Brockmeier, l., leech, d., pate, j., & Gibson, n. (april 2011).  (Page 9/10)

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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