Valli, Linda; Croninger, Robert G.; Chambliss, Marilyn J.; Graeber, Anna O.; Buese, Daria (2008). Test Driven: High-Stakes Accountability in Elementary Schools. Reviewed by Seung-Hwan Ham, Michigan State University

Valli, Linda; Croninger, Robert G.; Chambliss, Marilyn J.; Graeber, Anna O.; Buese, Daria (2008). Test Driven: High-Stakes Accountability in Elementary Schools. NY: Teachers College Press Pp. ix + 198         ISBN 9780807748947 Reviewed by Seung-Hwan Ham Michigan State University December 24, 2008 Over the last few decades, accountability has been at the center of national debates on education policy. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which first authorized federal funds to be used for public schooling throughout the nation, was one of the major historical events signaling the departure from strong local governance in education toward a new era of increased federal intervention. Recently, the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, usually referred to as No Child Left Behind, has further galvanized the nationwide debate on education reform under the common theme of high-stakes accountability. In Test Driven: High-Stakes Accountability in Elementary Schools, Professor Linda Valli of the University of Maryland and her colleagues added to this debate by providing some vivid pictures of three high-poverty elementary schools in the district of “Stevenson.” By showing how “the current emphasis on high-stakes testing . . . creates a test-driven culture that narrows the curriculum, weakens student-teacher relationships, and undermines professional standards for teaching and learning” (p. 3) in the three schools studied, the authors seriously “question the wisdom of high-stakes accountability policies” (p. 157). As a qualitative case study, the book is organized into five thematic chapters in addition to an opening overview and a closing chapter. The opening chapter provides general contextual information about the three schools studied and the larger policy environment in which the schools were located. From chapter two to chapter five, the book shows illustrative vignettes about: how the three schools adapted to the external policy environment by creating a “test-taking culture” (p. 25, chapter two); how such a culture “turn[ed] classroom teachers . . . into test managers” rather than instructional professionals (p, 71, chapter three); why school administrators and classroom teachers decided to “subordinat[e] the official curriculum” despite “its intended benefits” (p. 97, chapter four); how professional development turned into “narrow skill training” (p. 124, chapter five); and how teachers in the three schools thought about “what it means to be a good teacher” in the context of high-stakes accountability (p. 155, chapter six). Finally, in the closing chapter, the authors summarize key findings from the study and present a series of recommendations to schools and districts as well as to state and federal policy makers. This book, however, is not entirely pessimistic with regard to the impact of high-stakes accountability policies. Throughout the book, the authors emphasize that the three schools responded to the challenges of high-stakes testing in somewhat different ways. The authors explain this difference in terms of different school capacity profiles among the three schools. By using the concepts of “organizational” and “relational” types of school capacity, the book suggests the possibility that schools with strong organizational and relational capacity will be better able to cope with high-stakes accountability. Organizational capacity, according to the book’s definition, denotes “the human and material resources a school has at its disposal and the productive use of those resources,” and relational capacity refers to both “formal and informal relationships among staff that develop not just shared understandings but collective commitments and high levels of motivation for achieving organizational goals” (p. 13). Among the three schools studied, one school, “Brookfield” was the case that had strong capacity of both types. With a sense of professional community, this school “clearly weathered the storm of high-stakes testing” (p. 166); although there were also some signs of conflicts among teachers with regard to sustaining rigorous pedagogical practices versus giving more priority to raising test scores, such “disagreements . . . were voiced openly, in a respectable atmosphere” (p. 18) in this school. Without hesitation, I think this book is a useful piece of research that provides valuable implications to a wide range of audiences in the field of education. However, there are some weaknesses in the book. First of all, although it is widely acknowledged in the literature that school capacity matters for many reasons as reviewed in the book (pp. 13-15), it is rash to assume that the differences the authors found between the schools were really due to capacity. Believing that the differences they found stemmed from different school capacity profiles, the authors stress in the first chapter that the three schools they studied were very “similar” in many ways other than their capacity profiles: they describe the three schools as serving “similar student populations” and having “similar organizational structures” (p. 10). Abruptly, however, the authors acknowledge in the closing chapter that “Brookfield was the smallest of the three schools” and “had a lower student mobility rate and less teacher turnover” (p. 169), thus introducing the possibility that this difference, rather than the difference in capacity, was most relevant to its success. Different school sizes, different student mobility rates, and different teacher turnover rates all could have contributed to the different school responses to high-stakes testing. Readers of the book may plausibly raise questions about why the authors mentioned these important differences just briefly, and only at the end of the book, only when they have already concluded that school capacity was the contributing factor. Even assuming that the three schools were reasonably similar enough, the book’s assumption is rather naïve. That is, it is also plausible that capacity profiles were a consequence of the three schools’ different responses to external policy environments. The authors attempt to look at “the complex local enactments of high-stakes accountability” (p. 21) through their “in-depth case studies” (p. 5), but ironically, they themselves simplify complexities, by assuming only a one-way causal relationship model in their investigation. The closing chapter, titled as “Weathering High-Stakes Accountability,” contains the authors’ recommendations to schools and districts. The authors suggest that schools and districts should develop “strong leadership,” create “favorable context[s] for capacity building,” provide “comprehensive professional development,” develop “effective assessment practices,” and sustain “coherent policy environment[s]” (pp. 169-172). Of course, these recommendations reflect the authors’ comprehensive insight on a broader picture of education policy and practice at multiple levels. However, serious readers might be rather disappointed with these recommendations; precisely because the preceding chapters have illustrated why such things are difficult to achieve in the context of high-stakes accountability. In this sense, these recommendations in the last chapter are a fine summary of what are the problems rather than what are the ways to solve the problems. Though the book offers these recommendations, its tone tends to overemphasize the dark side of high-stakes accountability policies. Considering that the schools included in this study were ones “with greater-than-expected achievement gains” (p. 5), the authors could have had a more balanced view on the impact of the policies. All the three schools did, in fact, raise their students’ test scores, and they all satisfied their adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements. In other words, these schools successfully conformed to the norms of high-stakes accountability. If seen from an open-systems perspective (Scott & Davis, 2006), they were provided with chances to get feedback on their outputs while they were adapting their structural elements to the external policy environment. What this does suggest is that as far as these three schools are concerned, high-stakes accountability policies brought about their intended positive effects. The authors stress the negative aspects of the policies, but they do so by overlooking the fact that the three schools, nevertheless, managed to be fairly successful. Despite some weaknesses, there is no doubt that Test Driven: High-Stakes Accountability in Elementary Schools is a significant contribution to the debate on the current education policy discourse. The book draws attention to the quality of educational processes, not just outcomes. Does the outcome justify the process? Is it okay to sacrifice meaningful learning experiences for the sake of meeting AYP? What are we seeking, and at what expense? This is an important policy question to ponder with respect to numerous educational issues, both ideals and realities, which are often in conflict with/within each other (Kennedy, 2005; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). The authors’ perspective is truly valuable as they argue that we must examine “the ways in which high-stakes accountability influences not only achievement but [also] other aspects of school life. . . . Although schools that raise test scores should be celebrated for their accomplishments, they should also be held accountable for the manner in which they do so” (p. 172). References Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2006). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. About the Reviewer Seung-Hwan Ham is a Ph.D. student in the Educational Policy Program at Michigan State University. His research interests include sociological analysis of educational policy for teaching and teacher education as well as comparative and international perspectives on educational policy. His most recent publication appears in The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (Blackwell Publishing, 2008).