Brockmeier, l., leech, d., pate, j., & Gibson, n. (april 2011).  (Page 3/10)

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

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

Purpose of the study

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

Methodology

Population, sample, and sampling procedure

Approximately 2000 schools on the Georgia Department of Education web site had complete information on principals and school addresses. Of the 2000 schools, there were 1,220 elementary schools, 430 middle schools, and 350 high schools. A stratified random sample of schools was generated by school level resulting in a total sample of 550 schools. The 550 principals were mailed a cover letter and The Principal’s High Stakes Testing Survey . The cover letter included information about the research purpose, confidentiality of the responses, number of survey items, average time for completion, and IRB approval. After the initial mailing and follow-up mailing, 261 of 269 returned surveys were complete and usable for analysis resulting in a 47% response rate.