GATEways 2002 (Volume 15 Issue 1)

GATEways to Teacher Education The Journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Published by GATE and Berry College Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Editors Jacqueline M. McDowell, Berry College Kathy R. Gann, Berry College Officers ofthe Association President: Jennifer Harrison President Elect: Julie Rainer Past President: Maryellen Cosgrove Secretary: John Rhodes Treasurer: Jackie Castleman Editorial Board :Wade Carpenter, Berry College (GA) Valerie Chapman, University of Texas at El Paso (TX) Julia Dorminey, Georgia Southwestern State University (GA) Darrell Garber, Tennessee Technological University (TN) Marshalita Peterson, Spellman College (GA) Linda Pacifici, Appalachian State University (NC)

GATEways to Teacher Education .'

Volume XV (1)

Fall2002 Table of Contents Introduction and Guest Commentary •..• • .•••. • ..• 5 Wade Carpenter, Berry College "I Want to be a Teacher'' Examining Preservice Teachers' Reasons for Entering the Teaching Profession •..•••.•.•.... • •....•••.•...••....•.. 9 Larry Cooper, State University of West Georgia Mary Edwards, State University of West Georgia Relationships Between Poverty, Race, and the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test Results • . . . • • . . . . • . . . • • . . . • • . • . . . . • . • . . . • 25 Donald R. Livingston, LaGrange College

Why are Standardized Tests Scores so Low in Georgia? Factors Affecting Achievement Across States ............ . ........................... .45 Matthew L. Singletary, State University of West Georgia John L. Nietfeld, State University of West Georgia

-~.

.路,~..

....., .~~'\) '路

Introduction and Guest Commentary We are delighted to bring you three research-based articles, two of which address issues of statewide policy, and one which reports on teacher attributes.

From the perspective of this writer, the three thematic articles are powerful for the questions they raise as much as for their didactic value. First, the articles by Matthew Singletary and John Nietfeld and Donald Livingston might well stand together, and I 路 would encourage the authors to collaborate on a synthesis article for broader distribution in another venue. They supplement one another nicely, Livingston supplying primary, "hard" data that balances the more secondary and ex cathedra appeals in "Why are Standardized Tests Scores so Low in Georgia"; and Singletary and Nietfeld addressing several questions that Livingston does not explore.

Livingston's equity argument is strong, and [he] has shown that gross racial and economic inequities are, indeed, likely to be aggravated by the current excessive enthusiasm for testing. Singletary and Nietfeld add to that account questions of the quality of teachers and teacher preparation that are certainly worth exploration, and might provide more opportunities for improvement In fact, one might easily argue that Livingston's data are a better argument for pedagogical improvement than for jettisoning the tests. That data could also justify the deployment of "flying squads" of master teachers providing highly skilled, highly focused instruction. If nothing else, that would at least raise the success rates, thereby encouraging some to stay in . school. Let's face it, raising test scores is not exactly rocket science, and one way of doing that is to teach the test. Lest some of our more ethically squeamish readers recoil, it is worth noting that in these schools, we are NOT talking about education, we are talking about survival, for the kids and the teachers.

GATEways to Teacher Education 5

Carpenter

Similarly, Livingston's social reproduction argument, attributing the testing to racial and hegemonic motives, might actually miss the point by hitting it. One does not have to employ ad hominem argumentation to get to the point. Sure, the tests probably will aggravate the dropout rage for disadvantaged populations. Ofcourse, the test legislation is "a financial strategy to reduce the State's financial obligation to the rural poor," but that raises the question: Is that necessarily bad? One could argue that history has pretty conclusively demonstrated that (a) schools are not going to solve America's social problems, and (b) Georgia schools for darned sure aren't going to solve them! Looking on the bright side of things when one's parachute fails: This standardized catastrophe could be the best thing that could happen to us all, if they fmally convince the public that expecting teachers to solve social problems for which they do not have the financial backing, administrative support, professional training, or even adequate time amounts to little more than child neglect and teacher abuse. So what are the alternatives? This writer must confess that he doesn't know, but is eager to start serious discussion and exploration of just what other public services can be provided, and which can be better provided by private, charitable, and even religious agencies.

To begin this process, the first question I would ask is: Would we have sufficient personnel to staff such agencies? This is where Cooper and Edwards' article suggests some ideas. First, though, I have to take issue with the authors' reference to Georgia's "teacher shortage." There is no general teacher shortage in Georgia; what we have is a shortage of qualified people who are willing to teach in Georgia's schools. 1 The body count of people leaving "the calling" is appalling. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fully prepared, certified teachers out there. Our problem is far more one of teacher retention than of teacher recruitment. Why do we have such an ex-teacher glut, 6 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall 2002 Teacher Education

Introduction and Commentary

when all the evidence, including Cooper and Edwards', indicates that these folks are overwhelmingly idealistic, enthusiastic, prepared for a task in which there is comparatively little backstabbing, in which they don't have to worry about making a sale every day just to feed their own kids, and in which there are more acts of kindness per square minute than any other job in the world? That's easy: Just ask any former teacher. Three tougher sets of questions follow, however.

First, for all of Cooper's and Edwards' fine information about these potential teachers' splendid attributes, we must ask" ( 1) How well do the candidates' perceived strengths match up with their real strengths? (2) lsn 't it a little disconcerting that so many consider teaching a "calling," yet appear to be "place bound"? It is not much of a calling if nobody actually has to go anywhere. Granted, the subjects in this study were nontraditional students, presumably with family obligations, but still, doesn't this suggest that teaching is really more of a suggestion to many of them than a calling? Lest this question be considered too brutal, aren't they going to have to ask themselves that question, sooner or later? All things considered, I'd rather we asked it of them, before they enter classrooms. And finally, what academic and intellectual demands should be made on future teachers.

Secondly, we should ask ourselves as teacher educators if we are willing and able to provide the education-<>ver and above the training-that these people will require if they are to solve the problems in the schools explored in this issue? If not, and alternative employment venues are indeed appropriate, are we willing to honestly tell them (and ourselves!) that there are many ways to teach, and that school-teaching is only one of them?

Thirdly, we may usefully ask ourselves as people of good will whether we are willing to provide political and economic solutions to political and economic problems and join in charitable, humanitarian, and spiritual solutions to problems of neglect, GATEways to Teacher Education 7

Carpenter

abuse, and despair? If so, then maybe public schools can get back to their original function and address problems of knowledge and its intelligent use .. That ought to be challenge enough.

Biographical Sketch Wade Carpenter is Associate Professor of Education and Department Chair in the Berry College Charter School of Education and Human Sciences. He received a Ph.D. from Georgia State University, an M.Ed. From Winthrop College, and his B.A. from Wofford College.

This is not to deny the existence of "spot shortages" in particular fields in particular places, however. t.

8 GArEways Volume XV (1) FaU 2002 Teacher Education

"I Want To Be A Teacher" Examining Preservice Teachers' Reasons for Entering the Teaching Profession

Larry Cooper, Ed.D. Mary Edwards, Ph.D. Abstract In light of the teacher shortage that exists in Georgia, the authors report on an informal study conducted to determine reasons potential teachers in the North Georgia area have entered the teaching profession. The entering preservice teachers are nontraditional students completing their final two years before entering the teaching profession. Several had experiences as paraprofessionals, school volunteers, or coaches working with children. The study was initiated to determine if the sample population replicated recent studies as to why individuals enter the teaching profession. The preservice teachers were asked to .respond to the statement: ~~Why I chose to be a teacher. " Two guiding questions were provided requesting preservice teachers to self-assess and reflect on the strengths they bring to the profession: ~~What do you, personally, bring to this program? What strengths do you have that will enhance your role as a prospective teacher"? Results of the study indicate preservice teachers' GATEways to Teacher Education 9

Cooper & Edwards

reasons for becoming a teacher are "their love for children " and the "opportunity to help students." For many, becoming a teacher was perceived as a rewarding career and most viewed teaching as a childhood ambition. Moreover, preservice teachers believe that a caring and positive attitude and good organizational skills are necessary for a successful teaching career. Others felt their past experiences in working with children to be a valuable asset in their future role ofa teacher.

"I want to be a teacher!" Why, we wonder? What is there about teaching that makes it attractive? When potential teachers read the newspapers, they surely must realize they will be under "attack" by the press, parents, politicians, and even students. When they read that teachers are underpaid and lack prestige, and that discipline and student apathy (Myers & Neely, 1990) are major concerns, they surely realize that teaching is not an easy job. Yet, they are still drawn to the profession. Today, practicing teachers will tell you they are "stressed" to the "max" because of the heavy emphasis placed on them to raise student achievement. In addition, teachers will say they are being asked to add new programs to an already full curriculum while continually feeling pressured to prepare students for high-stakes tests.

Moreover, teachers are assuming additional roles and responsibilities of counselor, surrogate mother/father, and social worker.

Added requirements to attend a plethora of meetings, fill out an overwhelming amount of paperwork and be available to parents, frequently on a moment's notice, only add to their duties. Despite these shortcomings, those aspiring to teach are still willing to undertake the challenges facing teachers in today's society. What, then, can be said about aspiring teachers' reasons for entering the teaching profession and what particular skills do they perceive they bring to the profession?

10 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

I Want to be a Teacher

Introduction Various research studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify reasons potential teachers enter the profession.

Past research has indicated that potential teachers' reasons for entering the profession do not differ dramatically over the years.

While various reasons are given, most state the compelling reason to becoming a teacher is the "opportunity to work with children" and "to impart knowledge" (Fox, 1961; Joseph & Green, 1986; Zimpher, 1989; Myers & Neely, 1990; Weiner, Swearingen, Pagano & Obi, 1993; King, 1993; Serow, 1994). Further studies {Book and Freeman, 1986; Zimpher, 1989; Myers & Neely, 1990) found that potential teachers enter the profession to help students gain a sense of personal achievement and self-esteem. After conducting a study of 1350 teachers, Goodlad (1984) in his publication, A Place Called School, concluded "The largest majority of our sample, on all levels, tended to be idealistic and altruistic in their view of why they chose to teach" (p. 173). Other studies (Myers & Neely, 1990; Weiner et al., 1993; Serow, 1994; Snyder, Doerr & Pastor, 1995) added to the literature in fmding that potential teachers enter the profession because they believed teaching was a challenging profession and they felt they could bring about a change in society. While potential teachers noted they were "influenced by former teachers" (Serow, 1994), most believe that teaching is a calling. The desire to "help others" and their "love for children" further supports the altruistic motives of most for becoming teachers.

It further appears that the teaching profession is attractive to many nontraditional students who have had previous experiences working with children. Many have been paraprofessionals in classrooms, have children of their own, have substituted as teachers, or been involved in preschool day care. Snyder, Doerr & Pastor ( 1995) stated that nontraditional students typically have GATEways to Teacher Education 11

Cooper & Edwards

had previous work experiences and frequently have had opportunities to work with children providing a knowledge base and similar school experiences that reinforce their perception of what teaching is about.

In a more recent study, Bastick (1999) reviewed several research studies to ascertain why potential students enter the teaching profession. He noted that many felt the need to make a difference in students' lives and society in general. Moreover, the potential students also had viewed teachers as role models for students, while others had the desire to express their creative abilities in the classroom. Several wanted the opportunity to create a positive learning environment in which to share personal knowledge and expertise. Clearly, the reasons support the altruistic nature of those seeking to become classroom teachers.

Conversely, few potential teachers indicated that low salaries, work schedules or job benefits seemed to affect their decision to enter the profession (Snyder et al., 1995). It, then, can be assumed that most enter the teaching profession not for monetary rewards or because of flexible working arrangements, but to make a difference in the lives of children.

Scope of Study Background Information In 1986, the State University of West Georgia initiated the Dalton External Degree Program to provide a means of training early childhood teachers in the North Georgia area. Preservice teachers enter the Professional Education Program to complete their final tw<? years and receive a Bachelor of Science (with ESOL endorsement) or certification in Early Childhood. Preservice teachers participate in extensive field experiences in local schools, which reflect the Dalton and surrounding communities' 12 GATEways Volume XV (1) FalllOOl Teacher Education

I Want to be 11 Teacher

ethnic and cultural diversity. The schools are considered rural and have a high percentage of non-English proficient children.

The entering preservice teachers are "nontraditional, students, with most over the age of25, married with children, or a single parent. Many teacher candidates range in age from 35 to 55. Females comprise the largest percentage of enrollment. The preservice teachers are considered "place bound" and not likely to move or travel a great distance to pursue a teaching position. After completion of the program, preservice teachers find positions 路 in the community or area schools where they reside. Although several have been paraprofessionals in schools or have experiences as substitute teachers or day care workers, almost all previously have been employed in nonprofessional fields.

Scope of Study In the fall of2001, 38 preservice teachers entered the External Degree Program, located on the campus of Dalton State College. As a part of the orientation session, an essay component was introduced to gauge the writing skills of the 3 8 potential teachers. Preservice teachers were asked to respond to a statement: "Why I Chose to Become a Teacher. " Two guiding questions: "What do you, personally, bring to this program?, "What strengths do you have that will enhance your role as a prospective teacher?" were provided as a framework for self-reflection and self-assessment.

The statement, "Why I Chose To Become a Teacher," was chosen to elicit their reasons for entering the teaching profession and to determine if their reasons replicated former research studies. The assignment was given in the early morning orientation sessiorr and was to be returned at the end of the day. Preservice teachers were told the instructors in the program would read their responses. After responses were read, it became apparent that the GATEways to Teacher Education 13

Cooper & Edwards

essays provided a rich source of data related to reasons this population chose teaching as a career. The essay responses also provided personalized information as to individual student's self assessment and perception of their personal strengths.

Results of Study Essays were assigned a number between 1-38. Responses were recorded and grouped into two categories: ( 1) reasons for choosing teaching; and, (2) perceived strengths of the preservice teachers. After the data were categ9rized, the top five responses in each area were identified by frequency of response.

"Why I Chose To Become a Teacher:" This statement elicited a variety of responses that proved to be reflective of recent research. The authors were able to group the responses into 10 major categories: ( 1) love for children; (2) influenced by significant others; (3) viewed as a rewarding career; (4) opportunity to help students; (5) a childhood ambition; (6) lifelong aspiration; (7) likes to work in schools; (8) love of learning; (9) share knowledge; and (10) wants to make a difference.

Love For Children: One-half of preservice teachers (49%) consider their "love for children" an important reason for choosing teaching as a career. Many felt the "love for children', was a trait they had possessed since very early childhood. They cited volunteering to assist teachers, coaching, and teaching Sunday School as attempts to fulfill this need. Respondents noted: I love to work with children and nothing in this world can compare to the feeling that I will have to know that I have made a difference in someone' s life.

14 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

I Want to be a Teacher

I chose to become a teacher because of my love for children. It is something I've wanted to do since I was four.

I chose to become a teacher because I have always had a desire to teach. It is my feeling that I will be a good teacher because of my love of children. It is why I quit my career to return to school.

Influence of Significant Others: The second most fre- 路 quent response indicated that 15 percent (15%) of respondents gave credit to significant others who influenced them to become teachers. Several respondents stated: "I believe I bring compassion and understanding to the profession. When I was a child, those were the two qualities my favorite teachers had." Others remarked: "I have family members in the profession, and I really know what is expected from me as a teacher.'' And, a profound response from one preservice teacher seems to reflect the group's sentiments: I still see many teachers who have influenced my life.

The guidance and leadership they gave helped make me the person I am today. When choosing teaching as my career, I thought about all of those special teachers. My goal is to positively influence a child's life like my teachers did for me.

A high percentage of the students revealed in their essays that they had an educational association with a family member, school, or daycare institution prior to their entering the Dalton Program. These associations included substitute teaching, being a paraprofessional, PTA volunteer, or day care worker. Parents, former teachers, colleagues, and friends were most often cited as GATEways to Teacher Education 15

Cooper & Edwards

individuals who encouraged preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession.

Rewarding Career and Love of Learning: Seeing teaching as a rewarding career with the ability to instill a love of learning along with the desire to help students was important to 13% of respondents. The third frequency respondents noted: "The reason I chose to become a teacher is that I know (emphasis added) it is a rewarding career." "I truly believe teaching to be my passion and I can be a great influence on children." "I view the teaching profession as being exciting, challenging, and rewarding.,, Clearly, preservice teachers' responses support the Report from Public Agenda, A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why, (2000), which noted that 68% of new teachers stated " ... They get a lot of satisfaction out of teaching." The Dalton preservice teachers view teaching as a career choice made after much reflection and deliberation. Issues related to financial gain, time off in summer, or other aspects frequently related to the perceived role of teachers were not mentioned in any of the essays.

Other Responses: Other most frequently cited reasons were grouped as a third frequency response. "Teaching as a childhood ambition," "wanting to help others," and "teaching as a rewarding career" additionally were important factors cited by many (13%) in their choice to become a teacher. Many respondents stated they simply "want to work with young children to see them learn and grow." One preservice teacher stated: "This is something I've wanted to do all my life. Even as a child I played school." Others elaborated in their essays describing their favorite pastime as a child involved playing school with younger siblings, family members, or their dolls.

16 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

-

I Want to be a Teacher

The Dalton preservice teachers see teaching as a rewarding experience. They articulated their excitement and commitment as follows: "I view the teaching profession as being exciting, challenging and rewarding." Another, "I feel I can provide the leadership and guidance that young children need." Their written responses support and reflect current research findings as to why potential teachers choose to become teachers. As a group they appeared to be ~otivated by a sense of altruism.

Guiding Questions: "What do you, personally, bring to this professional program"? "What strengths do you have that will enhance your role as a prospective teacher"? Self-

assessment is difficult, yet it provided a method for the preservice teachers to identify personal strengths they felt would enhance their role as ~ teacher. The essay responses elicited many positive attributes of entering preservice teachers. 路 Responses indicated they viewed their strengths as "what they would bring to the profession.,' Many viewed the two guiding questions as one question, and responded accordingly. Several respondents specifically addressed the question: "What do you, personally, bring to this professional program?"

Again, frequency of responses was utilized to identify the top five responses. All responses were grouped into 20 categories or descriptors: (1) perceived ability to teach; (2) patience; (3) persistence to succeed; (4) enthusiasm; (5) a positive attitude; . (6) caring; (7) sympathetic; (8) organization skills; (9) kindness; (10) relates to kids; (11) concern; (12) compassion; (13) leadership ability; (14) love of learning; (15) previous experiences; (16) 路reliability; ( 17) trustworthy; ( 18) desire to be effective; ( 19) love; and (20) understanding.

As previously indicated, preservice teachers in the Dalton External Degree Program are considered "nontraditional students." They tend to be older, many are parents, and all had preGATEways to Teacher Education 17

Cooper & Edwards

vious work experiences. Therefore, the qualities they bring to the program may be described as "mature qualities." In their essays they frequently cite examples using their children or work experiences as paraprofessionals, PTA volunteers, or day care workers to exemplify.the character trait they bring to the program. A large number of preservice teachers are female, who are balancing family demands on the one hand and college demands on the other.

The responses indicate this population is cognizant of the role of teachers in today's classroom. "Demonstrating patience" and "a caring attitude toward children" were qualities preservice teachers see as positive attributes. Both attributes received a high rating (34o/o). One respondent stated: "As a prospective teacher, my patience and perseverance in seeing success will enhance my role as a teacher." Another stated: "I bring patience, caring and understanding. I feel that patience plays an important role in the classroom. There are students who take longer to learn and students who learn differently. I need to be patient with them."

Organizational skills and a positive attitude also are attributes that are highly valued by these respondents. "I bring a positive attitude and a strong desire to succeed," stated one respondent. Another response: "I have a positive attitude and believe that nothing is impossible.'' It is apparent from the survey results that preservice teachers (27%) believe strongly that a positive attitude and good organizational skills are necessary to becoming a successful teacher.

Preservice teachers who have had experiences working with children view the experiences as a "plus." "My years of working as a paraprofessional will be a powerful asset for me," stated one respondent. Preservice teachers who are parents see that role as a prerequisite for being able to work with parents of their students. "One of my greatest strengths that will enhance my role as a teacher has been my role as a parent. I believe my experience with my own children {ages 14 and 17) will be an as18 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fa112002 Teacher Education

I Want to be a Teacher

set in working with parents,, stated one mother. This statement reflects the value of past experiences and the importance of the mature qualities the Dalton preservice teachers state as important to a successful teaching career.

Implications of Study It is conceded that this study is limited in scope due to the small sample of students enrolled in the Dalton Program. Therefore, no attempt is made to generalize the study's findings to co}.. leges or universities in other geographic locations. However, in spite of the study's limitations, it is possible to glean several implications that are applicable to the North Georgia service area..

These are especially important in light of the statewide teacher shortage. The implications are as follows: 路 1.

Preservice teachers' reasons for choosing teaching as a career have remained remarkably constant since the mid 1980's.

The enjoyment or love of children continues to be the reason most often cited for wanting to teach. The influence of signifi路 cant others, typically an educator, also has remained a strong factor in their career choice.

2. Potential teachers can be identified early. Greater efforts should be undertaken to identify high school students who may be attracted to teaching as a career. Teacher preparation institutions should develop closer partnerships with middle grades and high school teacher cadet programs, guidance counselors, and high school teachers to recruit high school students who have the desire to teach.

3. Childcare workers, PTA volunteers, and classroom paraprofessionals are good sources for recruitment of future teachers.

However, this population frequently is neglected. OpportuniGATEways to Teacher Education 19

Cooper & Edwards

ties to become teachers should be provided to these workers, who obviously, "love children." School districts should consider providing an altered work schedule or release time for interested personnel. Districts have a chance to "grow their own teachers.'~ 4. The study suggests that former teachers are significant influences in the decision of preservice teachers to enter the profession. It may be that children of teachers are overlooked as potential teachers. Recruiting and providing scholarships to these children might be considered.

5. Although teaching is not seen as a highly paid career, financial considerations do not appear to be a major consideration in selecting teaching as a career. However, the preservice teachers in this study view teaching as an opportunity to improve their income considerably from previously held positions.

Future Studies No attempt was made to disaggregate the data in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity. Further analysis of this and future studies could provide valuable information regarding whether nontraditional preservice teachers differ greatly in their reasons for entering the profession. Since, as noted, the preservice teachers are place bound and remain in the area for teaching positions, further studies tracking the length of time they remain in the profession and their reasons for doing so will provide beneficial information.

20 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall 2002 Teacher Education

I Wqnt to be a Teacher

Conclusions

We as teachers are educating children for the future, and a child's education is my top concern. I hope to shape and mold the minds ofmy students so their education can be fun and yet something for which they are willing to work to get.

This statement reflects the views of a large portion of preservice teachers in the Dalton program. The findings in this limited study appear to be consistent with studies conducted during the past twenty years. Teachers enter the profession not for monetary reward but out of a sense of altruism. They often look beyond themselves and wish to make a difference in the lives of children. The top responses of "love for children," "desire to help students," and "viewed as a rewarding career" suggest those entering the profession tend to be intrinsically motivated and feel a sense of commitment to children.

The strengths they bring to teaching are those of patience, caring and positive attitudes, past experiences, and organization skills. They believe these qualities will enhance their likelihood of success as they progress through their final two years. Although the Dalton preservice teachers are constantly reminded of the demands of the profession, their essays reveal only the positive aspects of why they have chosen to become teachers.

References Bastick, T. ( 1999). A three factor model to resolve the controversies ofwhy trainees are motivated to choose the teaching profession. Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Cross Campus

GATEways to Teacher Education 21

Cooper & Edwards

Conference in Education. University of the West Indies: Controversies in Education, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Book, C., & Freeman, D. (1986). Differences in Entry Characteristics of Elementary and Secondary Candidates. Journal ofTeacher Education, 37(29), 47-51.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J. & Foleno, T. (2000). A sense of calling. Who teaches and why. A Report from Public Agenda.

Public Agenda. New York, NY: Eric Document 443 815.

Fox, R. B. (1961). Factors influencing the career choice of prospective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 7(4), 427432.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw Hill.

Joseph, P., & Green, N. (1986). Perspectives on reasons for becoming teachers. Journal ofTeacher Education, 37(6), 2833.

King, S. H. ( 1993 ). Why did we choose teaching careers and what will enable us to stay?: Insights from one cohort of the African American teaching pool. Journal ofNegro Education, 62 (4), 475-491.

Myers, C. B. & Neely, A.M. (1990). Professional knowledge and perceptions of beginning teacher education students: Institutional and group comparisons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Boston, MA. Serow, R. ( 1994). Called to teach: A study of highly motivated preservice teachers. The Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, 27(2), 65-71.

Serow, R. (1993). Why teach? Altruism and career choice among nontraditional recruits to teaching. Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, 26(4), 197-204.

22 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

I Wa11t to be a Teacher

Snyder, J. F., Doerr, A. S., & Pastor, M.A. (1995). Perceptions ofpreservice teachers: The job market, why teaching, and alternatives to teaching. Technical Report 143. ED 390 865.

Weiner, L., Swearingen, J., Pagano, A. & Obi, R. (1993).

Choosing teaching as a career; Comparing motivations ofHarvard and urban college students. Paper presented to the Eastern Educational Research Association, Clearwater, FL. Zimpher, N. (1989). The RATE project: A profile of teacher education students. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6), 27-30.

Biographical Sketch Larry Cooper is Assistant Professor in the Dalton External Degree Program, State University of West Georgia, located in Dalton, Georgia. He received an EdD. from George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University and a Master's from Georgia State University. His background includes over 30 years in public schools as a classroom teacher, middle grades and elementary principal, and personnel administrator. His research interests include middle grades issues and elementary programs.

Mary Edwards is Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Dalton External Degree Program, State University of West Georgia, located in Dalton, Georgia. She received her Ph.D. and Master's degrees from Texas A&M University in Curriculum & Instruction. Her background includes 12 years in public schools as a classroom teacher, building principal, and K-12 curriculum director. Her research interests include program implementation and , teacher empowerment issues.

GATEways to Teacher Education 23

Relationships Between Poverty, Race, and the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test Results From Rural Declining Georgia Donald R. Livingston LaGrange College Abstract The State ofGeorgia has passed into law a bill which mandates that students in grades 3, 5, and 8 must pass a standardized examination, named the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT), to move up to the next grade. Because there is compelling evidence that socioeconomic factors play a significant role in standardized testing, this study ofschool systems in the 39 counties categorized as "declining rural counties " in Georgia was undertaken to determine the relationships between poverty, race, and CRCT scores. The research methodology compares multiple economic and cultural measures with CRCT statistics from each district and compares this data to the rest of the state. This study suggests that the correspondence between socioeconomic status, race, and the grade level retention that will result from failing the CRCT will perpetuate socioeconomic class stratification in declining rural counties in Georgia.

GATEways to Teacher Education 25

Livingston

On March 21, 2001, the Georgia legislature passed into law a bill which mandates that students in grades 3, 5, and 8 must pass a standardized examination, named the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT), to move to the next grade, beginning with third graders in 2004. (State Board of Education [SBOE], 2001) (Barnes, 2001 ).

As a way to illuminate just how pernicious a law such as this will be to the poorest among us, a study of school systems in the 39 counties categorized as "declining rural counties" in Georgia, commonly referred to as the "black belt," so named because of the large number of African Americans who reside in them was conducted.

The methodology compared county-by-county demographic data compiled by the University of Georgia Department of Housing and Consumer Economics (University of Georgia Department of Housing and Consumer Economics, 2002) with the State of Georgia's Office of Education Accountability's (State of Georgia's Office ofEducation Accountability, 2002) statistics for each district. Because there is compelling evidence that family background is the primary determinate for school achievement (Sheppard & Smith, 1989; Elmore, Abelman, & Furhman, 1996; Clotfelter & Ladd, 1996), the study includes an analysis of eight socioeconomic categories: 1) percentage of population that is African American, 2) per capita income, 3) children in poverty, 4) African Americans in poverty, 5) female-headed families in poverty, 6) unwed births, 7) percentage of population without a high school diploma, and 8) percentage of African Americans without a high school diploma. Given that family background is such an important predictor of success, it is critical to supplement the school lunch index, the common statistic used to determine poverty in schools; with multiple economic and cultural measures.

When first embarking on this study, two objectives were identified: 1) compare the data gathered from these 39 rural de26 GATEways Volume XV (1) Falll002 Teacher Education

-

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

eliDing counties with statewide data; and 2) present descriptive statistics that illuminate the relationship between CRCT scores and multiple socioeconomic data. But, after looking closer at the numbers, it was discovered that in many of these counties, the school district data did not match the countywide data. After comparing the counties' population demographics with school systems' data, it became apparent that many of these school systems have a discemable racial imbalance. Because this discovery suggests that race will be a factor in the decision to fail a child in Georgia, this research was expanded to include a discussion about the future of the rural African American community once the CRTC is implemented.

These 39 counties form a constellation of poverty that slashes through the southern region of the State of Georgia. Forming contiguous pockets of counties in nual decline, the constellation extends in a chain from the far southwest comer to the eastem part of the state. As a way to boost the clarity of the research, the data are presented through a geographic journey whose starting point begins in the most concentrated area of poverty in Southwest Georgia. Traveling across the state, those counties that make up the belt buckle, a band that traverses along the midsection of the state from west to east will be discussed, followed by a discussion of those counties located in the east.

Southwest Rural Declining Counties: Baker, Calhoun, Clay, Early, Miller, Mitchell, Quitman, Randolph, Seminole, Stewart, Terrell, and Webster These 12 counties are found huddled along the Alabama and Florida border in the farthest southwest comer of the State of Georgia framed by the Chattahoochee River to the west, Albany, Georgia, as the closest city to the east and Columbus, Georgia, to GATEways to Teacher Education 27

Livingston

the north. There are no major roads cutting through this area nor are there towns of any substantial population. While there may never be an occasion for travelers to visit, these 12 counties are home to 92,400 Georgians, of which, 14,080 are children in public school system. 路

Table 1.

Southwest Rural Declining Counties' SES Data Compared to Georgia State SES Data

Range in Southwest Rural Declining County Data

State Data

47.0% to 61.5o/o

28.0%

1999 Per Capita Income

$16,153 to $22,270

$27,324

1997 Children in Poverty

27.2% to 47.4o/o

21.8%

1989 African American in Poverty

33.7% to 53.0%

30.3%

1989 Female Headed Families in Poverty

34.0% to 70.2%

34.3%

1999 Unwed Births

42.9% to 65.9%

36.6%

No High School Diploma

46.4% to 60.9%

29.1%

African American No High School Diploma

56.6% to 70.6%

41.4%

SES Attributes

Population African American

28 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall 2002 Teacher Education

• "'-~· .......

.. -'~:- ••• ~................ · - 4--~- ... , .._ ...... · · - - ······ .. ··-~· ~- ... - - - · ... · · - - · - · - · - · ............... -•40 •••

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

As Table 1 shows, these 12 counties have two to three times more African American citizens than the rest of the state, most of who live in poverty. Because school children here are likely to be impoverished, living in a household run by an unwed mother who dropped out of school, the prospect for academic success is bleak. With up to 70 percent of the African American population without a high school degree, academic role models are hard to come by.

If one should attend school here in the future, one would · have a one in three, at best a one in five, chance at passing from the third grade to the fourth grade. Once the CRCT is used to determine pass/fail, this probability is much worse than the rest of the state (Table 2).

Passing on to the sixth grade will be even more difficult; given that the odds are about 50/50 that one would pass the CRCT. While the scores statewide are improving on the sixth grade CRCT, scores for these rural counties are getting worse, ever widening the gap between rich and poor. If one is so fortunate to make it to the eighth grade in 2006, chances are better than even that the student will not go to high school the next year because the mathematics portion of the CRCT was failed. As for comparing these schools to the rest of the state, these schools are in a free falling spiral, dropping significantly behind an abysmal statewide percentage of failing students.

With the exception of one ofthe 12 counties, Webster County, the racial balance of the schools when compared to the general population is egregiously disproportional. Calhoun County's population is 60 percent African American, yet Calhoun County Schools have too few whites to report, meaning that 40 percent of the white children in Calhoun County attend private schools or are home-schooled. Sixty percent of the fourth graders, 44 percent of the sixth graders, and 60 percent of the eighth graders in Calhoun County failed at least one CRCT content-area test.

GATEways to Teacher Education 29

Livingston

Table 2. Percent Failing CRCT 4th Grade in Southwest Rural Declining Counties Content Areas

Reading

English/ MatheLanguage Arts matics

Southwest Counties

32%

31 o/o

SO%

Statewide

26%

26%

38%

+23%

+19%

+32%

Percent Change

Percent Failing CRCT 6th Grade in Southwest Rural Declining Counties Content Areas

Reading

English/ Language Arts

Mathematics

Southwest Counties

37%

47%

46%

Statewide

24%

36%

3lo/o

+54%

+31%

+48%

Percent Change

Percent Failing CRCT 8th Grade in Southwest Rural Declining Counties Content Areas

Reading

English/ Language Arts

Mathematics

Southwest Counties

30%

44%

56%

Statewide

18%

32%

41%

+67%

+38%

+37%

Percent Change

30 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall 2002 Teacher Education

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

Terrell County tells the same story, only worse. Terrell is also 60 percent African American with no significant white representation in the schools. Having the lowest per capita income of around $16,000, Terrell County Schools will face the fact that 62 percent of the fourth graders, 60 percent of the sixth graders, and 68 percent of the eighth graders will fail their respective grades.

Think again if one believes the situation cannot deteriorate any more. Welcome to Quitman County where less than one half, 46 percent, of the population is African American. Once again, however, no whites attend the one elementary public school there.

In Quitman County, teachers and principals will face the daunting responsibility for carrying out the failure sentence for 81 percent of the fourth grade class and 65 percent of the sixth grade class.

The same story unfolds in Randolph County, with 93 percent of their children on the free lunch program, teachers and principals there will be forced to fail 60 percent of the fourth, sixth, and eighth grade students. While Clay County CRCT scores are not as low as the others, this all-African American school system, with a per capita income of$17,000 and 65 percent of African Americans in the county without a high school degree, will fail 29 percent in the fourth grade, 55 percent in the sixth grade; and because 48 percent of the eighth grade did not meet the mathematics standards of the CRCT, they, too, will fail. The remaining schools in the counties, Baker, Early, Miller, Mitchell, Seminole, and Stewart, are also disproportionately African American when compared to the general population. Most of the schools in these counties are two-thirds African American with county data showing a range of one-third to one-half of the population as Afiican American.

GATEways to Teacher Education 31

Livingston

Table 3. Mid-State Rural Declining Counties SES Data Compared to State SES Attributes

Range in Mid-State Rural Declining County Data

State Data

Population African American

24.6% to 61.6o/o

28o/o

1999 Per Capita

$15,585 to $23,202

$27,324

26.7% to 38.9%

21.8%

34.7% to 57.8%

30.3%

37%to 64.7%

34.3o/o

1999 Unwed Births

37.7% to 62.7o/o

36.6%

No High School Diploma

39.4% to 5~.8%

29.1%

African American No High School Diploma

54% to 69.8%

41.4o/o

Income 1997 Children

in Poverty 1989 African

American in Poverty 1989 Female Headed

Families in Poverty

32 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

Mid-State Rural Declining Counties: Bleckley, Clinch, Cook, Dooly, Irwin, Lanier, Macon, Pulaski, Taylor, Telfair, Turner, Talbot, Ware, and Wilcox Next, the 14 counties that form a contiguous swath of land beginning in Talbot County, situated between Columbus and Macon, Georgia, southward along Interstate 75 to the Florida border, where Clinch and Ware Counties envelope the great Okeefenokee Swamp. These mid-state counties are home for 168,276 Georgians, 28,854 of whom are children in public schools.

Table 3 paints a picture of economic and social crisis with data that show per capita income well below the state average, resulting in significantly more children in poverty. As with the southwestern counties, school children in the mid-state counties are likely to be offspring of poor, unwed African American mothers without a high school diploma.

When these counties are examined, the relationship between race, poverty, and educational attainment becomes clearer. Dooly, Macon, and Talbot, counties with the largest African American populations, are the poorest; while Bleckley, Irwin, and Pulaski Counties, with fewer African Americans, are better off. These data suggest that this economic divide persists because of the lack of educational attainment among African Americans. When the category "African American No High School" is illuminated in Table 3, the data describe a population that has, for the most part, found it difficult to graduate from high school. Ten of these 14 counties have between 60 and 70 percent of the African American population without a high school degree; the remaining four counties have 50 to 60 percent without a diploma.

Widening the socioeconomic divide between whites and African Americans in the declining rural counties of Georgia will surely be exacerbated through the implementation of the CRCT GATEways to Teacher Education 33

Livingston

mandates. Through, retention in the third, fifth, and eighth grades, African American children will be systematically encouraged to drop out of school, resulting in the inability to command wages that might lift them out of poverty. Supporting the assumption that income is proportional to test scores, the data suggest that there is a relationship between CRCT test scores and the income earned by African Americans. When Mid-State African American CRCT scores are compared to statewide figures, the data show that poorer African Americans living in rural declining counties do worse than those African Americans who live in counties with higher in~ome levels. Further, there is evidence that African American students who live in places where more of the African American population has earned a high school diploma do better on the CRCT than counties with less educational attainment.

The poverty-to-failure equation is illustrated again in Table 4 when the aggregate Mid-State CRCT scores show much lower results than the statewide data. By advocating public schooling as a way to correct this disparity in socioeconomic status, many, including historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann, have made attempts to lift up those who have been condemned by a rigid class system by removing the barriers to education (Nieto, 1992). These values, grounded on the belief that strengthening democracy and freedom can be achieved through the opportunity of education attainment have, apparently, been lost on those who endorse the use of this highstakes testing instrument to determine promotion and grade-level retention.

34 GATEways Volume XV (1) Falll002 Teacher Education

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

Table 4. Mid-State Rural Declining Counties Percent Failing CRCT 4th Grade

路

Reading

English/Language Arts

Mathernatics

Mid-State Counties

36%

33o/o

45%

Statewide

26%

26%

38%

+36%

+27%

+18%

Content Area

Percent Change

Percent Failing CRCT 6th Grade Content Areas

Reading

English/ Language Arts

Mathematics .

Mid ..State Counties

33%

46%

34o/o

Statewide

24%

36%

31%

+37%

+28o/o

+10%

Percent Change

Percent Failing CRCT 8th Grade Content Areas

Reading

English/ Language Arts

Mathematics

Mid-State Counties

25%

39%

48%

Statewide

18%

32%

41%

+39o/o

+22%

+17%

Percent Change

GATEways to Teacher Education 35

Livingston

Table S. Eastern Georgia Rural Declining Counties SES Data Compared to State SES Attributes Population African American

Range in Eastern Rural Declining County Data

State Data

8.3% to 77.8%

28%

1999 Per Capita Income

$16,787 to $21,565

$27,324

1997 Children in Poverty

22.3% to 45.4%

21 .8%

1989 African American in Poverty

25.8% to 54.4%

30.3%

1989 Female Headed FamiUes in Poverty

29.4% to 64.2%

34.3%

1999 Unwed Births

29.4% to 80.6%

36.6%

No High School Diploma

38%to57.2%

29.1%

African American No High School Diploma

54% to 80.6%

41.4%

Eastern Georgia Rural Declining Counties: Emanuel, Glascock, Hancock, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Screven, Taliaferro, Tatnall, Treutlen, Warren, Wheeler, Wilkenson, and Wilkes The final leg of the journey across the southern portion of Georgia takes us to the Eastern Rural Declining Counties. These 14 counties stretch vertically southward from counties that lie northwest of Augusta to rural areas southwest of Savannah. While these counties have very similar socioeconomic data 36 GATEways Volume XV (1) Falll002 Teacher Education

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

Table 6. Eastern Rural Declining Counties Percent Failing CRCT 4th Grade Reading

English/Language Arts

Mathematics

Mid-State Counties

38%

38o/o

49%

Statewide

26%

26%

38o/o

+46%

+46%

+29%

Reading

English/ Language Arts

Mathematics

Eastern Counties

34%

47%

37%

Statewide

24%

36%

31%

+42%

+31%

+19%

Reading

English/ Language Arts

Mathematics

27%

46%

51%

32%

41%

+44o/o

+24o/o

Content Areas

Percent Change

Percent Failing CRCT 6th Grade Content Areas

Percent Change

Percent Failing CRCT 8th grade Content Areas Eastern Counties Statewide Percent Change

.

18% +50%

'

GATEways to Teacher Education 37

Livingston

commensurate with very low CRCT test scores (Tables 5 and 6), there are egregious data such as Screven County's 80 percent mathematics failure in the eightlt grade for African American students. This statistic indicates that eight out of ten African Americans will not go to high school once the CRCT becomes the arbiter for promotion. Take Hancock County's statistic that shows that 80 percent of the children born in 1999 in the county live in single-parent households. This statistic indicates that the kindergarten class in 2004 would have eight out of ten children living with a single parent. Yet, one salient anomaly stands out in support to the argument that the CRCT is an instrument of institutional racism intended to do economic violence against poor African American children.

When the counties in the eastern region are compared to the southeastern and mid-state counties, there is a distinctive outlier, Glascock County. Glascock County is a county with a small African American population of 8.3%, which is not consistent with the data from the other 38 counties. Located in the center of a chain of five rural declining counties, Glascock County stands out as the only rural declining county that has SES and CRCT data better than, or comparable to, the State averages. Because Glascock County's per capita income is in line with the other rural declining counties, the variable that confounds the repeated pattern of poverty and low CRCT scores is whiteness. Not only will the vast majority of Glascock County students be promoted, about one third of the CRCT test takers actually exceeded the standards, a statistic not seen in any of the other 38 county data.

When the data from the other four counties in the chair are compared, Glascock County's relatively low unwed birth rate appears to reduce the number of children in poverty, suggesting that the "children in poverty" and "unwed mothers" statistics may also be predictors for CRCT achievement.

38 GATEways Volume XV (l) Fall2002 Teacher Education

.

----·--·--:-----·--···-···--·--- ......,.

.

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

Glascock County's segregation from its neighbors leads to another assumption germane to this research, that the CRCT test creates a new kind of discrimination-one that hides behind the appearance of fair testing to mask persistent inequaliaties in the quality of education that rural African American children receive in Georgia (McNeil, 2002). Walter Haney, of Boston College's Center for the Study of Testing, warns that, "The consequences of standardized tests for black and Hispanic students are clearly criminal from an educational point of view. It remains to be seen whether they are criminal under th~ United States Constitution" (McNeil, 200, p. 231) Counting Out Going to High School

Overwhelmingly, African Americans in Rural Declining Counties are at much greater risk of failing the fourth, sixth, and eighth grade CRCT than African Americans who live in cities, suburbs, or rural growth counties. Yet, those most at risk are eighth graders who attend all- black schools in the Rural Declining Counties. Because they failed one or more of the content-area tests, chances are that most of the eighth graders in these ten counties will not go on to high school. Clearly, the worst performing category was mathematics with only 44 percent of students eligible to move to the ninth grade. If the law were effective today, Taliaferro County would send 4 students to high school leaving 13 behind; Talbot County would send only 11, holding back 44. Calhoun fails 33 of their 57 eighth graders; Clay County retains half of their 32 children. In the larger counties, Hancock retains 80 of 121 as Terrell County keeps 91 of their 133 eighth graders in middle school. Ten of the 39 Rural Declining Counties fall into the 'all- black' school system category with 6 of these, Calhoun, Quitman, Clay, Randolph, Stewart, and Terrell, being GATEways to Teacher Education 39

Livingston

Located in the southwest section of the State. The others, Taliaferro, Hancock, and Warren, surround all-white Glascock County in the east with Talbot County being the lone all-black school district in the Mid-State region.

Because each of these counties has its own school district, these schools are not considered illegally segregated. Drawing school district lines by county does not, superficially at least, appear to be gerrymandering given that each school district corresponds to an established county. Yet, segregation is, nonetheless, the result and the children in these schools suffer the same effects of a segregated education.

The Carnage to Come

Being the most impoverished counties in the state, these Rural Declining school systems faced fonnidable challenges before the legislation to end social promotion was passed. With an average of 25 percent of their populations under the age of 17, these counties are teaming with children who need enormous resources to overcome obstacles to academic success. What makes the "Declining Rural Counties'' of Georgia's plight unique is that the children who attend schools in these counties will be denied, in defacto, their property rights to a public education after they become encouraged to drop out of school through the practice of grade retention. From the data presented through this research, most of these counties already have very high drop-out rates.

What percentage will the drop-out rate reach when 35 to 50 percent of all fourth, sixth, and eighth graders will be r~tained in grade? The question that begs to be asked "is this legislation really intended to improve education or is it a fmancial strategy to reduce the State's financial obligation to the rural poor"? It is clear that failing masses of poor children will not improve 40 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall200l Teacher Education

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

pedagogy because punishing children with retention does not change teaching. What we do know is that the association between retention and dropping out is noted consistently throughout educational research. Without a doubt, failing these children increases the risk of their dropping out of school (Frymier, 1997).

Because these 39 counties are very poor, and the tax base available for public schools is small, the State of Georgia compensates for this revenue deficiency by making exceptionally large contributions to these counties. Thus, while not stated as policy, it cannot be ignored that the CRCT will most likely save the State a considerable amount of money by reducing the number of students in schools in these counties.

While I dispute claims that the CRCT is a valid instrument to determine if a child should be retained in grade, I do not dispute that the CRCT is a very reliable measure of economic resources (Kohn, 2001 ). As legislators extol the virtues of achieving academic excellence by using a 'fair' test, like the CRCT, to determine if a child passes or fails, the real agenda is class warfare intended to institutionalize intergenerational immobility and social stratification (Ohanian, 1999), a kind of violence that leaves behind the children with the least resources (Spring, 2000). Given the correspondence between the economic system and the complicit role that the institution of education plays in perpetuating the class stratification of society (Bowles & Gintis, 1976), this legislation guarantees that the social reproduction of the society in rural Georgia will be preserved. The mendacity of those who would have us believe that by getting tough on these kids by flunking them is for their own good is unconscionable given the dire social and economic punishments that will be imposed upon them as the result of using the CRCT to decide promotion or retention. This sort of accountability fetish is what Ohanian (1999) derides "as cynical as handing out menus to homeless people in the name of eradicating hunger" (p. 31 ).

GATEways to Teacher Education 41

Livingston ~eferences

Barnes, R. (2001). Governor Barnes' 2001 education reform initiative. Retrieved September 21,2001, from http:// www.ganet.org/governor/2001_ed_ remarks.html.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. Education reform and the contradictions ofeconomic life. NY: Basic Books.

Clotfelter, C. T., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). In Ladd, H. F. (Ed.) Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 23-64.

Ellmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Furhman, S. (1996).

The new accountability in state education reform: Policy, practice and performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.) Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education. Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institute, 65-98.

Frymier, J. (1997, February/March). Characteristics of students retained in grade. The High School Journal, 80, 184- 190.

Georgia Department of Education [Online]. Education Reform Initiative. Retrieved August 8, 2001, from http://www. doe.k12.ga.us/slalret/General-CRCT.html Georgia Department of Education (2001, August). Education). Official Code 20-2-283. Retrieved November 12,2001, from http://www.ganet.state.ga. us/services/ocode.htm.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions ofreform: The educational costs ofstandardized testing. New York: Routledge.

Nieto, S. (1992). Racism, discrimination, and expectations of students' achievement. Affirming Diversity. New York, NY: Longman.

Ohanian, S. ( 1999). One size fits few: The folly ofeducational standards. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

42 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

Poverty, Race, & Test Scores

Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. ( 1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. Philadelphia, P A: F almer Press.

Spring, J. (2000). American education, ninth edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

National Education Association (NEA) (2001, November). NEA today online._Retrieved November 12,2001, from http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0003/presview.html.

State of Georgia Office of Educational Assessment (200 1, December 27). Georgia's Report Card. Retrieved December 27, 2001, from http://www.ga-oea.org.

University of Georgia Department of Housing and Consumer Economics Georgia Facts. (2002), Retrieved January 5, 2002 from http:// www.ga-facts.net.

Biographical Sketch Donald Livingston holds the post of Assistant Professor in the Education Department at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. He completed his doctorate at Georgia Southern University in Curriculum Studies, a Master of Education in Elementary Education from West Chester University, and a Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education from Drexel University.

GATEways to Teacher Education 43

44 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall 2002 Teacher Education

Why are Standardized Tests Scores so Low in Georgia?

Factors Affecting Achievement Across States Matthew L. Singletary John L. Nietfeld Abstract This paper focuses on three primary factors that affect achievement across states. They include 1) discrepancies in family and social capital, 2) a differential focus upon improving instructional practices versus the high-stakes testing process, and 3) differences in motivational outcomes such as academic expectations, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy. These factors were considered using both quantitative and qualitative findings from a comparison oflow- and high-performing states along with other relevant research findings. Particular emphasis is paid to Georgia 's specific educational practices. Based upon the findings discussed, it is suggested that Georgia educators and policymakers refocus their attention to learning outcomes and not the high-stakes testing process. Students in Georgia can become nationally competitive only if instructional practices are improved.

This requires parallel changes in beliefs about education.

Achievement scores for students in southern states on the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) and American College Test (ACT) are among the lowest in the country. Specifically, South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina hold the three lowest averGATEways to Teacher Education 45

Singletary & Nietfeld

age scores on the SAT of states with a participation rate of 60 percent or more. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee hold the three lowest average scores on the ACT of states with a participation rate of 60 percent or more. These statistics suggest a regional trend of low achievement that is long-standing. The most recent attempt to alter this trend has been to tum to high-stakes testing as a remedy. But, informed educators know that these tests are not treatments for academic inadequacies, but merely more blatant reminders of poor performance (Barton, 2001 ). Three areas where the greatest discrepancies exist between high-performing and low-performing states are identified, and some suggestions for future research and policy considerations are presented. In so doing, particular emphasis is placed upon Georgia's educational programs and policies. The three areas of distinction described include 1) discrepancies in family and social capital; 2) a differential focus upon improving instructional practices versus the high-stakes testing process; and 3) a need to examine differences in motivational outcomes such as academic expectations, selfefficacy, achievement motivation, and goal orientations.

In order to identify patterns or contributing variables that affect academic achievement, a comparison across all 50 states on key educational and demographic variables was completed. Next, direct comparisons between states with high- and lowachievement scores on the SAT and ACT tests were made. Finally, a qualitative approach in the comparison between the highand low-performing states was used. Table 1 presents the correlations across all 50 states for eight key educational and demographic variables.

In order to gain a more direct contrast between the top and bottom performing states, the top and bottom three achieving states for both the SAT and the ACT were selected. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont were selected as having the highest SATs of states with a participation rate of 60 percent or 46 GAU:ways Volume XV (1) Fall 2002 Teacher Education

Factors Affecting Achievement

Table 1. Correlations Between SAT/ACT Performance, Demographics, and Educational Variables 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

.ss••

10

I. SAT'

.59**

.33

.16

.28

.25

-.61**

2. AcT'

.82**

.03

.31

.35

.52**

-.93- .60**

-.62**

-.12

.36**

.07

.20

-.64••

.24

-.68**

.31**

.08

.36*

.15

.20

.27

.63**

.68**

-.39 .. .33*

-.29*

.84**

-.41** .7 1**

.12

-.48** .59**

-.06

3. Grad. Ratioe

4. SIT Ratio 4 5. Experiencee

6. Salary 7. Per Pupi1 4 8. % Lunchesc 9. Income'

-.37

-.59** .51** .08

10. Minorit{

Note:

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Educational Testing Service (2002) b American College Testing (2000) c National Center for Educational Statistics (1999) d National Center for Educational Statistics (1998) e National Center for Educational Statistics (1994) c The American Federation of Teachers (1998) g The Census Bureau ( 1999) Correlations for SAT include only those states (N=23) with at least 50% participation rate.

Correlations for ACT include only those states (N=25) with at least 50%, participation rate. a

GATEways to Teacher Education 47

Table 2. Comparison of Top-Performing Versus Low..Performing States State

SAT

SAT ACT Prop. 2000

2000

ACT Grad. srr Teach. Teach.

Prop. Rate RatiG Exper. Salary

Per PupUS

Avg. % Luaebe.s Income

Minority %Ue

1

!

New Hampshire

1039

0.72

22.5

0.05

73

15

15 $36,663

$6,156

11

$44,891

4.1 !

Massachusetts

1024

0.78

22

0.06

75

14

18

$44,285

$7,778

21

$43,697

23.4!! ' i

路-= C>

~ (,1

=

~

... ~

Vermont

1021

0.7

22.2

0.1

80.3

13

15 $36,299

$1,015

27

$39,419

3.2 j

..cl

Wisconsin

1181

0.07

22.2

0.67

78.1

14

17 $38,179

$7,123

26

$43,055

18.6!

~

Iowa

1189

o.os

22

0.66

83.1

15

17 $34,084

$5,998

27

$38,047

Minnesota

l175

0.1

22

0.64

84.7

17

17 $39.104

$6,388

28

$46,802

16.1:

0.40 ll.lS

0.36 79.03 14.67

16.50 $38,102

$6.753

13.33 $42,651

11.431

North Carolina

988

0.61

19.5

0.12

59.8

16

14 $33,123

$5,257

39 $37,057

I

Georgia

974

0.63

20

0.16

50.4

16

13 $37,412

$5,647

43

$39,003

44.5

Soutb Carolina

966

0.61

19.3

0.18

51.8

15

14 $33,608

$5,320

46

$35,376

44.8

Tennessee

1116

0.13

20

0.77

55

15

15 $34,584

$4,937

42

$34,393

27

Louisiana

1120

0.08

19.6

0.76

55.1

16

14 $30,090

$5,188

57

$33,218

50.7

Mississippi

1111

0.04

18.7

0.82

56

16

14 $28,691

$4,288

63

$30,628

52.4

0.47 54.68 15.67

14.00 $31,918

$5,106

48.33 $34,945

41.93

u

ell

J

N

9.2 ! <:> 0 N

Average

.,

-~ 路-z ~

~

t-

~

-=

ll04.83

38.2:

Cot)

Ci.i

Average

1045.83

0.35 19.51

-

-

..

~

e

> ~ ~

a

.a ~

~

~ ~

CIO "垄'

..,......_ .

Factors Affecting Achievement

more. The low-achieving SAT states included North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota were selected as having the highest ACTs of states with a participation rate of 60 percent or more. The low-achieving ACT states included Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi. A summary of the educational and demographic variables is provided in Table 2 for these twelve states.

Discrepancies in Family and Social Capital Fundamental to understanding the factors affecting achievement is an understanding of the distinction between family and social capital and the contributions of both (Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawata, & Williamson, 2000). Family capital refers primarily to family income. It also embodies financial characteristics that are passed from parent to child that remain fairly stable and reflect the different quality and quantity of resources within different families. Family capital relates directly to the achievement outcomes of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary students due to the different allocation of resources toward education for each child within different families. Social capital refers to the long-term characteristics existing within communities, school districts, and states that ultimately affect achievement. Social capital influences achievement through peer relations, trust among families within communities, quality of communication, safety of neighborhoods, and the presence of community institutions that support educational achievement. Social capital is not under the control of educational institutions (Grissmer et al., 2000). Stark differences can be found between the high- and lowperforming states on both of these dimensions. For instance, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunches, an estimate of family capital, is more than double for the lowGATEways to Teacher Education 49

Singletary & Nietfeld

performing states (see Table 2). Differences in social capital are evident in the differences in per pupil funding (see Table 2).

One can see from Table 1 that percent eligible for free and reduced lunches and household income, both measures of family capital, are significantly related to both SAT and ACT performance. This coincides with a comprehensive study by the Rand Corporation (Grissmer et al., 2000) that reported family and demographic variables explain the largest part of total explained variance in test scores across populations of diverse groups of students. Georgia is a prime example of a state that lacks in many areas of family capital. The average family income within the state of Georgia is $39,003. The percentage of students eligible for reduced lunches is 43 percent, which is among the highest participation rates within the country. The high percentage of Georgia families who are eligible for reduced lunches demonstrates that the family capital of many Georgians is within the poverty level. A portion of family capital is defined as the quantity and quality of resources within the family that are allocated toward each child within the family for education (Grissmer et al., 2000). Given that almost half of Georgia families needs government assistance in order for their children to obtain a school lunch, this deficit likely transfers to a lack of educational resources at home. Resources within the home are important to academic achievement. Studies have shown that exposure to printed materials (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993) and other educational resources (Garrett, Ng'andu, & Ferron, 1994) play a significant role in the acquisition of knowledge structures.

The financial status of many Georgia families demonstrates that the presence of adequate educational resources within many Georgia homes is an illogical expectation. The participation rate for students in reduced lunch programs within the highperforming SAT states ofNew Hampshire (11%), Massachusetts (21%), and Vermont (27%) is considerably lower than that of stu50 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

Factors Affecting Achievement

dents within the state of Georgia (Barth, Brennan, Haycock, Mora, Ruiz, & Wilkins, 1998). Table 1 shows that a strong negative correlation exists between free and reduced lunch eligibility and SAT and ACT performance (-.61 and -.93). Therefore, a high percentage of students participating in the state free and reduced lunch program is correlated with low state SAT and ACT scores.

These statistics illustrate that the top-performing states have fewer families living in poverty which increases the chances that these families have the family capital to ensure that educational resources are provided within the home.

A Georgia report compiled in 1997 demonstrated that a high percentage of African American and white students are living in poverty within the state (Barth et al., 1998). African Americans comprise a disproportionate number of 5- to 24-yearolds living in poverty in Georgia. Almost two-thirds (64.9%) of the African American 5 to 24 population lives in poverty, while one-third (31.9o/o) of the white American 5 to 24 population lives iti poverty (Barth et al., 1998). Unfortunately, these statistics show that in many cases education takes a back seat to basic survival skills within Georgia homes. The survival philosophy of meeting deficiency needs has an effect on the educational expectations put on Georgia students by Georgia families (Maslow, 1970). Expectations such as increasing and supplementing family income by taking on jobs at a young age often outweigh the need to score well on standardized tests considering that many families do not have the resources to send their children to college. These expectations create a social capital mentality in the state of Georgia (and other similar states) that does not value education in the same manner as the top-performing states. The top-performing states are able to build educational expectations for their children at a young age because they have resources and live in communities that have the resources to promote it (Barth et al., 1998). The family capital and social capital of Georgia families play imporGATEways to Teacher Education 51

Singletary & Nietfeld

tant roles in the achievement levels of Georgia students. Without early exposure to educational resources, Georgia students face early disadvantages in meeting their educational potentials.

The poverty level within certain districts has a great effect on per .pupil investments that districts can provide. The average per pupil expenditure within the state of Georgia is $5,647. The gap between the high-spending (95th percentile) and low-spending (5th percentile) districts is $3,050 (Barth et al., 1998). These figures are alarming because they demonstrate that some children are not only coming to school with fewer resources to support their education, but that they have fewer resources available to them once they arrive at school. Many school districts within the state of Georgia find themselves in this position, and by default, end up perpetuating the social capital variable of low educational expectations within their districts or communities.

These statistics suggest that Georgia needs to reform educational spending by providing low-income districts with supplemental educational resources. Grissmer et al. (2000) report that the most efficient way for states to effectively raise achievement scores is to use educatjonal funds within districts or regions with higher proportions of minority and disadvantaged students to provide more adequate teaching resources. An alarming example of the seemingly inappropriate distribution of state funds comes from the state's prison budget. An average year in tuition at the University of Georgia is approximately $6,567, whereas the average cost for incarcerating one inmate for one year within the Georgia prison system is $17,440 (Barth et al., 1998). The state of Georgia needs to carefully consider how to use allocated funds wisely to deal with the existing challenges facing the state with regard to family and social capital. We believe that additional funding targeted for this type of support should be directly related to instruction rather than the high-stakes testing process.

52 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

Factors Affecting Achievement

Improving Instructional Practices Versus High-Stakes Testing The trend of high-stakes testing continues to grow and sweep the nation. The widespread use of tests to determine promotion or merit pay will not likely go away anytime soon (Popham, 2002). States spent $400 million last year on testing materials alone (Samuelson, 200 I). Even though most states have bought into this movement, there are wide individual differences among states in how achievement is measured and how instructional outcomes are being improved. Some of these differences include using multiple markers to measure achievement, spending proportionately more money on programs aimed directly at improving instruction, ensuring challenging curriculum, supporting instructional programs backed by research, and having teachers teach within their major areas of specialty.

The use of multiple markers for accountability involves the consideration of more than a single assessment to measure achievement gains. The high-performing states that were examined (see Table 2) clearly seem to have adopted this approach more readily than the low-performing states. Some examples of multiple markers include the use of portfolios, peer review, and the use of multiple standardized and teacher-developed tests. In addition, these states also appear to place a greater emphasis on programs that support improved classroom instruction such as the use of mentorship programs for teachers (Education Week, 2001 ).

In contrast, states that tend to rely only on single markers risk curricular reductionism, excessive test-focused drilling, and dishonest testing practices because of what is at stake (Popham, 2002).

Georgia uses a state-developed test, the CriterionReferenced Competency Test (CRCT) that is in alignment with the Georgia curriculum (Georgia Department of Education, 2002). The CRCT costs between $25 and $50 to administer to GATEways to Teacher Education 53

Singletary & Nietfeld

each Georgia student. Georgia also requires that students in grades 3, 5, and 8 take the nationally referenced Stanford 9 achievement test. This begs the question, "Why do students take both of these tests"? The CRCT is given to measure the effectiveness of the Georgia curriculum which is direc~ly related to state-based accountability (Georgia Department of Education, 2002). The Stanford 9 compares achievement of students on a national level, much like the SAT. One could argue that Georgia's high-stakes testing does double hann to Georgia students. The costs associated with administering these tests deplete funds that could otherwise be used for teacher preparation and student expenditures while taking away valuable instructional time from the classroom. Furthermore, this money could be used elsewhere for programs directly related to improving learning and instruction. As for the CRCT itself, it measures Georgia curriculum and is not nationally referenced. In states such as Texas that have been lauded for showing substantial gains on state-based criterion-referenced tests, no 'parallel gains on national norm-referenced tests such as the NAEP have been shown (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stecher, 2000). In fact, some of the reported gains have been attributed to increased drop-out rates, a decreased number of special education students taking the tests, and a high emphasis on teaching to the test (Haney, 2000; Klein et al., 2000). If 9eorgia intends on continuing to administer both tests, a greater emphasis should be placed on using the CRCT to provide specific feedback to students and teachers within the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. Instead of using the test scores as general benchmarks, they could be used more effectively for diagnostic purposes in assisting individual students in their areas of weakness. In fact, Massachusetts uses the Exemplary Schools Program, along with their state-based criterion-referenced test (the MCAS), to pair high-performing schools with other schools to replicate high levels of achievement (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2002). If the CRCT is not used for specific 54 GATEways Volume XV (1) FalllOOl Teacher Education

Factors Affecting Achievement

feedback purposes, it would be more appropriate to reallocate that money for programs and techniques that directly benefit instruction. Furthermore, the fact is that colleges consider only SAT scores for admission purposes.

Deviating from the high-stakes testing movement and incorporating new educational reform programs would be beneficial for Georgia if those programs are backed by research showing positive learning outcomes. Reform should be based upon research findings rather than intuition. At present, Georgia relies too heavily on intuition. At the district level, administrators are buying heavily into programs such as brain-based learning and multiple intelligences that have popular appeal but have come short of showing important academic gains (Bruer, 1999; Klein, 1997). At the state level, efforts have focused on lowering the teacher/student ratio and requiring character education. Georgia is one of ten states that mandate character education be incorporated into their schools. Of these ten states, none are the top performing states on the SAT and ACT (Character Education Partnership, 2002). The student/teacher ratio is a current point of emphasis in Georgia that may do more harm than good during a time of teacher shortage by lowering the quality of the average Georgia teacher. Certainly, no one would argue for higher student/ teacher ratios, but, once again, simply lowering this ratio does not directly improve learning. This result is evident given the correlation across the fifty states between student/teacher ratio and SAT and ACT scores (see Table 1). Variables such as teacher education level and teacher/student ratio that people assume to be directly related to achievement outcomes have not proven to be the case from empirical investigation (Grissmer et al., 2000). Initiatives that work to directly improve the quality of classroom teachers or the learning process itself are much more effective.

These might include mentorship programs for teachers (Education Week, 2002), an emphasis on the development of skill through GATEways to Teacher Education 55

Singletary & Nietfeld

deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993), conceptual reading programs based upon active learning and strategy use (Guthrie, Van Meter, Hancock, Alao, Anderson, & McCann, 1998), or programs to help students reflect on their strategy use and learning (Palinscar & Brown, 1984). In addition, it is critical that important motivational issues that affect learning be addressed.

Instead of turning to research and programs that support learning, Georgia is now focused on shaping curriculum to match the content of tests. This leads to reviews like that published in Phi Delta Kappa (Salzer, 2002) that reported Georgia was placing too heavy an emphasis on meeting behavioral objectives by speeding students through a curriculum. The conclusion drawn was that a shallow level of understanding resulted. It was recommended that the number of behavioral objectives be pared in order to provide more depth on important concepts. Also recommended were changes in the way Georgia classes are taught including more authentic learning activities such as labs, hands-on exercises, and small-group discussions.

One way to begin ensuring a more challenging curriculum is to ensure that teachers are teaching within their major areas of specialty. The NAEP investigated teacher preparation within the state of Georgia and found that teachers are lacking majors in the subject areas they teach in 21 percent of all classes within the state (Barth et al., 1998). The difference in low-poverty versus high-poverty schools is stark. In low-poverty districts, non-major teachers teach 15 percent of classes, whereas non-major teachers teach 33 percent of classes within high-poverty districts (Barth et al., 1998). It is difficult to ensure learning outcomes with teachers who do not have expertise in the areas they teach. Without this expertise there is a higher likelihood that teachers will fall back on "teaching towards ~ test" for which they will be held 56 GATEways Volume XV (1) Falll002 Teacher Education

Factors Affecting Achievement

accountable rather than effectively teaching their students how to learn.

In sum, it is critical that Georgia turn its highest priorities to improving the quality of instruction within its classrooms. A singular focus on standardized tests narrows the focus of learning and has great potential risks associated with it.

Placing an Emphasis on Motivational Outcomes Given the enormity of debate surrounding the issue of testing and accountability there has been relatively little discussion of interventions aimed at improving instruction. Completely absent from the debate has been the discussion of important motivational variables such as academic expectations, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy. Not only are Southern states such as Georgia at a disadvantage with regard to family and social capital, but students in this region may also differ with respect to these variables that facilitate academic perfonnance. It can be argued that a combination of a history of poor academic performance and disadvantages in family and social capital such as low income and access to educational resources has led to a prevalent "mentality" that is counterproductive with regard to positive educational outcomes.

Wigfield and Eccles (2000) have shown that achievement behavior is most directly influenced by the task value and expectancy on the part of the learner. Having high expectations of students is important from the perspective of communities and cultures, family, peers, and teachers. The pervasive mentality of any one of these groups can affect students at the individual level.

Moreover, students from low SES backgrounds tend to show lower academic motivation and are at a greater risk of school failure or dropout (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994; Meece, 1997). SelfGATEways to Teacher Education 57

Singletary & Nietfeld

efficacy has been shown to be an important individual difference variable with regard to student outcomes like persistence, confidence, the tendency to take on challenging tasks, and overall performance (Pajares, 1996). It is generally considered to be one's confidence to perform a task with a particular domain (e.g., biology, algebra, etc.). Self-efficacy in any given area is directly related to past performance and the .encouragement or modeling that comes from others directly involved with student learning.

An important area of research should be to determine if, in fact, students from low-performing states tend to have lower levels of academic expectatio~s, achievement motivation, or self-efficacy than students from high-performing states. These variables can be measured via self-report instruments that have undergone validation studies. On a positive note, changes in the environment can and often do make a significant difference in these affective variables.

Take, for instance, the case of Jaime Escalante who maintained high expectations for the students who came to his classroom from low SES homes and an environment that only promoted failure.

His ability to raise their confidence levels and academic achievement in the form of passing the California AP calculus exam is well documented on film and in literature (Mathews, 1988). If regional differences are found in these motivational variables, changes in the instructional environment can be made to curb these differences although this would be a challenging process given the enormity of the scale.

Although well-documented at the individual level, the study of how motivational variables account for differences in achievement levels by students on a regional level or from a larger cultural context is obviously more tenuous and unexplored. Moreover, this is not an arena in which policymakers are well informed in terms of implementing programs for change. But, given the direct link between these variables and le81!ling, it should become an area that 58 GATEways Volume XV (1) FalllOOl Teacher Education

Factors Affecting Achievement

draws more attention and funding in order to impact classroom and educational practices.

Summary The combination of a number of factors has influenced Georgia's poor academic perfonnance relative to national standards. A review of three primary areas of discrepancy and need has been presented. At present, the singular focus on high-stakes testing has perpetuated poor instruction in Georgia and has caused educators to lose sight of the most important outcomes for our students. Teachers are now forced "to teach to the test" rather than teach the skills that make students better learners. It should be reiterated that the test is not the treatment (Barton, 2001 ). If students are taught essential information within subject areas using engaging teaching methods and are taught how to become self-regulated learners in the process, then higher test scores will be an outcome of this process. Unfortunately, educators and policymakers in Georgia, at the present time, hope that high-stakes testing will somehow drive learning outcomes. Positive change can begin in the near future with a clearer focus on family and social capital discrepancies and a focus on learning rather than testing. It will take sustained efforts over time to make changes in motivational beliefs and develop a mindset of high expectations for learning.

References Barth, P!, Brennan, J., Haycock, K., Mora, K., Ruiz P., & Wilkins, A. (Ed.) (1998). Education watch 1998: The education trust state and national data book (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Education Trust.

GATEways to Teacher Education 59

Singletary & Nietfeld

Barton, P. E. (2001). Facing the hard facts in education reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A life-span perspective on underachievement. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 45-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bruer, J. T. (1999). In search ofbrain-based education.

Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 649-657.

Character Education Partnership (2002). What is character education? Retrieved Apri130, 2002, from http://www. character.org 路 Education Week (2001). Iowa state information. Retrieved Apri130, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/ qc02/templates/state.cfm?slug=l7ia.hll Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 102,211-245.

Garrett, P., Ng'andu, N., & Ferron, J. (1994). Poverty experiences of young children and the quality of their home environments. Child Development, 65,331-345.

Georgia Department of Education (2002). Criterionreferenced competency test (CRCT). Retrieved Aprll 30, 2002, from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/sla/ret/crct_faq.html Grissmer, D. W., Flanagan, A., Kawata J., & Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publications.

Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90(2), 261-278.

Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41).

60 GATEways Volume XV (1) Falll002 Teacher Education

~- 路

Factors Affecting Achievement

Klein, P. D., (1997). Multiplying the problem of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner's theory. Canadian Journal ofEducation, 22(4), 377-394.

Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Rand Publications.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2"d ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.

Massachusetts Department of Education (2002). Accountability and targeted assistance. Retrieved from http://www.doe.

mass.edu/ata/spr.html Mathews, J. (1988). The best teacher in America. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Meece, J. L., (1997). Child and adolescent development for educators. New York: McGraw-Hill.

National Center for Educational Statistics (200 1). Common core of data (CCD). Retrieved April 30, 2002, from http://

nces.ed.gov/ccd/quickfacts.html Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review ofEducational Research, 66, 543-578.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Popham, W. J. (2002). High-stakes tests: Harmful, permanent, fixable. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1-5, New Orleans.

Salzer, J. (2002, March 11 ). Georgia schools get bad report. Atlanta Journal Constitution, pp. AI, A8.

Samuelsen, S. (200 1). Student testing: The stakes are rising. State Legislatures, 27, 30-34.

Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print

GATEways to Teacher Education 61

Singletary & Nietfeld

exposure and information acquisition. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 211-229.

Traub, J. (1998, October 26). Multiple intelligence disorders: Howard Gardner's campaign against logic. The New Repub-

lic.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology~ 25, 68-81.

Biographical Sketches Matthew L. Singletary is a graduate student at the State University of West Georgia completing a Masters of Education in Counseling and Educational Psychology. His research interests include academic achievement and curriculum instruction.

John Nietfield is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the State University of West Georgia. His research interests include metacognition, motivation, and adult reading.

62 GATEways Volume XV (1) Fall2002 Teacher Education

GATEways to Teacher Education GATEways to Teacher Education is a refereed journal with national representation on its editorial board published by the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators. Each issue is nonthematic. The journal, published annually in October, is devoted to the discussion of theory, practice, research, and issues related to teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, inservice education, and preservice education. Articles may deal with local, state, or national activities or issues. Views expressed in the articles are not necessarily those of the editor or GATE. The cost of a copy ofthejoumal is $6.00.

Criteria for submitting a manuscript: Manuscripts must be postmarked by the April 1st preceding the October of publication.

• • • • • e

• o

o

APA Style Not more than 15 pages, double-spaced Four copies of the manuscript Clipped, not stapled Author's name and affiliation on the title page only Autobiographical sketches of the author (three to five sentences each) on one separate page Complete title and abstract ( 150 word maximum) on the first page of text Running head and page number on subsequent pages of the manuscript 3 x 5 index card with complete name, postal address, email address, and telephone and fax numbers of the contact person and title of manuscript

.

â&#x20AC;˘

[An electronic file copy of the manuscript in MS word or compatible software will be needed after acceptance for publication]

Submit manuscripts to: Jacqueline McDowell, Editor GATEways to Teacher Education Berry College P. 0. Box 5019 Mount Berry, GA 30149-5019 706.236.1717 (voice) 706.238.5827 (fax) Jmcdowell@berry .edu

Additional Officers Executive Secretary: Edi Guyton College Representative 1: Janet Foster College Representative 2: Deborah Bembry Public School Representative I: Ralph Noble Public School Representative 2: Rebecca Whaley Representative at Large 1: Joan Schwartz Representative at Large 2: Don Livingston ATE PS 1 Delegate: Boon Boonyapat ATE PS 2 Delegate: Eugene Bales Alternate ATE PS Delegate: Ralph Noble ATE College 1 Delegate: Beryle Baker ATE College 2 Delegate: Jeanna French Alternate ATE College Delegate: Sheryl Dashinger GATE Newsletter Editor: GATE Journal Editor: Jackie McDowell Membership Chair: Julia Dorminey Awards Chair: Gwen Middlebrooks Conference Site Chair: Gwen Middlebrooks