Teachers Speak Out on Assessment Practices

Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, Fall 2003 ( 2003)

Teachers Speak Out on Assessment Practices

Shannan McNair,1,5 Ambika Bhargava,1 Leah Adams,2 Sally Edgerton,3 and Bess Kypros4

A 1997 statewide survey of Michigan teachers, administrators, and parents about assessment prac-tices revealed that all 3 groups held similar views about what constitutes appropriate assessmentin the early years, and they put little faith in test scores. This study reports on follow-up interviewsaimed at determining the types, frequency, and utility of assessment techniques used by classroomteachers. Specifically, this study focused on the types of assessment techniques used by a sampleof elementary teachers, including how often they use paper-and-pencil tests, how often they writeobservation notes and what they do with the notes, whether they use children’s portfolios as assess-ment, and whether their teaching is influenced by mandated tests. Study findings revealed thatpaper and pencil tests were regularly used by teachers in grades 3 and 4 (92%), and rarely oroccasionally used by the teachers below that level (16% rarely and 20% occasionally). Seventy-three percent of the early level teachers and 76% of the teachers in grade 3 and 4 used observationfor summative rather than formative analysis. Teachers in both groups used checklists frequently,primarily for summative purposes. Portfolios, like other assessment tools, are used primarily forsummative rather than formative purposes.

KEY WORDS: student assessment; formative assessment; observation; testing.

INTRODUCTION The emphasis by the U.S. Department of Education onmore standardized, quantitative approaches to assess-

The movement toward greater accountability in ed-ment has drawbacks. It can pressure teachers to teach to

ucation has increased the use of testing as a means ofa more narrow set of objectives rather than to the

verifying student progress. In 2001, the U.S. Departmentbroader, more integrated set of knowledge and skills ar-

of Education announced the start of the No Child Leftticulated in the standards movement. The result can be

Behind program, which includes testing for every childconfusion and wasted effort on the part of today’s teach-

at the fourth grade and eighth grade levels. This turn toers as they struggle to find a balanced approach to docu-

more traditional testing came right on the heels of an-menting student progress.

other movement. According to Hart (1994), an “assess-The swing of the pendulum between more tradi-

ment revolution” began in the late 1980s when a numbertional and standardized forms of assessment and assess-

of states, including California, Rhode Island, Connecti-ment embedded in teaching and learning is not limited

cut, Arizona, Kentucky, Vermont, and New York, ex-to the United States. Internationally there is debate about

plored new ways of assessing students authentically.the need for accountability while formative assessmentis seen as more valuable to teaching and learning (Shep-ard, 2000). According to Shepard, refocusing assessmentstrategies on more formative approaches requires a

1Human Development and Child Studies, Oakland University. change in the “learning culture.”2Early Childhood Education, Eastern Michigan University. The Early Childhood Assessments Resource Group3Early Childhood Education, Saginaw Valley State University. (Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz, 1998) emphasizes the pro-4Early Childhood Education, Madonna University.

motion of children’s learning and development as one5Correspondence should be directed to Shannan McNair, Associateof the main purposes of assessment. Planning and facili-Professor, Human Development and Child Studies, Oakland Univer-

sity, Rochester, MI 48306; e-mail: [email protected]. tating children’s learning, however, is a complex, am-

231082-3301/03/0900-0023/0 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

McNair, Bhargava, Adams, Edgerton, and Kypros24

biguous task that involves assessment, which is effec- in “real-life” or simulated experiences and more perfor-mance-based assessment (American Association for thetive only when it is conducted in a systematic way and

plays an interdependent role with teaching and learn- Advancement of Science, 1993; National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics, 1996). In addition, an increas-ing (Meisels, Harrington, McMahon, Dichtelmiller, &

Jablon, 2001; Popham, 2002). Teacher preparation that ing number of teacher education programs use theNCATE guidelines as their focus in assessment offollows current National Council for Accreditation of

Teacher Education (NCATE; 2000) guidelines focuses coursework, which emphasizes formative, more infor-mal classroom assessment over formal standardized test-on authentic assessment as an alternative to standardized

and other testing. Authentic assessment allows teachers ing, particularly for children age 8 and younger(NCATE, 2000).to align curriculum and instruction and tailor it to the

needs of individual children. Using a variety of ongoingassessment techniques, teachers learn about children,

State-Level Concerns Become National Concernstheir needs, and their levels of understanding, and arethus in a position to scaffold students’ learning and take Numerous research studies have documented con-

cerns about state-mandated testing programs and theirthem to higher levels of understanding (Stiggins, 1997;Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998). negative effects on good teaching practice. Specifically,

Adams and Karabenick (2000), Bigelow (1999), andA 1997 statewide survey of Michigan teachers, ad-ministrators, and parents about assessment practices re- Moore (1994) speak to the negative impact it has on

teaching practices and student learning; Mathison (1991)vealed that all three groups held similar views aboutwhat constitutes appropriate assessment in the early talks of the negative influence of testing on behavior and

its impact on students; Oakley and Urrabazo (2001)years, and they put little faith in test scores. Teachersfelt that test scores had limited impact, as they were of- write about its impact on English as a Second Language

learners and other student groups, and McMillian andten received after the child had moved on to the nextclass. Further, it was believed that mandated testing put Workman (1999) address how it impacts teacher deci-

sion making in a negative vein. Yet, state-mandated test-pressure on children and teachers at all levels, suggest-ing vigilance against the excessive use of testing ing is no longer a choice. The No Child Left Behind

movement, made into law in 2002, includes mandated(Adams & Karabenick, 2000). The original survey re-sults indicated clear patterns of teachers’ assessment testing for all states. As of summer 2002, 42 states and

the District of Columbia had implemented that mandate,preferences, but did not clearly identify what teachersactually do in their classrooms. The present study re- with only Iowa and Nebraska still relying on district-

level testing (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).ports on follow-up interviews aimed at determining thetypes, frequency, and utility of assessment techniques However, even the severest critics of high-stakes

testing acknowledge that assessments are necessary andused by classroom teachers. Specifically, this study fo-cused on the types of assessment techniques used by a can be useful for a variety of purposes, such as diagnos-

ing of student strengths and weaknesses, and providingsample of elementary teachers, including how often theyuse paper-and-pencil tests, how often they write obser- evidence for teachers and parents that students are learn-

ing what students should (Lewis, 2000). Some evidencevation notes and what they do with the notes, whetherthey use children’s portfolios as assessment, and shows minimal positive impact from testing programs

and reports an increase in some third-grade math scoreswhether their teaching is influenced by mandated tests.in Kentucky and changes in some Virginia teachers’ in-structional methods (Thacker, 2000). However, the vigi-

BACKGROUNDlance must continue so that mandated testing does notovershadow or replace more appropriate or comprehen-Assessment issues, including state-mandated test-

ing and assessment to measure the performance of sive methods of evaluation (Riede, 2001).According to Zemelman et al. (1998), effectiveschools and teachers, remains on the front line of educa-

tional issues (American Association of Colleges for teachers are aware of the importance of a thoughtful,systematic approach to assessment. They place moreTeacher Education; AACTE, 2002). Despite the ferocity

of debate that exists on the subject, limited research is value on formative assessments, where the assessmentinformation is used to understand children as develop-available that speaks to the impact of assessment on

teachers and students. National groups at the forefront ing, learning individuals, and to make appropriate in-structional decisions. These teachers do not necessarilyof curriculum reform promote assessment practices that

show evidence of ability to apply skills and knowledge spend more time on assessment; they simply spend a

25Teachers Speak Out on Assessment Practices

greater proportion of their time on formative assessment, of the total sample and the latter 34% of the total sam-ple. Anonymity was preserved, and no school districtswith less time committed to summative assessment.

Summative assessment—quantifying and ranking stu- or teachers are identified in any way.dents—is used more for reporting and accountability,but has less value for the teacher and the students. Instrumentation and Procedures

Formative assessment is a daily, ongoing approachA team of researchers from universities in south-

involving checking with all students about what theyeastern Michigan developed the questions for the inter-

know and what they are interested in. It also includes anviews (shown in the appendix). The questions emanated

understanding of students’ misconceptions or incom-as a result of a need to get further clarification on the

plete understanding and an identification of their learn-initial survey data from the larger, statewide study.

ing strengths and styles. The focus is on integratingThe 30–45-minute interviews were conducted in

skills and knowledge and working toward more complexperson or by telephone. The teachers were assured of

objectives versus isolated skills. Students are encour-anonymity in the data analysis and reporting. The re-

aged to reflect regularly on their own learning and per-searchers studied the interview responses and a coding

formance and learn to document and collect evidence ofsystem was developed that could serve to compile the

their learning through the use of portfolios.answers into categories. The interviews were coded ac-

Assessment practices in classrooms, however, varycording to the assessment strategy used by the teacher,

according to the grade level of the students, the experi-the frequency of use, the source of the assessment tool,

ence level of the teacher, the curriculum, and the expec-and the purpose for the assessment information gained

tations of the school district. Teachers use a variety ofthrough the use of that strategy. Responses to open-

assessment strategies, including standardized tests, dis-ended questions regarding assessment practices were

trict-developed assessments, textbook tests and quizzes,also recorded and categorized by assessment type and

commercially developed tests and quizzes, teacher-purpose.

developed tests and quizzes, and informal classroom as-sessment strategies (Trepanier-Street, McNair, & Do-negan, 2001). RESULTS

Results of this study highlight differences in theuse of two of the four assessment tools by pre-kindergar-METHODOLOGYten and elementary school teachers. Differences between

This study is the second phase of a three-phase pre-kindergarten through grade 2 and teachers at gradesstudy of assessment practices in Michigan classrooms. 3 and higher were also evident. The results will be dis-The first study involved researchers from six universities cussed by assessment strategy, by grade level, and byand a sample of 298 teachers, parents, and administra- purpose.tors. In the first phase, subjects completed a lengthyquestionnaire about their experience with and beliefs Paper-and-Pencil Testsabout assessment. The second phase, the subject of this

The first question related to paper-and-pencil tests,article, involved more in-depth interviews with teacherstheir source, the frequency with which these tests wereto explore the ideas more fully. This phase included re-used, and their utility to teachers. The data revealed thatsearchers from five of the six universities involved inpaper and pencil tests were regularly used by teachersphase 1. The third phase will involve actual classroomin grades 3 and 4 (92%), and rarely or occasionally usedobservation of assessment practices.by the teachers below that level (16% + 20%). The Pear-son chi-square test revealed that the frequency with

Participantswhich the tests are used differs significantly by grade.

Of the teachers who used paper-and-pencil tests,The participants in this study were 157 elementaryschool teachers from southeastern Michigan. The teach- 28% in the early grades used their own tests, 32% used

commercially available tests (such as from a textbookers worked in various school districts representing a di-verse mix of urban and rural, high and low socioeco- series), and 40% use both. In grades 3 and 4, 20% use

their own tests, 13% use commercial tests, and 67% usenomic groups. For purposes of analysis the data weredivided into two groups—preschool, kindergarten, first-, both. The results indicate that the source from which

the tests are obtained and used are significantly differentand second-grade teachers (PreK–2) and third- andfourth-grade teachers (3–4). The former represents 66% between the two groups (Fig. 1).


Fig. 1. Source and purpose of tests.

Data also revealed that the utility of the tests does develop the program as needs arise.” The data revealed,however, that observations are most often used by teach-not differ by grade. Most teachers, 91% in the lower

grades and 98% in grade 3 and 4, use paper-and-pencil ers to obtain information on behavioral rather than aca-demic issues. Of the teachers who used observations,tests for summative purposes. This is particularly signif-

icant because teacher preparation focuses on the use of 29% in grades PreK to 2 and 45% in grades 3 and 4used it to focus on behavior.any form of assessment for formative rather than sum-

mative purposes. Some teachers commented, however, Observation is the “backbone” of a valid assess-ment system in that it provides ongoing informationthat they do use paper-and-pencil tests, results of daily

work, and teacher-made tests throughout the year as a about a child’s performance in the classroom, on an on-going basis (Mindes, Ireton, & Mardell-Czudnowski,“good check to see who is getting it, who is not.” What

was not clear, from this interview, was the degree to 1996). It is an essential tool to use for formative assess-ment as it not only provides information regarding a stu-which teachers used the information to guide their in-

struction, or simply to report level of success on report dent’s knowledge, skills, and abilities but also providesqualitative information regarding the child’s approach tocards and at parent conferences (Fig. 1).learning, where learning becomes difficult, and underwhat specific circumstances. As a formative assessment,

Observationsteachers can use assessment to inform what they do nextto meet students’ instructional needs. However the re-Teacher preparation classes emphasize the need to

use observations to glean information on students’ aca- sults of this study indicate that observation is primarilybeing used for summative purposes rather than forma-demic performance. Teacher education students learn

strategies for observing children and noting their perfor- tive purposes. Seventy-three percent of the early levelteachers and 76% of the teachers in grade 3 and 4 usemance in objective terms. They learn how to connect

systematic observation and documentation to curriculum observation for summative rather than formative analy-sis (Fig. 2).standards and goals for individual students. Teachers in

this study did note observation as a “favorite” assess- Pearson’s chi-square revealed that there was no sig-nificant difference in the utility of tests between the twoment strategy, and explained how noting “their pro-

cesses,” listening to their “explanations,” or their “read- levels. The mismatch between teacher comments aboutassessment and their actual responses to the interviewing a passage,” and “recall at the end of the day” affects

“everything” in that it provides information needed to questions reveal some potential for a more formative ap-proach to assessment, but a lack in understanding andindividualize instruction and, as one teacher noted, “to


Fig. 2. Number of students observed and utility of observations.

implementation of methods that feed back into the in- grades 3 and 4 claim to use portfolios. Results indicatedno significant difference in reported use of portfoliosstructional loop. The observation data also reveled that

although the number of students observed decreased between the groups. Portfolios, like other assessmenttools, are used primarily for summative rather than for-with grade, many teachers, 91% in PreK through grade

2 and 79% in grades 3 and 4 use observations for all mative purposes.of their children (Fig. 2). There was also no significantdifference between the two levels in terms of frequency

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSof observations used.Teachers interviewed for this study freely offered

Checklists their opinions and shared information about their prac-tices during individual interviews. Their daily practice

The frequency in use of checklists as an assessmentin their classroom does not always match up with their

tool indicates no difference between the two levels.own philosophies or what they were exposed to in pre-

Teachers in both groups use checklists frequently—47%service or inservice education.

for the lower levels and 52% of the third- and fourth-The current international, national, and state em-

grade teachers.phasis on testing will not go away. Teachers need to

The majority of teachers in both groups prefer tobe prepared to give tests and to interpret the results. In

use their own checklists, rather than those that are com-Michigan, all of the teachers of grades 3 and above are

mercially available. Once again it was found that check-affected by standardized testing and feel some pressure

lists, like paper-and-pencil tests and observations, areto provide students with information more directly as-

used primarily for summative rather than formative as-sessed through those tests and to provide practice in test-

sessment. Of those who use checklists, 75% PreK–2 andtaking. Assessment appears to be conducted primarily

79% of 3–4 grade teachers use checklists for summativefor the purposes of external accountability and reporting.

purposes (Fig. 3).Classroom teachers need to know how to supple-

ment information from standardized tests with more in-Portfolios

dividualized and useful assessment. Teachers, however,are busy and the skills needed for implementing a vari-As Fig. 4 describes, an overwhelming majority of

teachers—95% of teachers in PreK–2 and 88% in ety of assessment approaches are not quickly nor easily


Fig. 3. Source of checklists and utility of checklists.

developed. We need to continue to develop ways of clear understanding of how to use assessment to supportthe teaching and learning process in the classroom.helping teachers develop those skills both before and

after they begin teaching. Despite the fact that principles In preservice and inservice education, teacherslearn that classroom assessment can provide ongoing in-of and strategies for assessment are taught in most

teacher education programs, certainly all programs in formation about student learning and its relationship totheir curriculum goals and how assessment actually sup-the state of Michigan, teachers do not demonstrate a

Fig. 4. Use of portfolios and utility of portfolios.


ports learning while the information is being gathered. strategies that would fit into a paradigm of new goalsand objectives for education. However, she is not opti-The use of performance assessments can positively af-

fect motivation, interest, critical thinking, and the acqui- mistic about the implementation of a reformed vision ofcurriculum and classroom assessment. The teachers insition of more in-depth knowledge. This use can help

students to perform better on traditional tests (Glatthorn, this study appear to feel trapped in dealing with “whatis.” In the 1997 statewide survey, it was found that ad-1999; Gooding, 1994; Kattri, Kane, & Reeve, 1995). It

can also be through conducting effective assessments ministrators and parents agree with the teachers on manypoints about assessment. However, all three groups maythat effective instruction takes place (Popham, 2002).

A number of the teachers interviewed commented feel caught in a bind that they cannot readily break. Ac-cording to a third-grade teacher, “assessment is a diffi-on all of the strategies they had learned about: observa-

tion, anecdotal documentation, checklists, performance cult task; it’s the biggest challenge in meeting needs.”A second-grade teacher, in a similar vein, reflected, “Isamples, writing samples, rubrics, student self-evalua-

tion, and journal entries. However, most teachers ap- think teachers are frustrated with assessment. It is ourweakest link. We need to have assessment match in-peared to be using the strategies in a random way and

often for the purpose of reporting versus using assess- struction and be appropriate, especially for the youngerchildren.”ment to inform planning and teaching for individual in-

structional needs. For example, one teacher mentioned It is also unclear how school districts and schooladministrators support the alternative approaches to as-using “group reviews, reading strand and comprehension

tests, workbook tests” with the whole class, while an- sessment, although it is usually a focus in teacher prepa-ration. Teachers are confused by mandates at the schoolother teacher takes a more individual approach, saying,

“in science I change assessments for different children or district level that seem (and are) contradictory. Learn-ing in “depth” is emphasized, while more and more con-. . . you just have to be highly individualized.” It may be

that few teachers possess a complete enough understand- tent is added to grade-level expectations. Teachers areencouraged to attend inservice training on developinging of assessment and skills to assess students in system-

atic ways in their own classrooms. assessment rubrics and portfolio development while alsoreceiving warnings or rewards related to their students’Most teachers at all levels reported a preference for

more authentic measures—observation, performance as- standardized test scores. Teachers find it difficult toform their own opinions about assessment and promotesessment, anecdotal notes, self-assessment, writing sam-

ples, rubrics, checklists, and portfolios. A second-grade more authentic practices, because they question theirown knowledge and ability to effectively assess childrenteacher reported, “At the end of a unit or lesson, I ask

the student to write to me and tell me what they in a more individualized way. One teacher explains, “Iwould love to use more performance testing because thislearned.” Another second-grade teacher describes her

use of observation: “I look for how they problem solve, is what I was taught to do, but I find myself fallingback.”what strategies they use, how they hold a pencil, etc.”

“I’m watching for development on a daily basis.” A While there is sparse evidence that state-mandatedtests have a positive impact on student learning, today’steacher of fourth-grade students explained, “I make up

my own paper-and-pencil tests, which revolve around teachers must be prepared to utilize tests as part of theirassessment. The teachers in this survey express discom-the materials that I’m teaching. I use these mostly to

find out if the students have grasped the materials or if fort with the preparation for, the administration of, andthe utilization of state tests. However, they are not, as aI need to go over areas in another fashion.” She went on

to say, “For example, I may quiz the students’ under- group, totally comfortable with the systematic integra-tion of other assessment approaches for the purpose ofstanding of fractions before moving into lowest term

fractions.” formative assessment to inform instruction on an ongo-ing basis. Anything we do to gather and interpret infor-Although the teachers in this study used assessment

in both formative and summative ways, assessment did mation about children’s learning should provide accu-rate, helpful input for nurturing their further growth andnot appear to be used systematically, and, therefore, its

effectiveness may be questionable. The focus of assess- development. The recognition of multiple approaches toassessment and the need for meeting individual needsment was primarily summative, even when strategies

that are typically identified with formative assessment within any classroom, point to the necessity for support-ing teachers in their use of alternative assessment ap-(observation, checklists, work samples for portfolio

items) were used. proaches in addition to traditional testing strategies.Results of this study suggest that teachers may useShepard (2000) suggests alternative assessment


sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-appropriate assessment terminology and prefer more au-search Association, New Orleans, LA, April 24–28, 2000.

thentic classroom assessment strategies, yet may lack American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford Universitythe knowledge or skills critical for assessing childrenPress.systematically and meaningfully. Teacher preparation

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2002).programs and providers of inservice professional devel- Member Bulletin. Retrieved March 28, 2002, from www.aacte.

org.opment need to work together to provide teacher devel-Bigelow, B. (1999). Why standardized tests threaten multiculturalism.opment that fosters a deeper understanding of student

Educational Leadership, 56(7), 37–40.assessment and its role in teaching and learning. There Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Performance standards and authentic learn-

ing. Larchmont, NY: Eyes on Education.must be ample opportunity to practice applying assess-Gooding, K. (1994). Teaching to the test: The influence of alternativement principles. Teachers need to have skill, confidence,

modes of assessment on teachers’ instructional strategies. Paperand ongoing support in order to develop a systematic presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association. New Orleans, LA, April 4–8, 1994.approach to gathering and interpreting information aboutHart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators.student learning and using that to guide their teaching.

New York: Assessment Bookshelf Series.Kattri, N., Kane, M. B., & Reeve, A. L. (1995). How performance

assessments affect teaching and learning. Educational Leader-ship, 53(3), 80–83.APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Lewis, A. (2000). High-stakes testing: Trends and issues. PolicyBrief, Mid-continent Research for Education and LearningQ1. What types of paper-and-pencil tests do you use?(MCREL). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education• What is the source for these? Are they from teacher’s manu-and Learning.als or a reading series?

Mathison, S. (1991). Implementing curricular change through state-• Do you make up your own tests?mandated testing: Ethical issues. Journal of Curriculum and Su-

• How often do you use paper-and-pencil tests? pervision, 6(3), 201–212.Q2. Do you observe children and write observational McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (1999). The impact of

mandated statewide testing on teachers’ classroom assessmentnotes?and instructional practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-• How often do you write observational notes?ing of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,• For what purpose do you use observational notes?Quebec, Canada, April 19–23, 1999.

Q3. Do you use checklists? Meisels, S. J., Harrington, H. L., McMahon, P., Dichtelmiller, M.• What is the source of the checklist(s)? L., & Jablon, J. R. (2001). Thinking like a teacher. Boston: Al-

lyn & Bacon.• How often do you use them?Mindes, G., Ireton, H., & Mardell-Czudnowski, C. (1996). Assessing• Do you use checklists for all children in the class or only for

young children. Albany, NY: Delmar.certain students?Moore, W. P. (1994). The devaluation of standardized testing: OneQ4. Do you keep files/portfolios to save samples of chil- district’s response to a mandated assessment. Applied Measure-

dren’s work? ment in Education, 7(4), 343–367.National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000). Pro-• How do you use the folder/portfolio?

fessional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges and• How often do you put things in the portfolio?departments of education. Washington DC: Author.• Do you have portfolios for all children in the class?

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1996). AssessmentQ5. What experiences have you had with mandated standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.testing? Newman, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. (1995). A guide to

authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards and scor-Q6. In what way does the testing affect what you do ining. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.the classroom? Oakley, C., & Urrabazo, T. (2001). New state LEP testing policy in

Q7. When do you get the results of mandated tests? Texas: Is it an appropriate accountability measure for recent ESLimmigrants? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer-Q8. What do you do with the results?ican Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–Q9. Of all the assessment approaches (for example ob- 14, 2001.

servation, checklists, etc.) which do you feel assist Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: What teachers need toknow. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.you the most in planning for learning and assist you

Riede, P. (2001). Testing dissidents. School Administrator, 58(11),in meeting the learning needs of your children? 6–11.Q10. If there anything else you would like to say/tell Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Edu-

cational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.me?Shepard, L., Kagan, S., & Wurtz, E. (May, 1998). Goal 1 early child-

hood assessments resource group recommendations. Young Chil-dren, 53(3), 52– 54.

Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment (2ndREFERENCESed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Thacker, J. L. (2000). Raising student test scores through comprehen-sive school improvement. ERS Spectrum, 18(3), 25–29Adams, L., & Karabenick, S. (2000). Impact of state testing on stu-

dents and teaching practices: Much pain, no gain? Paper pre- Trepanier-Street, M. L., McNair, S., & Donegan, M. M. (2001). The


views of teachers on assessment: A comparison of lower and up- Washington, DC: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference/title.htmlper elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Edu-

cation, 15(2), 234–241. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best Practice: Newstandards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (2ndU.S. Department of Education (2001/2002). Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education, No child left behind: A desktop reference. ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Documents

Teachers Speak Out on Assessment Practices