By Solley, Bobbie A
Following the whirlwind standards movement of the 1980s, the beginning of the 1990s ushered in an overwhelming interest in and use of testing to document students’ progress. In 1991, the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) issued its second position paper calling for a moratorium on standardized testing in the early years of schooling (the first one on that topic was published in 1976) (ACEI/Perrone, 1991). Citing the rising use of tests to label children, place children in special programs, and retain underachieving children in a grade level, ACEI denounced the use of these tests in the early grades and questioned their use in later grades as well. It was the hope that more discussions would ensue concerning the negative effects of standardized testing on children’s learning and their motivation to learn. The Association leadership further hoped that schools would more actively pursue assessment alternatives that honored children’s individuality and developmental growth. While discussion has certainly increased in both content and intensity and alternatives have been explored, we have not seen a significant change in the use (and, in many cases, the misuse) of testing. With the advent of the No Child Left Behind law, enacted in 2002, quality developmentally appropriate teaching and learning practices have taken a backseat to the more focused attention on low-level skills that can be assessed easily on a standardized multiplechoice test. Standardized tests are now used to hold up children and schools for comparison; the scores are used to discriminate rather than diagnose, punish rather than reward. Equally disturbing is the misuse of these tests-and these tests alone-to unjustly hold teachers and schools accountable and then punish those who have not met adequate yearly progress, as deemed by people other than those working with children on a daily basis (e.g., politicians).
When Vito Perrone updated ACEI’s position paper on testing in 1991, he claimed that a testing moratorium was even more important than it had been in 1976; I believe the need has continued to grow. Excellent teachers are leaving the profession out of frustration. High-quality schools that serve children from disenfranchised homes are being closed and children displaced. Important skills that schools once taught, such as critical thinking, discussions, and problem solving, are being replaced by low-level, fill-in-theblank worksheets and drills. The gap between the poor and the rich is ever- widening, and there appears to be no end in sight. It is past time for teachers, schools, administrators, parents, and the public to stand up and let their voices be heard. It is past time for all involved to put a stop to the misuse of tests in all grades, particularly in the primary years.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
The United States is a nation built on the ideals of freedom and equality, a nation of principles and responsibilities. It is a nation of wealth and power, a land of opportunity where democratic values are honored and people strive to help children succeed. At the same time, it is a nation of the poor and indigent, a land where families are impoverished and disempowered. For those children who come from homes that struggle under the burden of financial stress and poverty, the fruits of democracy can appear out of reach.
For many children, U.S. public schools have become places where separateness is evident, where those who do not have are expected to achieve the same standards as those who have. School, the very place where democratic values should be taught and practiced, is being eroded in the name of standardized testing and accountability. As a result, many voices have been silenced.
Public Education in a Democratic Society
“Public education is the latchkey that can open the door to a land of opportunity; it is the cornerstone of our nation’s democratic system of government” (Popham, 2001, p. 4). From the earliest days of the United States and into the early part of the 20th century, public education was revered and applauded for its success in educating children of all backgrounds. It was esteemed as the necessary tool for the country to continue thriving, as informed citizens are critical to a true democracy.
The essential value of the public school in a democracy, from the beginning, was to ensure an educated citizenry capable of participating in discussion, debates, and decisions to further the wellness of the larger community and protect the individual right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ (Glickman, 1993, pp. 8-9)
Public school, by its very nature, was intended to secure for children their place in a democratic society with the knowledge, understanding, and tools necessary to make decisions for the good of all its citizens.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, an increasing rumble of discontent concerning the nation’s schools began. What are our schools doing? What are our schools teaching? What are our children learning? Where is our money going? Are our children being prepared to take their place in the competitive world here and abroad? With these questions came suspicion and then distrust in the nation’s teachers and schools. In order to combat the mounting disregard for public education, the federal government took steps that would change the landscape of education in the United States and threaten the very fabric of democracy.
The Growing Status of Standardized Tests
Were the mounting suspicions a result of failing schools? Or, were there other factors at work? Standardized achievement tests had their beginning not in public schools, but within a branch of the military during World War I (Popham, 2001). The war brought about a great need for officers. Consequently, army officials asked the American Psychological Association to develop a group-administered test that would help identify the recruits most likely to succeed in the Army’s officer training program. Around that time, the use of the Stanford-Binet tests, which produced what became known as IQ scores, became widespread. In 1917, a committee convened and developed 10 different subtests that were designed to “discriminate among test-takers with respect to their intellectual abilities” (Popham, 2001, p. 42). These were known as the Army Alpha Tests and were given to a norm group that would be used as a comparison mark for more than a million men getting ready for combat. Those ranked high would be selected for officer training, while those ranked lower would be relegated to the battlefield. Within a short time following World War I, new educational tests were copyrighted that mimicked the Army Alpha in its measurement strategy.
Another factor contributing to the spread of standardized testing was the far-reaching Elementary and secondary Education Act (ESEA). In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, concerned with the growing numbers of children living in disadvantaged homes, issued ESEA as he launched his war on poverty. For the first time, large amounts of federal money were awarded to states in order to help them bolster children’s learning. These funds were specifically designed to offer assistance to schools that served large numbers of socially disadvantaged children. An addendum to the ESEA, offered by Senator Robert Kennedy, required states that received federal funds to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of their programs, namely via standardized achievement tests. These tests were based on the Army Alpha to discriminate among test takers. The tests available at the time, however, included the Metropolitan Achievement Tests and the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, and bore no direct relationship to the skills and knowledge being promoted by any particular ESEA program. And yet, the government spent thousands of dollars in encouraging their use. The notion that a standardized achievement test could evaluate the success of various school- and districtwide programs was quickly followed by the notion that the same standardized achievement test could be used to evaluate learning as well. Despite the lack of research to back up this assertion, testing became the means to measure children’s learning.
To further compound the misuse of standardized testing, A Nation At Risk (National Commission for Excellence in Education, 1983) was published in 1983. The report decried the condition of public schools in the United States:
Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. … We report to the American people … the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people [italics are mine].
What Johnson’s War on Poverty could not do with additional tests and accountability systems, A Nation At Risk would attempt to do. The report made recommendations in areas of content, standards, expectations, time, teaching, leadership, and fiscal support, and standardized tests became a pivotal part of evaluating the quality of education within each school in the country.
By the late 1980s, most states required some type of mandatory testing; by 1991, students who completed high school took, on average, 18-21 standardized tests in their career, with the majority of them occurring in the K-5 years (Perrone, 1991, p. 133). In 1994, President Clinton issued his landmark education package, Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227). This act provided resources to states and communities to ensure that “all students reach their full potential.” It established a framework by which to identify “world- class academic standards, to measure student progress, and provide the support that students may need to meet the standards.” Central to this act was a National Standards Board and a call for voluntary testing in grades 4, 8, and 12 to ensure that standards were being met. In 2002, the U.S. Congress signed into law President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative, which has been the most far-reaching education act since the War on Poverty in 1965 (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). Testing children in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades is now mandatory. Accountability systems that require assessments to prove children’s growth in academic subjects are mandatory. Tests are not simply what teachers give at the end of the year. They are now attached to high stakes, such as grade retention, admittance into special programs, graduation, admission into college, and whether or not schools remain open and teachers get to keep their jobs.
Today, because of NCLB, all 50 states have some form of standardized testing whereby students are tested every year, beginning in the 3rd grade. In many states, 1st- and 2nd-graders are also tested. And, in some states, kindergartners are tested regularly as well.
Large numbers of children are given standardized tests in two three-hour increments within a one- to two-week period each spring. The purpose of today’s standardized achievement tests remains much the same as it was with the Army Alpha (Popham, 2001). The test- takers’ scores are compared to a pre-determined norm group to discriminate among them and determine rank. Today, it continues to be the mission of a standardized test-maker to develop a set of items that allows for making accurate comparisons among test-takers and then rank-ordering those who take the test. Standardized testing, as it gets more all-encompassing, has become a nightmare of huge proportion in the United States. As Alfie Kohn (2000) states, “Standardized testing has swelled and mutated, like a creature in one of those old horror movies, to the point that it now threatens to swallow our schools whole” (p. 1).
EFFECTS OF TESTING
Although standardized tests historically have been loosely tied to accountability and student learning, the link had been tenuous. With the advent of No Child Left Behind, however, the connection between student learning and high-stakes standardized testing is more pronounced, and an increase in use of the tests has reached epic proportions. The premise behind this link is that increased pressure to do well on standardized tests, along with a set of rewards and punishments, will increase student learning and achievement. Does this actually occur, however? Are students learning more in our schools today? Are they more motivated to learn today than they were 40 years ago? Are more students staying in school and pursuing higher learning? The effects of testing have far- reaching consequences, not only on today’s children but also on future generations of children. This section examines some of these effects in terms of motivation, learning, and curriculum.
Effects on Motivation
The assumption surrounding current testing methods is that children will be motivated to learn when the associated rewards and consequences are made clear (Raymond & Hanushek, 2003). Yet, researchers have consistently found that an approach based on extrinsic rewards and consequences actually reduces children’s intrinsic motivation to learn (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Good & Brophy, 1995; Kohn, 1993). Sheldon and Biddle (1998) boldly claimed that attaching high stakes to tests “obstructs students’ path to becoming lifelong, self-directed learners and alienates students from their own learning experiences in school” (p. 170). .Because of high-stakes testing and the pressure that surrounds it, children are no longer engaged in enriching experiences for the pure joy of learning-experiences whereby they make decisions, explore options, make hypotheses, or problem solve. Extrinsic motivation, in the form of rewards and consequences, has replaced learning for the sheer pleasure of learning and the internal satisfaction that comes from a job well done. Children are now under increased pressure to perform on demand, memorize mundane facts and figures, and sit for long periods of time while listening to the teacher and/or filling in circles on a worksheet.
Research by Glasser and Glasser (2003) indicates that stress increases the rate of aging and reduces the functioning of the immune system. The researchers also state that the worst kind of stress is caused when we have little or no control over our lives. As children are inundated with standardized tests, the resulting mundane methodologies of teaching in order to prepare for the test has both teachers and children feeling helpless. Sacks (1999) also talks of the dangers of test-driven classrooms: “Test-driven classrooms exacerbate boredom, fear, lethargy, promoting all manner of mechanical behaviors on the part of teachers, students, and schools, and bleed school children of their natural love of learning” (pp. 256-257).
Furthermore, an overreliance on extrinsic rewards and the subsequent lack of learning that follows has led to an increase in retention rates and an associated higher drop-out rate. In Louisiana alone, between 10 and 15 percent of 4th- and 8th-graders were retained in 2000 because of failure to pass the state’s high-stakes test (Robelen, 2000). And, in Florida, in the spring of 2003, more than 43,000 third-graders (25 percent of the total for that grade level) were not allowed to advance to 4th grade, due to their insufficient scores on standardized tests (Garan, 2004). Because of the correlation between retention and drop-out, motivation to learn and the desire to finish school has lessened (Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999). A study conducted by Nichols, Glass, and Berliner (2005) found that highstakes testing pressure is negatively associated with the likelihood that 8th- and 9th-graders will eventually enter and complete 12th grade.
The use of standardized testing, along with the resultant system of extrinsic rewards and consequences, has had a negative effect on students’ motivation. As a result, students’ fear of failure has lessened their motivation to learn.
Effects on Learning
Given the fact that high stakes are now being attached to all standardized tests, the amount of pressure placed upon children, teachers, and administrators to perform is overwhelming. When increased pressure is placed on individuals to perform, they naturally resort to doing the things that will earn the swiftest reward-in this case, higher test scores. But what does this mean for children’s learning? Are childreri learning more today because of mandated tests?
Although each president since Lyndon Johnson has implemented some type of education package that included standardized tests and claimed its future success in creating better schools for our nation’s children, little evidence exists that children’s learning has actually improved because of these tests. Amrein and Berliner (2003) posited that if students were showing an increase in learning based on state tests, they should show an increase in learning on other independent measures as well. Those researchers examined four student achievement measures-the SAT, the ACT, advanced placement (AP) tests, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-in 18 states. What they found, in terms of a connection to learning, was virtually nothing. “Nothing seemed to be happening on these measures of student learning. In fact, we can make a strong case that high stakes testing policies hurt student learning instead of helping it” (p. 35). A study by Nichols, Glass, and Berliner (2005) also indicates a weak correlation between high-stakes testing and learning. While they found some validity to the claim that math achievement increased as pressure from high-stakes tests became more prevalent, their findings also indicated that increased testing pressure produced no gains in reading scores at the 4th- or 8th- grade level when students took the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Although those in power would have us believe that increased testing motivates students to learn more, research indicates that the correlation is weak at best and non-existent at worst. Testing does virtually nothing to support or increase student learning.
Effects on Curriculum
High-stakes testing not only negatively affects motivation and learning, it also undermines the curriculum. Because of the increased pressure on teachers for their children to do well on standardized tests, the curriculum has been narrowed. The curriculum, and thus instructional time, has shifted to only those areas that are to be tested. In many instances, the time given to art, music, creative writing, physical education, and recess has either been reduced or dropped altogether in favor of more intensive drilling on the test subjects (Amrein & Berliner, 2003). With the advent of Reading First grants, specific curriculum and materials used to teach are now being mandated, which narrows the curriculum even further. Low-performing schools can apply for these federal monies; in order to receive the grant, however, the schools must use government-approved materials and teachers must be trained by government-approved providers (Garan, 2004). No longer is teachers’ professional judgment about curriculum and instruction valued. It has been replaced with curriculum deemed valuable by the federal government as a means to achieving high scores on standardized tests. Teachers report that the pressure to do well on the tests hinders their instructional practice (Pedulla, Abrams, Madaus, Russell, Ramos, & Miao, 2003). They are forced to teach in ways that are not developmentally appropriate and do not promote critical thinking and decision-making. Rather, instruction has become mundane and boring as children complete worksheets on basic facts and memorize items for the test. Instruction has been reduced to teaching to the test. The very instructional strategies that should be used to create and promote democratic values in the classroom are now replaced with mundane skill-drill-kill exercises whereby children do not think for themselves, critically examine possibilities, or take risks. The very heart of democracy has been stripped from our public schools in the name of high-stakes test scores.
ACEI is not alone in this position. Experts and organizations concerned with academic learning, growth, and assessment generally agree that standardized, group-administered tests should not be used with children younger than 3rd grade (Meisels, 2005). The National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, along with the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association, reached this same conclusion after studying standardized testing intensively. Thus, ACEI calls for an end to K- 2 standardized testing and advocates the use of more authentic, alternative assessments that are continuous and intricately embedded in developmentally appropriate classroom instruction.
ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENTS
Evaluation is the process of using qualitative and quantitative data to arrive at a value judgment of a child’s abilities. Assessment refers to the means whereby we get to that judgment. Viewing assessment as a means to an end leads us to examine more closely the daily interactions and processes that children go through as they learn. Teaching, learning, and assessment are intricately woven together in the classrooms where children grow and learn. In order to provide quality instruction that is developmentally appropriate for children and leads to the furtherance of democratic values, teachers recognize that assessment must be an integral part of the curriculum. It is continuous and permeates every aspect of the curriculum, both for the teacher and students. Quality assessment that informs instruction focuses on students’ strengths rather than pointing out their weaknesses. It allows teachers to determine what students can do rather than what they cannot do; teachers thus build knowledge on a firm foundation of strengths. Effective assessment involves self-assessment. When children are allowed and encouraged to self-assess, they begin to understand why they are doing what they are doing. They have a sense of their own success and growth, which leads to empowerment and greater risk taking-the very values we wish schools to foster. Finally, effective assessment involves active collaboration among teachers, children, and parents. All work together for the good of the child.
Several forms of alternative assessment provide for the continuous, ongoing evaluation that informs instruction. Two of these forms, portfolio and performance-based assessments, will be discussed in greater detail.
Portfolio Assessment
A portfolio is an organized, purposeful, integrated collection of student work that exhibits process, progress, achievement, and effort over time (Garan, 2004; Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2001; Schipper & Rossi, 1997). Learning is perceived as evolving and changing and includes shared authority and meaningful integrated instruction. Within the portfolio process, assessment and instruction are viewed as recurring processes that inform each other. Self-assessment is at the heart of portfolios and allows children to critically examine the experiences and process of learning.
Meaningful and purposeful assessment occurs through the ongoing use of portfolios. The student and the teacher work collaboratively to establish goals for learning and standards for selected work. Students are given a choice about what is selected to show their growth, thus creating ownership for their learning. It is through this ownership that motivation to learn increases. Knowledge and learning is no longer perceived as the ability to correctly select an answer on a multiple-choice test, but rather is seen as occurring in many contexts. Portfolios are a place to view process, which allows students and teachers to effectively evaluate the actual learning taking place. They enable students to see that learning is a dynamic, interactive, ongoing process.
Portfolios are valuable for all children, especially those in the younger grades. Because they are intricately connected to instruction and curriculum, portfolios provide a foundation upon which future learning can be built. They allow children to practice analytical and critical thinking, both vital to the pursuit of knowledge. They force children to take ownership for their own learning; thereby, children grow in confidence and self-esteem. Unlike standardized tests that only evaluate an end product, portfolios allow young children to see themselves as learners and in control of that learning from the beginning.
Performance Assessment
Children are asked to perform in various situations throughout educational settings. From performing an experiment to writing an essay to role-playing a scene from history, children have engaged in performances that extend their learning to applicable settings. It is in this vein that performance assessment has its power. Performance assessment refers to a variety of tasks and situations in which children are given opportunities to actively perform or demonstrate their understanding and to thoughtfully apply knowledge, skills, and habits of mind in a variety of contexts (Gage & Berliner, 1992; Luongo-Orlando, 2003; Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993; Popham, 2001).
Performance assessment, in its truest sense, allows children to critically analyze a given situation, think through alternative responses, and come to a conclusion based on knowledge and skills. It gives children time to ponder, to think, to calculate, to make decisions-all of which are skills that promote democracy in the classroom. Rather than mindlessly filling in circles on a worksheet, children are actively engaged not only in the assessment but also in continuous learning. The lines between assessment, learning, and instruction are less distinct. Children view assessment as learning and learning as assessment.
An example of an authentic performance assessment in a kindergarten classroom illustrates the point that 5-year-olds flourish when given opportunities to think, make decisions, and use their skills and knowledge in unique situations. One group of kindergartners had been learning about patterns. They had examined patterns, searched for patterns in nature, and brought in artifacts displaying patterns. As a culminating assessment, the teacher planned and implemented a performance task that allowed children to participate in different authentic roles in order to demonstrate their knowledge. The children became “jewelers,” specializing in making bracelets and necklaces. Materials were provided, such as yarn and different color beads. Each child was asked to make both a bracelet and a necklace and use his or her knowledge of patterns while designing them. Once the jewelry was made, a display case was provided to showcase the children’s work. The assessment came as the teacher observed, asked questions, and recorded responses. A rubric was developed and used to keep a record of the children’s growth as they worked.
This example exemplifies the strength of performance assessment. The teacher was able to determine not only children’s knowledge of patterns but so much more as well. Children’s ability to think, analyze, make hypotheses, and carry out a plan were all part of the assessment. Children did not view this as a “test” but rather as a continuation of learning. They were up and active, moving and talking, learning and growing; this is the hallmark of alternative assessment.
CONCLUSION
This position paper from the Association for Childhood Education International denounces the continued use of standardized testing in the primary grades and cautions against the use of these tests as a sole means of assessment in every year throughout the upper grades. Standardized tests are inappropriate to future learning and the motivation to learn. They have taken away the power of classroom teachers to make informed decisions about instruction and learning that leads to critical thinking, higher level learning, and decision- making. Standardized tests have forced teachers to resort to skill- drill teaching, which results in monotonous rote memorization. To continue such testing in the face of so much evidence of its detrimental effects in regards to motivation to learn, learning itself, and the narrowing of curriculum is irresponsible and inappropriate. We know that testing:
* Results in decreased motivation to learn and sets children up for failure, which contributes to future drop-outs
* Does not improve learning and, in many cases, decreases learning
* Narrows the curriculum and reduces instruction to rote memorization, meaning that children are no longer engaged in enriching activities that lead to increased learning but are reduced to filling in circles on worksheets
* Becomes the basis for important decisions, such as entry into kindergarten, promotion and retention in the grades, and placement in special classes
* Forces teacher to spend time in class preparing children to take the tests, which undermines their efforts to provide a developmentally appropriate program that meets the needs and interests of individual children. The Association also would like to emphasize the need for assessment in order to improve instruction and learning. Organized, classroom-based assessments can inform the teacher about individual students’ needs as well as offer ideas about modifying instructional practice. Authentic assessment that focuses on students’ strengths promotes a greater understanding of growth and continued learning.
WHERE DOES ACEI STAND?
In 1976 and again in 1991, ACEI called for a moratorium on all standardized testing in the early years of schooling. The Association continues to affirm the importance of evaluation in classrooms and schools, and acknowledges that careful evaluation is the key “to the qualitative improvement of educational practice and the learning of children,” In addition, ACEI believes firmly that no standardized testing should occur in the preschool and K-2 years. Further, we continue to seriously question the need for testing every child in every grade for the remainder of the elementary years.
References
ACEI/Perrone,V. (1991). On standardized testing. Olney,MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high- stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-38.
Garan, E. M. (2004). In defense of our children: When politics, profit, and education collide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Glickman, C. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When can schools affect dropout behavior? A longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 715-738.
Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1995). Contemporary educational psychology. Reading, MA: Addison, Wesley, and Longman.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Luongo-Orlando, K. (2003). Authentic assessment: Designing performance-based tasks. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.
Marzano,R.J.,Pickering,D.,&McTighe,J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Meisels, S.J. (2005). Testing culture invades lives of young children. FairTest Examiner. Retrieved February 28, 2006 from www.fairtest.org/examarts/Spring%202005/ testing%20culture.html.
National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperatives for educational reform. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Commission for Excellence in Education.
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). Highstakes testing and student achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 1001, 20 U.S.C. 6301. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107110.pdf.
Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., & Miao, J. (2003, March). Perceived effects of state- mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Boston: Boston College, National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy. Retrieved from www.bc.edu/ research/nbetpp/statements/nbr2.pdf.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Raymond, M. E., & Hanushek, E. A. (2003). High-stakes research. Education Next, 3(3), 48-55. Retrieved from www.educationnext.org.
Robelen, E. W. (2000, May 24). Louisiana set to retain 4th, 8th graders based on state exams. Education Week, p. 24.
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high prices of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Assessment (8th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Schipper, B., & Rossi, J. (1997). Portfolios in the classroom: Tools for learning and instruction. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Bobbie A. Solley
Bobbie A. Solley is Professor,
Department of Elementary and Special Education,
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro.
Copyright Association for Childhood Education International Fall 2007
(c) 2007 Childhood Education. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Comments