NCPEA Education Leadership Review is a nationally refereed journal published two times a year, in Winter (April), and Fall (October) by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Editor: Kenneth Lane, Southeastern Louisiana University; Assistant Editor: Gerard Babo, Seton Hall University; Founding Editor: Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech.

Lantry L. Brockmeier, Valdosta State University

Don W. Leech, Valdosta State University

James L. Pate, Valdosta State University

Nicole M. Gibson, Valdosta State University

High stakes testing is not new to the American education system. The initial use of test-based reform in education began in the mid-1840s in Massachusetts (Resnick, 1982). Under leadership of the Massachusetts superintendent, Horace Mann, tests were developed to assess student knowledge in several disciplines. The results were published to allow for comparisons of schools and classrooms (Hamilton, 2003). Tyack (1974) reported that by the 1870s many states were administering tests and reporting the results in newspapers. Whereas student promotion had been based on teacher recommendations, student promotion became tied to the success or failure on these tests in the latter part of the 1800s (Engelhart, 1950).

Resnick (1982) indicated that before World War I there were over 200 tests available for use in schools. Linn, Miller, and Gronlund (2005) stated that a number of achievement test batteries were published after World War I, but the use of tests did not expand greatly until after World War II. In the 1960s, the Elementary and Secondary School Act grew from the recognition of differences in student performance and educational opportunities. Stakeholders were dissatisfied with the progress of students and as a result the amount of testing increased.

Airasian (1988) suggested that in the 1970s concern grew about the quality of schools and students. High stakes testing was most likely unavoidable due to poor decision making or the perception of poor decision making by educators in the 1970s (Cizek, 2001). The assignment of higher grades to increase student achievement and to enhance student self-esteem did not have the desired effect that educators thought that it would have on students. Business leaders and industrial leaders continued to complain that high school graduates could not read or write. In 1978, Popham implied that the use of minimum competency testing was halting the devaluation of the high school diploma. The criterion-referenced testing movement was an attempt to transfer some important decisions from individual teachers to increase uniformity or standardization (Burton, 1978). State mandates had the desired effect to ensure that all students received at least the same minimum knowledge and skills in identified content areas and that there was greater awareness between curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Camilli, Cizek, & Lugg, 2001).

Fremer (2005) stated that arguing against good testing at a conceptual level means that one has to dismiss the idea that relevant information can lead to better evaluation. Similarly Linn, Miller, and Gronlund (2005) stated that to argue that better educational decisions would be made without test scores is to argue that better decisions can be made with less information. Holland (2001) declared that standardized tests were indispensible. Grade point averages and course grades were just too unreliable to be used as outcome measures (Phelps, 2003). Afflerbach (2005) presented three reasons for high stakes testing’s popularity; fairness, scientific due to the tests undergoing examination for validity and reliability, and the fact that tests are very commonplace. One of the most obvious benefits of high stakes testing is the ability to provide a numerical score that can be indexed to every school and student (Baines & Stanley, 2004).

Wahlberg (2003) stated that although there has been resistance in education circles towards high stakes standardized testing, the general public, state legislatures, and federal legislators are increasingly demanding better performance of our schools. The results of high stakes testing can demonstrate to taxpayers that their investment is being used effectively to yield quality outcomes (Lederman & Burnstein, 2006).

Stone (2003) indicated that most of the information written about standardized testing is negative and that this gives the impression that these tests have few advantages. For most of the 20^th century, teachers and schools routinely used standardized tests for documentation of student, teacher, and school performance. Everything was fine with the testing as long as the information control was at the local level. For instance, Phelps (2005) reported that teachers were very supportive of high stakes standardized testing in the 1970s and 1980s when the stakes were only for students. It wasn’t until policymakers held schools accountable for test results that the limitations became fatal flaws (Stone, 2003). Policymakers began to realize that schools needed external accountability just like most other organizations.

Kaback (2006) stated that high stakes testing will not become an endangered species anytime soon given America’s current obsession for testing. Parents, policymakers, and educators view the results of high stakes testing as proof of student learning (Scherer, 2005). Driesler (2001) reported that 83% of parents responded that tests provide important information about children’s education and 90% of parents wanted comparative information about their children and schools. Phelps (2005) reported poll and survey data across numerous years that indicated the general publics’ positive view of standardized testing. The percentage point differential between positive responses and negative responses to standardized testing varied from a +90 for students being required to pass a graduation test, a +80 for knowledge of the five core subjects, +76 for diagnosis, +39 for ranking schools, and a +28 for determining whether a student advances to the next grade. There was even a +86 percentage point differential to a testing question that began with “if your child failed the graduation test the first time.”

Principals’ roles have evolved very quickly since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). Chrispeels (2004) noted that with its passage, principals are being held to a higher level of accountability for student achievement than ever before in educational history. The change process brought on by this high stakes testing environment may be reflected in principals’ instructional leadership, philosophical orientation to teaching and learning, and deep seated beliefs about the way instruction unfolds (Hope, Brockmeier, Lutfi, & Sermon, 2007). An increased emphasis has been placed on principal leadership to create high performing learning communities for increased student achievement (Zellner & Jinkins, 2001). For instance, Ross and Gray (2006) indicated that increasing transformational leadership practices has led to small important contributions to student achievement. Leadership, in fact, may account for up to 25% of the total school effects (direct and indirect effects) on student achievement (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom, 2004).

The primary purpose of this study was to examine Georgia principals’ views about the impact of high stakes testing. Principals were asked to respond to items that crossed six domains; curriculum, teaching, work satisfaction, stress, accountability, and students. A secondary purpose was to determine if there were differences in principals’ responses on the instrument by school configuration, principal’s educational level, gender, and race or ethnicity.

The results section consists of two subsections; item analysis and inferential statistical analyses. First, principals’ responses to items within subscales are reported using the median value and the percentage point differential between positive responses and negative responses for each item. Second, the results from the inferential statistical analyses are presented.

To answer research questions about differences in principals’ responses by educational level, school configuration, gender, and race or ethnicity two ANOVAs and two independent means t tests for were conducted on principals’ total scores (M = 128.00, SD = 18.52) on the instrument. The principals’ total scores on the instrument were symmetric (skewness = 0.20) about the mean, but the scores were peaked (kurtosis = 2.26). Data transformations were attempted, but had no effect on the distribution nor had an effect on the interpretation of the analyses so the results are presented for the untransformed data. Other statistical assumptions for the statistical procedures were met. An analysis of variance revealed that there was no significant difference on the total score by the principal’s educational level, F(2,258) = 0.08, p = .92 or by school configuration; F(2,247) = 0.84, p = .43. In addition, an independent means t test revealed that there was no significant difference by gender, t(259) = -0.50, p = .62. In summary, regardless of the principal’s educational level, school configuration, or gender there was no significant difference on their total score.

Since the race or ethnicity of responding principals was primarily African American and White, an independent means t test was conducted. The independent means t test revealed that there was a significant difference on the total score by race or ethnicity, t(256) = 3.10, p = .0029. African American principals responded (n = 58, M = 134.33, SD = 16.32) more positively than White principals (n = 200, M = 126.13, SD = 18.76) on ThePrincipal’s High Stakes Testing Survey. Further, Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.45) suggested a moderate practical significance. African American principals responded 0.45 standard deviations higher than White principals to items on the instrument.

A stratified random sample of Georgia principals responded to ThePrincipal’s High Stakes Testing Survey. Georgia principals’ responses to the high stakes testing survey did not differ significantly by gender, educational level, or school configuration. On the other hand, there was a significant difference by race or ethnicity. African American principals responded more positively than White principals to items on the high stakes testing survey.

There are a few findings that are important to note. Overall, Georgia principals reported that high stakes testing has increased their awareness of accountability issues. Principals agreed that high stakes testing resulted in principals paying more attention to the school’s curriculum and that students’ scores on a high stakes test provided feedback to improve the curriculum. In addition, principals agreed that high stakes testing has made principals more accountable for student performance. Principals disagreed that students’ scores on a high stakes test are an indicator of principal effectiveness and principals took a neutral position on whether student performance on a high stakes test was directly related to the quality of a principal’s instructional leadership.

The Georgia principals’ neutral position on student performance and the quality of a principal’s instructional leadership may be related to the findings of another study. Lyons and Algozzine (2006) reported that North Carolina principals indicated that their accountability program had a differential impact on their instructional leadership. The accountability program increased their instructional leadership on monitoring of student achievement and aligning the school’s curriculum, and assigning of teachers to subjects or classes, whereas instructional leadership in the areas of obtaining needed resources, evaluating teachers, and dealing with other’s stress were unaffected by the accountability program. It is possible that Georgia principals took this neutral position due to this differential impact.

Principals reported that their stress level increased due to their district supervisor’s pressure, effort to maintain or to improve the school’s accountability grade, public advertisement of the accountability grade, and due to competition between principals. On the other hand, principals increased teacher stress to improve test scores and teachers increased student stress and anxiety to improve test scores. While principals’ stress has increased, principals reported that high stakes testing has increased cooperation between educators. Principals reported that high stakes testing increased principal and teacher cooperation and it was the perception of the principals that cooperation among teachers increased as well.

Principals reported that students’ scores on a high stakes test motivates teachers to improve the teaching and learning process and that students’ scores provide feedback to teachers to improve teaching. However, principals took a neutral position on whether high stakes testing actually led to better teaching and whether the quality of a teacher’s instruction is directly related to student performance. Principals disagreed that students’ scores on a high stakes test are a valid measure of teaching ability.

Finally, principals took the neutral position on whether high stakes testing motivates students to achieve. However, principals reported that students might cheat to improve their test scores and that high stakes testing contributed to students dropping out of school.

Airasian, P. W. (1988). Symbolic validation: The case of state-mandated, high stakes testing Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 310-313.

Afflerbach, P. (2005). National reading conference policy brief: High stakes testing and reading assessment. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 151-163.

Baines, L. A., & Stanley, G. K. (2004). High stakes hustle: Public schools and the new billion dollar accountability. The Educational Forum, 69(1), 8-16.

Brockmeier, L. L. Pate, J. L., & Leech, D. W. (2008, February). Psychometric characteristics of the principal’s high stakes testing survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theSoutheast Evaluation Association, Tallahassee, Florida.

Burton, N. W. (1978). Societal standards. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 263 – 271.

Camilli G., Cizek, G. J., & Lugg, C. A. (2001). Psychometric theory and the validation of performance standards: History, and future perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 445 – 475). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Chrispeels, J. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts,methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study- Developing successful principals. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from theWallace Foundation website: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/WF.

Driesler, S. D. (2001). Whiplash about backlash. The truth about public support for testing. NCME Newsletter, 9(3), 2 – 5.

Fremer, J. (2005). Foreword. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Engelhart, M. D. (1950). Examinations. In W. S. Monroe (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 407-414). New York: Macmillan.

Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.

Holland, R. (2001). Indispensible tests: How a value-added approach to school testing could identify and bolster exceptional teaching. Arlington, VA: Lexington Institute.

Hope, W. C., Brockmeier, L. L., Lutfi, G. A., & Sermon, J. M. (2007, January). High stakes tests influence on principals’ beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SoutheastEvaluation Association, Tallahassee, FL.

Kaback, S. (2006). High stakes are for tomatoes: Supporting teachers and students when the growing conditions are poor. Kappa Delta Pi, 42, 101-103.

Lederman, L. M., & Burnstein, R. A. (2007). Alternative approaches to high stakes testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 429-432.

Leithwood, K, Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K (2004). How leadership influences learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Linn, R. L., Miller, M. D., & Gronlund, N. E. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching 9^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lyons, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Perceptions of the impact of accountability on the role of principals. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(16), Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://epaa.sau.edu/v14n16/.

Phelps, R. P. (2003). Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Phelps, R. P. (2005). Forty years of public opinion. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Popham, W. J. (1978). As always, provocative. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 297 -300.

Resnick, D. (1982). History of educational testing. In A. K. Wigdor & W. R. Garner (Eds.) Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controversies (pp.173-194). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.

Scherer, M. (2005). Reclaiming testing. Educational Leadership, 63, 9.

Stone, J. E. (2003). Preface. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wahlberg, H. J. (2003). Foreword. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Zellner, L., & Jinkins, D. (2001, December). Consequence of high stakes testing on literary programs of high performing learning communities. Paper presented at the NationalReading Conference, San Antonio, TX.