would allow sufficient time to undertake surveys of Texas teachers about TAAS. We had a variety of indirect evidence that raised doubts about the validity and reliability of TAAS scores and the relationship of TAAS tests to secondary school teaching: TAAS results statewide from 1990 to 1998, the historical record concerning the setting of the passing score of 70% correct on the TAAS, patterns of grade enrollments in Texas over the last two decades, and data on the relationship between high school course grades and TAAS scores. However, we did not have any systematic evidence from those most directly affected by the TAAS graduation test, namely, secondary teachers and students, as to the educational value and effects of the TAAS testing. Consequently, a survey was in order.
          Though we lacked the time and resources to survey the opinions of Texas students, with the help of Boston College graduate students, I undertook two different surveys of statewide samples of secondary teachers in Texas. One survey, previously described above was the survey for the Risk Analysis study. The second and larger survey was a "Survey of Testing and Teaching in Grades 7-12 in Texas," or what in shorthand was called the Testing and Teaching (TT) survey.
          To undertake these surveys, I purchased mailing labels for a random sample of 4000 secondary teachers in Texas (specifically math and English/Language Arts) from Market Data Retrieval of Shelton, Connecticut. The number of 4,000 mailing labels was selected simply to meet the minimum purchasing requirements of this firm. From this list of 4,000, I then randomly selected 1,000 names to be used for the Testing and Teaching survey and 500 names to be used for the Risk Analysis survey. The survey forms were mailed on May 23, 1999, with self-addressed, stamped return envelopes. We tabulated all responses that were returned by the end of June, 1999, specifically 148 responses for the TT survey and 66 for the Risk Analysis survey. For both surveys we double-checked the accuracy of data entry before tabulating results. Since the Risk Analysis survey has been described in Part 4 above, I do not discuss it further here.
          After undertaking this survey, I learned of two other surveys of Texas educators regarding TAAS: one by James Hoffman of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues and the other by Gordon and Reese (1997). I describe these surveys in the order in which they were undertaken and reported, rather than the order in which I learned of them.

6.1 Survey/Interviews with Public School Teachers in Texas

          Gordon and Reese surveyed 100 Texas teachers and followed up with interviews with 20 of the initial respondents. The authors do not explain how the survey respondents were sampled, but they do mention they were "graduate students in educational administration" (Gordon & Reese , 1997, p. 349). Given the authors' affiliation as professors of educational administration at Southwest Texas State University, one suspects that respondents may well have been an opportunity sample of graduate students in the authors' program and perhaps other similar graduate programs. Nonetheless the authors do report that respondents' schools represented a cross section of Texas public schools relative to education level (elementary, middle school, high school), size, location (urban, suburban, rural), socioeconomic status (high and low SES) and TAAS category (exemplary, recognized, acceptable and low performing) (Gordon & Reese , 1997, p. 349).
          In both the written survey and the follow-up interviews respondents were asked to address four broad questions:
1. How are students at your school prepared for TAAS?
2. What are the effects of TAAS on your students?
3. What are the effects of TAAS on you as a teacher?
4. What are the effects of TAAS on your school?
          In the initial written survey, respondents were given a full blank page to respond to each question. In the follow-up interviews, a stratified random sample of respondents was chosen for in-depth interviews. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and coded to identify patterns among responses.
          Regarding preparation for TAAS, respondents indicated that a huge amount of school time was devoted to coaching students for TAAS, with TAAS preparation becoming "all-consuming" during a period of four to eight weeks before the testing (p. 355). In most schools TAAS practice quizzes were administered on a regular basis with emphasis on teaching to the TAAS format, such as having students practice "bubbling" in answers on machine scorable answer sheets.
          Respondents' answers regarding effects of TAAS on students were categorized as dealing with emotional, academic and social effects. For one group of students, teachers reported "no emotional effects at all because these students fail to recognize the importance of TAAS and are totally indifferent about it" (p. 356). A second group experiences moderate stress "which tends to motivate them to work harder to prepare for the test" (p. 356). A third group of students experience high stress as a result of TAAS. Among some in this group, according to respondents, the stress leads to anxiety and even panic. Among others it leads to anger and resentment. And another "subgroup eventually responds to the stress by "shutting down";; they cope by telling themselves they have no chance of doing well on TAAS and giving up" (p. 356). One respondent reported that the stress of TAAS "contributes to the dropout rate" (p. 357).
          Regarding effects of TAAS on teachers, the vast majority of interview respondents (17 of 20) reported that TAAS leads to an emphasis on teaching TAAS-related content and "de-emphasis on teaching content not related to TAAS," (p. 359), including less emphasis on higher-level skills. All 20 interviewees also reported "concern, frustration and disappointment, caused by observing the negative effects of TAAS failure on at-risk students" (p. 360). Interviewees also reported that TAAS scores are "not accurate measures of the academic progress that their at-risk students have made" (p.360).
          Regarding effects on teachers, "Nineteen of the interviewees agreed that TAAS makes them accountable in terms of teaching TAAS-related content, but that it does not make them accountable in terms of being effective teachers" (p. 360). While acknowledging the need for teacher accountability, respondents felt that TAAS was not a good vehicle for achieving accountability because "TAAS is not a true measure of student learning and . . .it is unfair to use a single instrument like TAAS to compare the performance of teachers who are working with students of widely varying socioeconomic backgrounds, academic abilities and motivational levels" (pp. 360-61).
          Regarding effects on schools, interviewees reported that "considerable human and material resources are expended on TAAS preparation" (p. 361) and that aspects of the curriculum that did not relate to TAAS were de-emphasized. Respondents were split as to whether or not their schools were "receiving pressure from parents and the community to do well on TAAS" (p. 362).
          In their discussion, Gordon and Reese write that teacher respondents "reported not just 'teaching to the test' but also teaching to the test format, and doing so at the expense of large portions of the curriculum" (p. 363, emphasis in original). They also report that via focused "TAAS prep" teachers can "teach students how to respond correctly to test items even though the students have never learned the concepts on which they are being tested" (p. 364). The authors conclude that "drill and kill" coaching and preparation for TAAS are taking a "toll on teachers and students alike" and comment:
The most devastating effects of high-stakes testing seem to be occurring to the students who these tests are supposed to help the most—lower achieving students. Presumably, by setting clear standards and measuring results, state mandated tests make schools accountable for the basic education to which all children are entitled. According to participants in our study, however, their at-risk students" academic progress is being hindered by the negative effects of failing a test that many teachers insist does not measure what their students need to learn at their current stages of development, does not measure the progress their students have made, and is culturally biased. (Gordon & Reese, 1997, pp. 364-65).
          The authors concluded with a number of recommendations for public dialog about the merits of high stakes testing, staff development, monitoring of the effects of high stakes testing, and establishment of a broader system of student assessment.

6.2 Testing and Teaching Survey of Secondary Math/English Teachers

          I did not learn of the Gordon & Reese (1997) survey until recently. However, as previously explained, when the TAAS trial was postponed from June until September 1999, my colleagues and I decided to undertake a survey of a representative sample of teachers in Texas statewide.
          The purpose of our Testing and Teaching survey was to obtain the opinions of a representative sample of secondary math and English/Language arts teachers in Texas statewide about the relationships between mandated testing and teaching and the effects of mandated testing. The survey form we used is a minor revision of a survey instrument that was administered to teachers nationwide in the early 1990s as part of a study funded by the National Science Foundation (Madaus et al., 1992). Specifically, from their survey instrument, one set of questions related to elementary education was deleted, one question was added, and space was provided at the end of the survey form for respondents to comment and provide their name and address, if they wished to receive a summary of survey results. Note that our survey form did not specifically ask about TAAS. A copy of our Testing and Teaching survey form is provided in Appendix 1.
          By the end of June 1999, we had received 148 responses to our Testing and Teaching survey (representing a 14.8% response rate). (Note 16) After survey forms were received, data were entered and checked for accuracy, and a code book documenting data coding was developed. Before summarizing overall results of the Testing and Teaching survey, I should mention that on two of the forms returned, respondents had not completed answers to most questions, so they were excluded, leaving the main analysis sample with 146 respondents.
          Respondents showed a good distribution of grade levels from 7 to 12, with several indicating teaching at more than one grade level. The vast majority were certified teachers (143) and roughly half (72) indicated that they had more than 12 years of teaching experience. The vast majority (123) also reported that they were "very comfortable" teaching their subject area.
          As the survey form we used was addressed to the topic of mandated testing, it did not ask respondents directly about TAAS. However, in response to one question (C1), 118 respondents indicated that students in their class were required by their state or district to take standardized tests in the subject during the current calendar year. Space was provided for respondents to write the names of mandated tests to which they were referring and 112 respondents explicitly mentioned TAAS.
          In response to a question about how mandated test results are used, respondents indicated that the most common uses were:
to publish test scores (81%);
to evaluate teachers (66%);
to place students in programs (57%);
to promote/graduate students (53%).
In contrast, only a minority of respondents (46%) indicated that mandated test results were used to alter the school curriculum.
          In response to two sets of questions about teachers' own use and administrators' use of mandated test results, teachers indicated that results were "minimally" to "somewhat" important for a variety of purposes; but the uses rated most important across both sets of questions were two uses by administrators:, namely school evaluation and district evaluation (both rated on average between "very" and "extremely" important).
          A section of questions asked about test preparation. Results for these questions suggested a huge amount of test preparation, with the majority of respondents indicating that they do many different kinds of test preparation and 50% of respondents indicating that they spend more than 30 hours per year on test preparation. Also, 75% of respondents said that they begin test preparation more than one month before the mandated test.
          In a set of questions addressed to the relationships between testing, curriculum and evaluation, respondents indicated that mandated testing influences teaching in a variety of ways, including influencing the increase or decrease of emphasis on certain topics and the content and format of tests that teachers use. In response to a question about the similarity of content of mandated testing and their own instruction, only 52% of 129 respondents answered "quite" or "very" similar.
          Another series of questions asked about more general influences of mandated testing. The percentages of teachers agreeing (that is, agreeing or agreeing strongly) with each of these statements are summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1
Summary Results of Secondary Teachers' Answers about
General Influences of Mandated Testing in Texas

Statement
Percent of teachers answering
"Agree" or "Strongly Agree" (n=139 to 142)
6. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time in whole group instruction.
65%
7. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time in developing critical thinking skills.
45
8. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time on individual seat work.
57
9. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time in developing basic skills.
73
10. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time with small groups of students working together (cooperative learning).
24
11. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time solving problems that are likely to appear on tests.
88
12. Mandated testing influences teachers to spend more instructional time in the use of manipulatives and/or experiments for concept development.
22
13. Teachers in my district are gearing their instruction to mandated tests.
82
14. Mandated testing helps students achieve the objectives of the curriculum.
32
15. Teachers in my district have a pretty good idea of what students can do without using mandated tests.
82
16. The evaluation of teachers' competence is influenced (directly and/or indirectly) by their students' mandated test scores.
68
17. Mandated testing contributes to the realization of the goals of the current educational reform movement.
29
18. My state or district testing program sometimes leads teachers to teach in ways that go against their own ideals of good educational practice.
64
19. My district is putting pressure on teachers to improve their students' mandated test scores.
86
20. Students' mandated test scores are below the expectations of my school or district.
38
21. Mandated testing influences some teachers in my district to engage in non-standard testing practices (such as changing responses or increasing testing time limits).
12
22. Mandated testing influences some administrators in my district to engage in non-standard testing practices (such as changing responses or increasing testing time limits).
12

While far more could be said about these results, key findings are as follows:

  • Teachers in Texas are clearly feeling pressure to raise TAAS scores (86% of respondents agreed with the statement "My district is putting pressure on teachers to improve their students' mandated test scores.")
  • Teachers have a pretty good idea of what students can do without mandated tests (82% agreed with the statement "Teachers in my district have a pretty good idea of what students can do without using mandated tests.")
  • More teachers disagreed (45%) than agreed (32%) with the statement that "Mandated testing helps students achieve the objectives of the curriculum."
  • More teachers disagreed (39%) than agreed (29%) with the statement that "Mandated testing contributes to the realization of the goals of the current educational reform movement."
  • On the brighter side, results of the Testing and Teaching survey suggest that teachers and administrators are not widely engaging in non-standard testing practices (only 12% of respondents agreed with the last two statements (# 21 and #22) in part of F of the survey form). Indeed, one respondent commented "Perhaps I misunderstood questions 21 & 22. Are you asking if my district condones cheating? Absolutely not, the repercussions for that are very severe in this state" [173].
          As indicated, the last portion of the Testing and Teaching survey form provided space for respondents to offer comments after these instructions: "If you would like to offer any comments about the relationship between mandated testing and teaching in Texas secondary schools, please write them here." A total of 51 respondents offered comments. On balance, these spontaneous comments on the relationship between mandated testing and teaching in Texas secondary schools were far more negative than positive about the role of mandated testing, with comments such as the following:
TAAS results haven't had the desired effect. It is used more as a "HAMMER" rather than a tool to improve. (Case 17)

I am not against mandated testing; but every time we work out a procedure for balancing the teaching, the state moves the test to a different grade level. We have it working well now, and now they're talking about moving it to 9th & 11th instead of 10th. (Case 39)

Mandated state TAAS Testing is driving out the best teachers who refuse to resort to teaching to a low-level test! (Case 67)

          In citing these few comments here, I note that the full set of all respondents' comments appears as Appendix 2.

6.3 Survey of Texas Reading Specialists

          The third survey of educators in Texas about TAAS was by Hoffman, Pennington & Assaf of the University of Texas—Austin and Paris of the University of Michigan. I did not learn of this survey until just before the TAAS trial in the Fall of 1999 and results of this survey were not allowed to be entered as evidence in the TAAS case. Nonetheless, Hoffman and colleagues have been very generous in sharing with me not just a manuscript reporting on their survey results, but also an entire set of their original data.
          The Hoffman et al. (1999) survey was of members of the Texas State Reading Association (TSRA), an affiliate of the International Reading Association, whose membership includes classroom teachers, reading specialists, curriculum supervisors, and others in leadership positions. The purpose of the survey "was to examine the ways in which TAAS affects teachers, teaching and students from the perspective of the professional educators who are closest to classrooms and schools" (Hoffman et al., 1999, p. 3). The survey form contained 113 items, many duplicated or slightly adapted from Urdan & Paris's (1994) survey of teachers in the state of Michigan and the Haladyna, Nolen, and Haas (1991) survey of teachers in Arizona. The survey items were mostly Likert-scale items (with a five-point scale answer format: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3= agree, 4=strongly agree, and 5=don't know) asking about attitudes, test preparation and administration practices, uses of scores, effects on students, and overall impressions of trends. In addition, five items were included containing invitations for extended written responses.
          The authors surveyed a random sample of members of the TSRA. After a reminder letter and a second random sampling, they received a total of 201 usable responses representing an overall return rate of 27% of surveys sent (representing 5% of the total membership of TSRA). The authors report that no biases were detected in the response rates "based on geographical areas of the state" of Texas (p. 4).
          The authors reported results in three different ways: percentages responding to particular questions in particular ways, scaled response representing answers summed across items relating to similar topics, and verbatim quotations of written responses. Overall, respondents to the Hoffman et al. survey were older (61% between the ages of 40-60), and more experienced (63% with over 10 years experience and 45% with over 20 years experience) than classroom teachers in general in the state of Texas (p. 5).
          Scaled score responses indicated that on a composite measure of general attitudes toward TAAS "reading specialists strongly disagree with some of the underlying assumptions and intentions for TAAS" (p. 5). Other scaled score responses revealed that that "reading specialists challenge the basic validity of the test and in particular for minority and ESL speakers who are the majority in Texas public schools" (p. 6). Another composite variable representing general attitudes towards TAAS reflected "a strong negative attitude toward TAAS" (p. 7).
          Respondents' answers regarding effects of TAAS on students revealed that a majority said that TAAS often or always caused student irritability, upset stomachs and headaches. Responses to three questions regarding overall impressions of TAAS were particularly striking. One question asked:
The results from TAAS testing over the past several years seem to indicate that scores are on the rise. Do you think this rise in test scores reflects increased learning and higher quality teaching?
          To this question, 50% answered no, and 27% answered yes.
Another question read as follows:
It has been suggested that the areas not tested directly on TAAS (e.g., fine arts) and other areas not tested at certain grades levels (e.g., science at the 4 th grade level) receive less and less attention in the curriculum. What do you feel about this assertion?
          In response to this question, 85% answered "very true" or "somewhat true." A third question read as follows:
It has also been suggested that the emphasis on TAAS is forcing some of the best teachers to leave teaching because of the restraints the tests place on decision making and the pressures placed on them and their students.
A total of 85% of respondents agreed with this statement.
          Written comments "revealed the depth of feeling and passion on the part of teachers with respect to trends in TAAS testing:"
I am very sad that education has stooped to the low level of measuring performance with standardized testing and Texas has taken it even lower with their TAAS. We know what works in education. We just seem to ignore the research and keep on banging our heads against the "TAAS wall" and "retention walls."

Please support teachers more than ever. Our children are hurting more than ever. If there was ever a time to change it is now. Give teachers back their classrooms. Let them teach and spend quality time with their students. They need us!

I think TAAS is the biggest joke in Texas. I have never seen such an injustice.

I believe that TAAS interferes with the very nature of our job. The pressure from administrators to increase campus scores leaves teachers little time for real instruction...."

My heart breaks to see so many teachers "just surviving." I believe that our solution is just to support each other because the public has no real concept of the situation.

TAAS is ruining education in Texas! Help!

6.4 Similarities and Differences in Survey Results

          The surveys summarized above were undertaken independently and polled somewhat different samples of Texas educators. Gordon and Reese surveyed Texas teachers who were "graduate students in educational administration" (Gordon & Reese , 1997, p. 349). Though the authors do not explain exactly when this survey was conducted, it was presumably around 1996. The survey by Hoffman et al. and the one undertaken by me were both performed during 1998-99, though of somewhat different populations. Hoffman et al. surveyed reading specialists statewide, while I surveyed secondary math and English/language arts teachers. Despite these differences, results of the three independent surveys of Texas educators have four broad findings in common.
          Texas schools are devoting a huge amount of time and energy preparing students specifically for TAAS. As mentioned, in the Gordon & Reese survey, respondents reported a huge amount of school time was devoted to coaching students for TAAS, with TAAS preparation becoming "all-consuming" during a period of four to eight weeks before the testing (p. 355). In the Testing and Teaching survey, 75% of respondents said that they begin test preparation more than one month before the mandated test (TAAS). And in the Hoffman et al. survey, when asked whether the rise in TAAS scores reflected "increased learning and higher quality teaching," nearly twice as many respondents answered "no" (50%), as answered "yes" (27%). In their written comments to this question many teachers explained that they felt test preparation was what accounted for the rising scores:
I feel that it reflects that we are doing a better job teaching for the test. We are being forced to teach the test. (Case 11).

Students are being trained earlier on how to take the TAAS test. In 5-10 more years a different format will be provided & low scores will be the reason to teach to that test too. (Case 17).

I think students know how to take the test because we practice ad nauseum. (Case 20).

TAAS is a poor measure of actual student performance. Increases are due to becoming accustomed to the test. (Case 38).

Teachers are teaching to TAAS period. Curriculum is directed by TAAS even in K. TAAS doesn"t address all areas - if it did colleges would have better results than ever before instead of remedial classes! (Case 46).

The scores reflect an increase in time spent on one test instead of teaching students the regular curr.[iculum]. (Case 49).

Teachers are spending the school day teaching to the test. (Case 84).

Higher quality teaching is not exhibited on a daily basis. However TAAS test taking skills occur everyday. (Case 95).

We've been teaching to the TAAS so long, our students are used to it. (Case 102).

The rising scores may be a result of better test-taking skills rather than knowledge. (Case 131).

No, School districts have figured out how to teach to the TAAS and to exclude students from being accounted. (Case 136).

I believe the scores reflect that students are learning test-taking strategies. (Case147).

Kids are just being programmed on how to take and pass the TAAS test, not truly mastering skills. (Case 151).

Teachers are learning how to teach the TAAS (Case 169).

I believe that students are simply being taught to take the test, not learn and apply the knowledge. (Case 199).

          One comment from the Hoffman et al. survey described the emphasis on test preparation this way:
Our campus has 2 practice TAAS (annually) (Nov. & Feb) plus the "real" taas. Our wkly lesson plans contain TAAS warm-ups, TAAS lesson objectives, and 20 min of reading. I personally am sick of TAAS by April & May. My Teacher evaluation last yr was down because my student scores were down by 7 pts. I personally have 6 friends who quit teaching altogether because of TAAS. (Case No. 94)
          Even some of the teachers who answered "Yes" in the Hoffman survey, that the rise in TAAS scores did reflect "increased learning and higher quality teaching," qualified their answers considerably in their written comments:
Students are learning more of the basic skills TAAS tests because teachers are figuring out better ways to teach them. Students are NOT receiving a well-rounded education because Social Studies & Science are being cut to teach TAAS skills. (Case 106).

Yes, there is increased learning but at a partial price. I have seen more students who can pass the TAAS but cannot apply those skills to anything if it's not in TAAS format. I have students who can do the test but can't look up words in a dictionary and understand the different meanings. They can write a story but have trouble following directions for other types of learning. As for higher quality teaching, I'm not sure that I would call it that. Because of the pressure for passing scores, more and more time is spent practicing the test and putting everything in TAAS format. (Case 184).

          A handful of respondents suggested that that the rise in TAAS scores was due not to test preparation or increased learning, but to the TAAS tests getting easier over time, to schools excluding low scoring students, or to administrators' cheating:
TAAS scores have seemed to rise in election years. The tests seemed easier in those years. (Case 121).

It seems as though the questions are actually easier. (Case 127).

No, School districts have figured out how to teach to the TAAS and to exclude students from being accounted. (Case 136)

I think the tests are easier to make the legislators look better. (Case 155).

The test seems to have gotten easier. (Case 159)

There are a lot of teachers and administrators who know how to "cheat" and get higher scores by kids. They don't want their school to score bad, so they cheat. (Case 160).

I also think there are admin. who are cheating ex. Austin schools. (Case 193).

          Emphasis on TAAS is hurting more than helping teaching and learning in Texas schools. As mentioned, the results of the Hoffman et al. survey showed that a clear plurality of respondents (50%) reported that TAAS score gains were not due to "increased learning and higher quality teaching." No directly analogous questions were asked in the Testing and Teaching or Gordon & Reese surveys, but some of the findings from these surveys confirm Texas teachers' generally negative views about the educational impact of TAAS. Recall that in the Testing and Teaching survey, it was found that more teachers disagreed (45%) than agreed (32%) with the statement that "Mandated testing helps students achieve the objectives of the curriculum." Also, more teachers disagreed (39%) than agreed (29%) with the statement that "Mandated testing contributes to the realization of the goals of the current educational reform movement." Recall also that Gordon & Reese concluded that "drill and kill" coaching and preparation for TAAS were taking a "toll on teachers and students alike"—especially "lower achieving students" whose "academic progress is being hindered by the negative effects of failing a test that many teachers insist does not measure what their students need to learn at their current stages of development, does not measure the progress their students have made, and is culturally biased." (pp. 364-65).
          As in the Hoffman et al. survey, written responses to our Testing and Teaching survey help to convey something of teachers' depth of feeling and passion about TAAS:
Texas has the "Texas Assessment of Academic Skills" test. Most schools have established a class strictly for the TAAS test. Our curriculum is based on previous TAAS test questions. We "teach the TAAS" in our classes. Our administrators have even gone as far as incorporating TAAS objectives and materials into daily instruction in ALL subject areas. We are not covering skills for higher level thinking at times because of state mandated tests. (Case 13).

Testing is now more important than teaching. Students learn much about testing, little about subject. (Case 20).

We are testing our students to death! My students have been taken out of class four times this year for standardized testing. Too MUCH! (and for what?) (Case 29).

There are too many loopholes. Students who were never on an IEP or in CM are being forced into it so that they will be exempt from standardized tests. (Case 42).

Mandated state TAAS Testing is driving out the best teachers who refuse to resort to teaching to a low level test! (Case 67).

TAAS has become the Be All and End All. It is ridiculous to put so much on one test, where even good students have been known to guess and not even read the question. I have seen them. Our school can be at risk because one student chooses to mess up. One year we were on probation for 1 student over the limit. (Case 87, emphasis in original).

Mandated testing has severely damaged the mathematics curriculum! (Case 93).

Teaching to the TAAS results in a level of education which is substandard. I strongly feel TAAS should be abolished. (Case 104).

Mandatory tests are hard on both teachers and students. Our state set the End of Course test one week before semester finals. The stress level for all of us is high. The end of school in itself is difficult. Why do we compound the situation by adding another useless test. Our state is also taking the EOCourse test out of the schedule. They are replacing the EOC with another TAAS test. At least the EOC covered current material. Now extra work is added because the TAAS covers different areas than Algebra essential elements. (Case 123).

We are so concerned about the TAAS & End of Course exam that we are teaching the test, but the kids are not learning the material. I can teach the test, and have a very high percentage pass, yet have kids that know no Algebra. Going to three years TAAS testing in the future will reduce education to completely teaching the test, and we will graduate an illiterate generation. (Case 130).

I really feel that we are definitely getting away from teaching the basic concepts to teaching the test and this is very sad because the farther the student goes in mathematics the less he or she knows of the why's. (Case 133).

It stiffles professional growth and academic growth as well. Too much emphasis on testing. (Case 147).

          Emphasis on TAAS is particularly harmful to at-risk students. A third finding common across the three surveys is that the focus on TAAS in Texas is especially harmful to particular kinds of students. This finding is interesting because none of the surveys asked directly about this issue. Nonetheless, the matter arose in all three inquiries. Recall Gordon & Reese's concluding comment that in the common opinion of their interviewees "their at-risk students' academic progress is being hindered by the negative effects of failing a test that many teachers insist does not measure what their students need to learn at their current stages of development, does not measure the progress their students have made, and is culturally biased" (Gordon & Reese, 1997, pp. 364-65). Also, spontaneous comments in the Testing and Teaching and Hoffman et al. surveys raised similar concerns. From the former:
I personally wonder about the fairness of these tests. Children from lower SES tend not to do as well. Therefore, it tends to be discriminatory I think. I think some children do not have the cultural experiences that help them answer the questions accurately. (Case 84).

The TAAS test is driving the curriculum and not teaching students how to think. It also punishes ESL studentsóthey can complete four years of high school with adequate grades but not be allowed to walk at graduation because they do not have enough command of English to pass the TAAS Exit. (Case 66).

          In teachers' written comments in the Hoffman et al. survey, several teachers mentioned the problems created for special education students by emphasis on TAAS. Here is one extended example:
Special education assessments. . . and diagnostic evaluations are NOT aligned with TAAS objectives. Therefore children are sometimes not qualified for spe. ed. services who have low IQs and yet are expected to pass TAAS to graduate. I.E.P. goals for reading and math (other than "mainstream" IEP's) are not compatible with TAAS in our district. Reading goals are not detailed enough in comprehension, math is not grade-level appropriate. IEP's tend to emphasize discrete skills, such as computation while TAAS emphasizes application and problem solving. Texas criteria for diagnosis of L.D. do not take into consideration TAAS standards. Teachers, under pressure to have good scores, over-refer students for spe. ed. testing—sometimes 1/3-1/2 of their classes! Most administrators (NOT mine) pressure ARD committees to exempt all students in spe. ed. from taking TAAS. Appropriate alternative assessments are not available. TAAS does not take into account LEP students, or students in special education, who are being "included" in higher numbers. (Case No. 89) (Note 17)
Emphasis on TAAS contributes to retention in grade and dropping out of school. Finally, all three surveys provide support for the proposition that emphasis on TAAS contributes to both retention in grade and students dropping out of school. One question in the Hoffman et al. survey asked respondents:
Are there efforts to exclude/exempt students from testing who might not do well on the test and thereby negatively affect a school's rating?
          Overall, 67% of respondents answered "often" or "sometimes" in response to this question. Obviously, there are ways of excluding students other than by retention in grade and encouraging drop outs (such as special education classification). But recall that one out of 20 interviewees in the Gordon and Reese survey said directly that "the stress of TAAS contributes to the dropout rate." A majority of respondents in the Testing and Teaching survey rated "to promote/graduate students" as a common use of mandated tests in Texas. Additionally, many written comments in the Hoffman et al. surveys expressed dissatisfaction with the practice of retaining students in grade based on TAAS scores, irrespective of other evidence about student learning.
          In concluding this discussion of the results of three surveys of Texas educators regarding TAAS, it is only fair to add one major caveat. Despite the preponderance of negative comments about the effects of TAAS on education in Texas, there were some comments suggesting that the role of TAAS is at least somewhat beneficial:
It seems to wor kout fairly well for most of us with TAAS, however, the end of course tests are not that useful. (Case 5).

I believe there is a purpose for these tests. If nothing else, it gives teachers goals for their students. But I do not believe my teaching competence should be based on those scores solely. (Case 34, emphasis in original).

          In light of this contrast, with most teachers reporting the effects of TAAS to be harmful, but with a minority reporting positive effects, it is useful to draw back, to try to gain a broader picture of the status of education in Texas. It is to such a perspective that we turn in Part 7. (Note 18)

0: Home   |   1: Intro.   |   2: History   |   3: The Myth   |   4: TAAS   |   5: Missing Students
6: Teachers   |   7: Other Evidence   |   8: Summary   |   Notes & Ref.   |   Appendix