Abstract:
Results revealed homogeneous responses to items on the survey by race or ethnicity, gender, and school configuration. However, an independent means t test was statistically significant indicating special education inclusion teachers' total scores were significantly higher (i.e., they agreed more positively) than self-contained teachers' total scores on the survey.
Teachers agreed high-stakes testing requires teachers to teach to the test due to Georgia's purposely developed curriculum that aligns with required high-stakes tests. Some teachers felt high-stakes testing prevents them from using their full range of teaching skills, while others felt high-stakes testing does not prevent them from using their full range of teaching skills. However, all teachers admitted to using students' high- stakes test results to creatively design differentiated lessons meet students' needs on their specific academic ability levels. Teachers expressed spending at least 45%of their time using whole group instruction. In addition, teachers used the remaining strategies differentiated instruction (DI), hands on learning, computers, cooperative groups, and basic skills instruction approximately 10% of the time.
Teachers also acknowledged test preparation activities were used the entire school year. However, the month prior to high-stakes testing teachers utilized daily test preparation activities to focus on student weaknesses for increased student test results. Diminished work satisfaction and lowered teacher morale was noted by teachers when the focus is on high-stakes testing outcomes. Punitive measures associated with high- stakes testing were also a cause of stress for teachers. Interviewed teachers were personally unaware of punitive measures associated with high-stake testing and special education teachers. Teachers noted an increased accountability for student academic performance and in teachers' awareness of issues in education as a result of high-stakes testing.