North Carolina School Psychology Association Position Statement

Student Accountability Standards And

High-Stakes Testing

In May 1995, the North Carolina State Board of Education issued The New ABCs of Public Education: Accountability, Curriculum Basics and Local Control and Flexibility. The ABCs included a plan to hold each of the state’s schools accountable for the educational growth of groups of students over time. Since then, North Carolina End-of-Grade Test (EOG) scores in reading comprehension and mathematics for grades 3–8 (and writing scores for grades 4 and 7) have been entered into a complex formula to measure and recognize individual school performance and determine financial bonuses for teachers.

At the end of the 2000–2001 school year, however, EOG scores will be used for the first time to hold individual students accountable for their own school achievement. Current published materials and comments by state officials have emphasized that single EOG scores will not be the only determinant of promotion; however, confusion about any flexibility in the standards persists.

The North Carolina School Psychology Association (NCSPA) supports high standards for all students. However, supported by an extensive review, we contend that the Student Accountability Standards’ (SAS) use of EOG test results to make major decisions about individual students is not adequately validated and will cause serious harm to North Carolina’s most vulnerable students. The EOG was not developed for making important decisions about individual students and its use may result in a disregard for additional relevant information from parents, teachers, school staff and the students themselves. In addition, the SAS does not adequately take into account the following:

• The importance of making key, life-changing decisions about students using an array of information, not just test scores.

• The requirement that standardized tests used for making decisions about individual students must meet a higher technical standard than those used for comparing groups of students.

• Extensive research showing that children develop at widely varied times and rates. They learn to walk and talk at different ages and learn academic skills at different rates.

• National standards for the development and use of standardized tests,

• Decades of research showing that retention generally results in no lasting academic benefit, harmful emotional effects, and an increased rate of students’ dropping out of school.

• Although retention with extensive remediation has been effective with certain groups of children, promotion with similar remediation is more effective and has fewer negative effects.

• Strong evidence that the Student Accountability Standards will disproportionately affect poor and minority students.

• The current cost of retaining 60,000 students in grades K–12 each year—approximately $360 million—will likely increase as more students are retained.

• Effective alternatives to both retention and social promotion exist.

• The narrowing of the curriculum to the detriment of pupils, teachers and the mission of schools.

• The need for major reform in the way we teach children, organize our schools and fund education in North Carolina.

Therefore, NCSPA’s primary recommendation is for North Carolina’s State Board of Education to put its implementation of the Student Accountability System on hold while it studies the issues raised in this document. We believe this action is warranted given problems with the SAS and its negative effects on children which are discussed in the background report. We encourage the Board to continue to use the North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests as originally intended—as measures of school improvement at the district and school levels. The background report, of which this is a summary, supports the following additional recommendations:

Effective Practices to Support Student Learning And Prevent Failure

Student Accountability Standards

1, Continue to promote high standards for all students.

2. For individual students, use the EOG scores for screening purposes to determine if students may need additional assistance in those subjects.

3. Change the wording in the Student Accountability Standards to make clear the intended flexibility in the policy and inform stake-holders about the flexible intent of the standards. This could dispel the atmosphere of fear has which developed as a result of ambiguous communication about the standards.

4. Revise the Student Accountability Standards to eliminate the district-level review committees. Instead, require each school to form its own committee to review waiver requests from teachers and parents and make recommendations to the principal regarding promotion and resources needed for the students to be successful. This will ensure that decisions about students will be made, using an array of information, by the people who have worked with and know the students best.

5. Emphasize promotion of students with increased instructional time and special assistance rather than retention. Distribute a summary of current research findings on retention to every school principal and include it in materials provided to any review teams.

6. Modify the SAS policy related to students with limited English proficiency to align it with the research on second language acquisition. Review current research in this area to promote and support effective model programs and develop alternative assessment systems measuring English acquisition.

School Reform

7. Continue to promote class size reduction in grades K–3.

Encourage the development of programs that increase parent involvement and create a positive atmosphere for learning. An example of an effective reform effort of this type is the Yale University Child Study Center’s Comer Process used in many schools in North Carolina. Showcase these programs at state conferences and in “best practices” publications.

8. Promote the development of broad-based, innovative changes in the schools such as preschool education programs for at-risk children, continuous progress programs in each subject and ungraded classes in grades K–5.

9. Provide leadership to school districts in adopting effective, research-based reading programs which can prevent early failure to acquire basic reading skills.

10. Identify and promote model programs that network school and community resources to address personal and family factors which affect learning.

Testing and Accountability Program

11. Advise school districts that all individual EOG test results should be interpreted with appropriate caution because of the large margin of error in the scores.

12. Develop a statistical reporting system to determine the effects of the EOG testing program. Monitor progress of retained students and determine the relationship between retention and dropping out of school.

13. Continue the development of authentic assessment of student learning instead of relying solely on multiple choice testing.

14. Contract with an independent evaluation team not associated with the development of the testing program to review the program, compare it with the most recent testing standards, and make recommendations for improvement.

15. Do not add field test items to the EOG tests. The tests are lengthy and additional items may change the conditions of the test and invalidate the results. Also set a schedule for completing field tests at the beginning of the school year and stick to it.

16. Require all new and revised tests to be field tested, normed, evaluated, and ready prior to their utilization. This includes the Computerized Adaptive Testing System (CATS).

17. Set standards for appropriate test preparation to increase fairness to all students.

Funding

18. Provide funding for test preparation materials for all schools.

19. Equalize funding across the state so that every child will have the same opportunities and a fairer playing field.

20. Increase funding for intervention efforts with at-risk students. Encourage those efforts in grades K–2 where intervention can have the greatest impact.

21. Provide funding for training of school teams to decrease the number of inappropriate referrals to special education.

22. Fund the development of high quality preschool programs for “at-risk” 4-year-olds.

______________________________________

Student Accountability System Workgroup

Steve Breckheimer, Ed.S., NCSP Private Practice	Leigh Armistead, Ed.D., NCSP Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Rhonda Armistead, M.S., NCSP Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools	Lisa Murr, M.S., NCSP Chapel Hill-Carboro City Schools
Lynne Myers, Ph.D. Wake County Schools	Alice Wellborn, M.A., NCSP Transylvania County Schools

______________________________________

North Carolina School Psychology Association

2001 Board of Directors

President: Rhonda Armistead, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

President-Elect: Mark Pisano, Fort Bragg Schools

Secretary: Amy Wichman, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

Treasurer: Nick Myers, Durham County Schools

South Piedmont Representatives:

Bill Coram, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

Linda Haigh, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

North Piedmont Representatives:

Carol Vatz, Wale County Schools

Diane Kelly, Durham Public Schools

Coastal Representatives:

Sallie Moore, Wayne County Schools

Steven Hardy-Braz, Private Practice

Mountain Representatives:

Amber Williams, Burke County Schools

Kathleen Robertson, Wilkes County Schools

Representative At-Large:

Leigh Armistead, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools