Implications for classroom assessment practices

Reviewing research on parent attitudes towards school assessment: Implications for classroom assessment practices

By Lois Ruth Harris, Central Queensland University Paper presented to the Classroom Assessment SIG at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April 16-20, 2015. For more information, contact the first author at [email protected].

Abstract This paper systematically reviews literature exploring parent understandings of and attitudes towards school assessment practices. It examines the extent to which data agree that parents support standardized testing and the use of more traditional assessment and reporting practices. As these assumptions are often used to justify a public assessment policies (e.g., use of high-stakes testing), some which undermine Assessment for Learning principles and practices, what parents believe must be more thoroughly investigated to help identify the best course of action to get parents and community stakeholders to support assessment practices most beneficial for learning. The review found parents generally supported teacher judgements and new assessment practices once they were educated about them; implications for research and practice are discussed.

Introduction While there is a substantial body of research examining teacher and student beliefs about and attitudes towards assessment (e.g., Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003; Brown, 2004, 2008; Dutro & Selland, 2012; Hargreaves, 2005; Harris & Brown, 2009, Harris, Harnett, & Brown, 2009; Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009; Klinger & Rogers, 2011; Peterson & Irving, 2008; Remesal, 2011), parent viewpoints are seldom explored in empirical studies. This is problematic because parent opinions (and perceptions of their opinions) are likely to influence assessment policy and decision-making at all levels. Elected politicians create state/province and national assessment policies which they believe will appeal to those in their electorates and voting parents far outnumber teachers. School and district leaders will interpret and implement these policies in ways that they believe their school communities will support. Even at a classroom level, teachers may undermine or superficially implement particular parts of assessment policies which they believe may be unpopular with or misunderstood by parents (e.g., some teachers report being hesitant to use peer- and selfassessment because of concerns about parent reactions to students evaluating themselves, Harris & Brown, 2013; Ross, 2006). At present, most information about parent and public opinions of school assessment is from large scale public opinion surveys (e.g., Gallup poll, Newspoll); studies where other educational stakeholders like teachers or school administrators share their perceptions about what parents want and need from assessment (e.g., Canvass Strategic Opinion Research, 2013); or discussions taking place in the news or social media. This paper systematically reviews empirical studies exploring parent attitudes towards K-12 assessment practices. It focuses particularly on the extent to which these data substantiate two commonly articulated assumptions:



Parents support the use of standardized testing (e.g., Brookhart, 2013; Phelps, 1998)



Parents prefer traditional forms of assessment and reporting (e.g., Culbertson & Jalongo, 1999).

As these assumptions are often used to justify public, school-level, and classroom-level assessment practices and policies (Shepard & Bliem, 1995), it is important to understand if these are well supported by data. This paper identifies what empirical evidence actually suggests about parent attitudes towards assessment and discusses the implications of these for both research and classroom assessment practice. Unpacking common assumptions about assessment and why they matter Stakeholder beliefs about the purpose of assessment strongly shape their endorsement of particular practices and the way they may participate in or implement these (Brown, 2008). Brown (2008) identifies three common purposes for assessment, along with one anti-purpose: 

Assessment improves teaching and learning (Improvement).



Assessment makes students accountable for learning (Student accountability)



Assessment demonstrates the quality of schools and teachers (School accountability)



Assessment should be rejected because it is invalid, irrelevant, and negative (Irrelevance)

One of the common tensions within the literature is between improvement and accountability purposes (Harris & Brown, 2009). Those who adopt an Assessment for Learning approach (e.g., Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003), which privileges improvement purposes for assessment and an emphasis on the use of formative assessment, often articulate concerns about assessment policies which are accountability focused,

particularly those which use a limited range of data to judge school quality (Klenowski, 2011) or tie school funding and/or sanctions to assessment results (Mintrop & Sunderman, 2009). Concerns are diverse and include worries that such assessments may lead to: 

the narrowing and/or fracturing of curriculum (Au, 2007)



anxiety for staff and students (Mulvenon, Stegman, & Ritter, 2005)



cheating by teachers and students (Nicols & Berliner, 2007)



breakdowns in fairness and/or validity (Nicols & Berliner, 2007; Smith & Fey, 2000)



negative impacts on student self-esteem and motivation to learn (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Dutro & Selland, 2012).

As Shepard (2000, p. 9) notes: If we wish to pursue seriously the use of assessment for learning, …. it is important to recognize the pervasive negative effects of accountability tests and the extent to which externally imposed testing programs prevent and drive out thoughtful classroom practices. While these negative effects are not universal [e.g., Au (2007) found high stakes testing positively affected curriculum in 25% of the studies reviewed], they have led to considerable debate about the merits of accountability focused assessment practices and frequent calls for assessment reform (e.g., Nicols & Berliner, 2007). However, one of the major challenges with the implementation of assessment reform is convincing stakeholders that the proposed changes will be educationally beneficial. Returning to the two assumptions mentioned in the introduction of the paper, the assumption that parents support standardised testing (Brookhart, 2013) can create difficulty for those attempting to implement systems based predominantly on formative assessment. Several key

arguments are put forwards in relation as to why parents support standardized testing. Brookhart (2013) identified two themes drawing on United States Gallup poll survey data: beliefs in: 1) the objectivity of testing and 2) in using test data comparatively and competitively. As Brookhart (2013, p. 67) notes: First, it [high stakes testing] allows for treating test scores in a mechanically objective way, which absolves politicians, policy makers, and the general public from any guilt or shame or charges of bias in decision making. Second, it serves as a yardstick in a competition that will tell who has won the race. This view fits well with the current public understanding of education as a race for economic competitiveness. Assumptions about the prevalence of these two beliefs clearly underpin policy decisions surrounding the use of standardized testing within the United States, but also likely influence other international contexts as well (e.g., recent implementation of national testing and leagues tables within Australia, Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012). There are also multiple reasons given to support the assumption that parental preference for traditional assessment (e.g., tests, formal assignments) and reporting measures (i.e., grades and scores). The two themes Brookhart (2013) identified also ring true at the classroom level; concrete scores or letter grades may help non-expert parents make comparisons which they believe help them better understand where their child sits in relation to expectations and other children. Also, parents may be more comfortable with modes of assessment and reporting that they experienced at school as they bring at least some level of understanding to these practices from their own prior experiences. Hence, it is particularly important to consider environmental and contextual factors when evaluating parent perspectives on assessment.

Theoretically framing parent perspectives towards assessment When examining evidence about parent attitudes towards assessment, it is important to consider how their perspectives might be ecologically rational (Rieskamp & Reimer, 2007). This theory suggests that to understand human thinking and behaviour, it is important to consider both their cognition and their environment as it is “…presumed that people‟s reasoning is the result of an adaptation of the individual to his or her environment” (Rieskamp & Reimer, 2007, p. 273). Hence: Human reasoning and behavior are ecologically rational when they are adapted to the environment in which humans act. This definition is in stark contrast to classical definitions of rationality, according to which reasoning and behavior are rational when they conform to norms of logic, statistics, and probability theory. (Rieskamp & Reimer, 2007, p. 273) The strength of this theory is that it helps potentially explain perspectives which may, at first, seem contradictory (e.g., parents who identify that assessments causes considerable stress for their child, but still strongly support the use of such assessment). Hence, it may be fruitful to consider how particular responses may be viewed as rational when environmental factors are taken into consideration, rather than judge parent reactions to assessment types as logical or illogical using traditional criteria. These environmental factors could include diverse aspects such as parents‟ own past experiences (and what they perceive was right or wrong about them); their perceptions of what others think based on observation, conversation, and/or the media; or aspects of the assessment policy context. This theory also suggests that human reasoning is limited by the availability of resources (e.g., time, memory, computational power), with people often basing decisions on the heuristics which require the least amount of resources, while still „solving‟ the problem. Hence, when people are presented with a solution (e.g., standardised testing may be

perceived as fixing the problem of knowing how a student is doing), they are less likely to look for or consider alternatives. Keeping in mind that a) people think in ways which are ecologically rational and b) they are likely to gravitate towards simple solutions or heuristics, may help explain why parents react in particular ways to varying assessment policies and types. Methodology This review employed multiple search strategies. First, all major educational databases (e.g., A+ Academic, Ebscohost, ERIC, Scopus, PsycInfo, Science Direct, Taylor & Francis online) and Google Scholar were searched using multiple combinations of key words including „parents‟ „assessment‟ and „school‟; „parent conceptions of assessment‟ and „school‟, „parent attitudes to assessment‟ and „school‟; and „parent attitudes to testing‟ and „school‟. Results from each search were hand checked and additional potential sources were found by identifying relevant sources cited within these and looking at articles citing relevant studies. In all, 45 potentially relevant sources were identified. Once potential sources had been gathered, their abstracts were read and the content of the articles was scanned to make sure they met the criteria for inclusion in the review: 

Contained original empirical data about parent attitudes towards K-12 assessment practices



Were formal publications of academic work (e.g., journal articles, theses, official research reports)



Were published in the last 20 years (i.e., since 1995)



Were readily available and published in English.

Studies were excluded when they:



Related only to a particular issue associated with assessment [e.g., Mulvenon, Stegman, and Ritter‟s (2005) study on test anxiety]



Focused on comparing teacher, student, and/or parent assessment ratings (e.g., Cole, 1997)



Centred on data about parent experiences of assessing their own children (e.g., Birbili & Tzioga, 2014)



Provided insufficient detail about the data collection and/or methods of analysis to ascertain how research was conducted (e.g., Atkinson, 2003; Wyn, Turnbull, & Grimshaw, 2014).



Shared parent data that was gathered through informal conversation (e.g., Kasanen & Raty, 2002), reported by third parties like teachers or school administrators (e.g., Canvass Strategic Opinion Research, 2013), or came from an extremely small sample [e.g., Scott‟s (2007) sample of 2 parents]



Focused on assessment reporting rather than assessment practices (e.g., Power & Clarke‟s 2000 study of parent reactions to the ways schools informed them of student progress).

In all, 12 studies were found which met all criteria; details of these studies are provided in Table 1. While some studies did include samples from other population groups (e.g., parents and/or administrators, e.g., Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Northwest Evaluation Association, & Grunwald Associates LLC, 2014), Table 1 only focuses on parent data from these studies. How these interacted with other data collected will be discussed in the results and conclusions sections.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Results Data did generally support the first assumption, that parents do support the use of standardized testing (e.g., Mu & Childs, 2005; Osbourne, Stegman, Suitt, & Ritter, 2004; Whitlam Institute, 2013). These same quantitative studies also question if test anxiety is a major parental concern. However, qualitative data presents a more complex and slightly more negative view of standardized testing (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2003; Freeman, Mathison, & Wilcox, 2006). Freeman, Mathison, and Wilcox (2006) hypothesize that perhaps parental support for these assessments may exist because they are so firmly embedded within educational discourse that it is difficult for parents to discuss educational success and failure without them, strengthening the existing hegemony in relation to accountability assessment. That these data are significantly more positive towards testing than similar data from teachers (e.g., Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2003; Wyn et al., 2014) suggests that parents have different experiences of or expectations for these tests or that they may be unaware of some of the negative consequences that teachers observe. That most parents continue to support these tests, despite seeing evidence of anxiety in their children (e.g., Whitlam Report, 2013), may be evidence of ecological rationality. While it may not be logical for parents to support practices which they know may have negative consequences for their children (e.g., Freeman, et al. 2006), if they do not see viable alternatives, it becomes rational to support such tests give their own data needs. The Northwest Evaluation Association (2012) found that parents were far more supportive of comparative uses of data (e.g., comparing students within schools, between districts) than teachers; once again, this may be ecologically rational given parents may perceive that such comparisons help them understand how their child is „really

doing‟, answering the question of if the child is performing better or worse than others around them. When examining the second assumption, that parents support traditional forms of assessment and reporting, the news for proponents of assessment innovation is more positive. In the United States, lower-primary school parents were supportive of school reporting via the narrative Work Sampling System instead of the traditional grades based reporting once they had the system well explained to them (Meisels, Xue, Bickel, Nicholson, & AtkinsBurnett, 2001). Shepard and Bliem (1995) found parents actually preferred the new performance assessments to standardized testing once they were educated about them; the authors attributed this finding to the way the district had chosen to implement performance alongside standardized testing, educate parents about how it worked, and take their concerns into consideration. Thoroughly explaining new assessment systems to parents appears especially important; Cheng, Andrews, and Yu‟s (2011) study about the implementation of school-based assessment in Hong Kong found that the more parents felt they were informed and had opportunities to learn about school-based assessment, the more they supported their students in this. However, there are warnings about the impact culture and assessment washback issues can have on parents‟ opinions of new systems. For example, Ratnam-Lin and Tan (2015) found that while Singaporean parents generally supported the move away from extensive testing in the first couple of years of schooling, they were concerned that, without this practice in the early years, their children might not be prepared to take the major biennial exams starting in Year 3. For parents within societies like China and Singapore where testing has played such a major role in evaluation for centuries, it may be much harder for parents to imagine a valid and appropriate assessment regime without it. While parents were overwhelmingly supportive of teachers and their professional judgement, indicating a high level of trust for teacher professionalism in this area, they

reported feeling uninformed about school assessment practices or showed little understanding of the assessment systems being utilized (e.g., Holyk, 2011; Martinez, Martinez, & Perez, 2004). It is possible that the parental support for more „traditional‟ forms of assessment like standardized testing may not be due to actual endorsement of these systems, but because they are unaware of alternatives (Freeman et al., 2006). Hence, it is important for those wanting to implement new, more classroom-based assessment practices, to make sure that time is spent not only educating school leaders, teachers, and students about how such practices will benefit student learning, but parents as well. Discussion and Conclusions While data do confirm parental support for traditional modes of assessment like standardized testing, they raise questions about why parents support such assessment techniques, identifying that this support may be because of their relative familiarity with such systems rather than because they believe they are the most effective ways to assess learning. Studies suggest parents are also willing to support the use of alternative forms of assessment and reporting (e.g., Shepard & Bliem, 1995); hence the challenge is for educators to provide parents with forms of assessment and reporting which better support student learning while simultaneously meeting parent data needs. More research is needed to determine what parents want from assessment data so that this stakeholder group‟s requirements can be kept in mind. Additionally, the mismatch between teacher and parent support of testing regimes poses a challenge. It remains unclear if parents generally support such testing because they a) are unaware of the aspects which teachers find concerning, b) disagree with these teacher concerns, or c) believe the benefits outweigh risks or negative effects. As non-experts in assessment, parents are unlikely to understand issues which may jeopardise the accuracy of such test scores (e.g., measurement error, artificial score inflation occurring when students

are drilled in the content on the test). Studies are needed to better understand why parents support testing or other particular assessment practices. This information would allow educators to come up with more effective ways to articulate the issues surrounding each type of assessment to parents. While the child‟s classroom teacher may be best placed to provide parents with information about the strengths and limitations of particular assessment practices, many education graduates have had limited opportunities to learn how to appropriately analyse and use assessment data (Greenburg & Walsh, 2012), making it unlikely they‟ll be able to explain important measurement concepts to parents in ways which will allow them to understand how particular types of data should be interpreted. Further, educators have to accept that, at present, rich descriptive narrative comments (which are privileged within Assessment for Learning) may not fully satisfy parent data needs. Parents, especially from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds, may not understand the specific strengths and weaknesses in a child‟s work identified within such narrative comments. Also, such narrative feedback may not situate the student‟s learning on a clear continuum, giving the parents the comfort that their child is performing at an acceptable level. In their study of school report card comments entitled “Praising with Faint Damns,” Hattie and Peddie (2003) found that 78% of the teacher commentary was very general; often criticism or concerns about the child‟s achievement were subtle and could easily be missed. Likewise, they noted that the report cards examined in their study seldom referred to standards: Where there were achievement standards, they tended to be classroom based, and this led to a much more positive report than would have been the case if national standards had been used. (Hattie & Peddie, 2003, p. 4) Given that teacher-parent interactions around achievement may overemphasise positives, it is highly rational that parents want access to data which positions their student‟s achievements

for them more clearly. Current report cards and teacher verbal and written comments may not provide the data parents need because they may be a) vague, b) focused on effort/behaviour, or c) not accurately portraying the student‟s true level of achievement by focusing on what they can rather than cannot do.

Despite the literature reviewed in this article, there remain considerable gaps in our knowledge about parent attitudes towards assessment. First, the studies reviewed in this paper mainly sampled primary school parents; it is possible that secondary parents may have different attitudes given that assessment stakes rise as students move towards the end of compulsory schooling and are approaching the transition into higher education, training, or the workforce (Shepard & Bliem, 1995). Also, it is difficult to judge how generalizable parent attitudes may be from one context to another given the differences each has in relation to its history of assessment use, current assessment policies and practices, and the stakes attached to various types of assessment data. Determining the potential generalizability of results is also hampered by the fact that the reviewed studies seldom provided details about how parents were recruited and selected for the studies; if most participants are self-selected volunteers, these studies are unlikely to provide a representative sample of viewpoints. There are also potential issues relating to quality with some publications. Two of the studies included were reports which have not been formally peer reviewed (Northwest Evaluation Association, & Grunwald Associates LLC., 2014; Whitlam Institute, 2013). While the descriptions of the studies and their methodologies included within the reports made it seem appropriate to include them in this review given the limited empirical research available on the topic, this research‟s credibility and visibility would be strengthened through formal peer-reviewed publication. Additionally, three studies provided only descriptive statistics (Northwest Evaluation Association, & Grunwald Associates LLC., 2014; Shepard & Bliem,

1995; Whitlam Institute, 2013); ideally, more complex statistical modelling would be useful to help tease out the relationships within the data. This review reminds us of the importance of educating parents (and the general public) about school assessment practices and encouraging them to support innovations in this area that will benefit student learning. The power that parents and the community can wield as a lever for assessment reform has been recently demonstrated; in 2013, Seattle Public Schools teachers led a successful grassroots campaign which caused the district to discontinue the use of a particularly contentious standardized test (see Zeichner, 2013 for more details). As the reviewed studies do suggest that parents support teacher assessment judgements, it is important that advocates of classroom assessment, especially those working within assessment accountability systems currently undermining Assessment for Learning practices, take advantage of the leverage that parent and community support can provide. Wider engagement by teachers and researchers within mainstream news and social media platforms may help disseminate important information about assessment systems to parents, allowing them to be more active and informed.

References Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the Classroom: Teachers' Opinions of Statewide Testing Programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18-29. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4201_4 Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Testing, motivation, and learning Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www.assessment-reform-group.org.uk Atkinson, P. (2003). Assessment 5-14: What do pupils and parents think? Spotlight (pp. 1-4). Edinburgh, UK: The SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow. Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What‟s at Stake in High-Stakes Testing: Teachers and Parents Speak Out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384-397. doi: 10.1177/0022487100051005006 Birbili, M., & Tzioga, K. (2014). Involving parents in children‟s assessment: lessons from the Greek context. [Article]. Early Years: Journal of International Research & Development, 34(2), 161-174. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2014.894498 Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The public understanding of assessment in educational reform in the United States. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 52-71. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2013.764751

Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 301-318. Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Conceptions of Assessment: Understanding What Assessment Means to Teachers and Students. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Canvass Strategic Opinion Research. (2013). Primary Principals: Perspectives on NAPLAN Testing and Assessment Sydney: Australian Primary Principals Association. Cheng, L., Andrews, S., & Yu, Y. (2011). Impact and Consequences of School-Based Assessment (SBA): Students' and Parents' Views of SBA in Hong Kong. Language Testing, 28(2), 221-249. Cole, D. A. (1997). Reflected Self-Appraisals: Strength and Structure of the Relation of Teacher, Peer, and Parent Ratings to Children's Self-Perceived Competencies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 55-70. Culbertson, L. D., & Jalongo, M. R. (1999). “But What's Wrong with Letter Grades?” Responding to Parents' Questions about Alternative Assessment. Childhood Education, 75(3), 130-135. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1999.10521999 Dutro, E., & Selland, M. (2012). “I Like to Read, but I Know I'm Not Good at It”: Children's Perspectives on High-Stakes Testing in a High-Poverty School. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(3), 340-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00597.x Freeman, M., Mathison, S., & Wilcox, K. C. (2006). Performing Parent Dialogues on HighStakes Testing: Consent and Resistance to the Hegemony of Accountability. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 6(4), 460-473. doi: 10.1177/1532708606288647

Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2012). What Teacher Preparation Programs Teach about K-12 Assessment: A Review: National Council on Teacher Quality. Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 213-224. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). The complexity of teachers' conceptions of assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 16(3), 365–381. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(0), 101-111. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008 Harris, L. R., Harnett, J. A., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). “Drawing” out student conceptions: Using pupils‟ pictures to examine their understandings of assessment. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about improving school outcomes (Vol. IX, pp. 53-83). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hattie, J., & Peddie, R. (2003). School Reports: “Praising With Faint Damns”. Set 3, 4-9. Hirschfeld, G. H. F., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). Students‟ Conceptions of Assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 30-38. doi: 10.1027/10155759.25.1.30 Holyk, T. (2011). U'h nook noh khunuk (In our own words): Lake Babine Nation parents' understanding of school assessment. Doctor of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

Kasanen, K., & Raty, H. (2002). "You be sure now to be honest in your assessment": Teaching and learning self-assessment. Social Psychology of Education, 5(4), 313-328. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020993427849 Klenowski, V. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: Queensland, Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 78-83. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65-79. doi: 10.1080/0969594x.2011.592972 Klinger, D. A., & Rogers, W. T. (2011). Teachers' Perceptions of Large-Scale Assessment Programs Within Low-Stakes Accountability Frameworks. International Journal of Testing, 11(2), 122-143. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2011.552748 Martínez, R.-A., Martínez, R., & Pérez, M. H. (2004). Children's school assessment: Implications for family–school partnerships. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), 24-39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.004 Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Parental Reactions to Authentic Performance Assessment. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 61-85. doi: 10.1207/s15326977ea0701_6 Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement- And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-364. Mu, M., & Childs, R. (2005). What parents know and believe about large-scale assessments. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy(37), 1-24.

Mulvenon, S. W., Stegman, C. E., & Ritter, G. (2005). Test Anxiety: A Multifaceted Study on the Perceptions of Teachers, Principals, Counselors, Students, and Parents. International Journal of Testing, 5(1), 37-61. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0501_4 Nicols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Northwest Evaluation Association, & Grunwald Associates LLC. (2014). For every child, multiple measures: What parents and educators want from K-12 assessments. Retrieved from https://www.nwea.org/resources/every-child-multiple-measures-parents-educators-want-k12-assessments/ Osburn, M. Z., Stegman, C. E., Suitt, L. D., & Ritter, G. (2004). Parents' Perceptions of Standardized Testing: Its Relationship And Effect on Student Achievement. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 4(1), 75-95. Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students' conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250. Phelps, R. P. (1998). The demand for standardized student testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17(3), 5-23.- examines 3 decades of Gallap polls to suggest parents want standardised testing. Power, S., & Clark, A. (2000). The right to know: parents, school reports and parents' evenings. Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 25-48. doi: 10.1080/026715200362934 Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 61-78. doi: 10.1080/0969594x.2014.1001319

Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers‟ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472-482. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017 Rieskamp, J., & Reimer, T. (2007). Ecological rationality. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 273-275). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(10), 1-13. Scott, C. (2007). Stakeholder perceptions of test impact. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(1), 27-49. doi: 10.1080/09695940701272807 Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. Shepard, L. A., & Bliem, C. L. (1995). Parents' thinking about standardized testing and performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 25-32. Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 334-344. Whitlam Institute. (2013). The Experience of Education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families: Parental Attitudes and Perceptions Concerning NAPLAN. Sydney: The Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney. Wyn, J., Turnbull, M., & Grimshaw, L. (2014). The Experience of Education:The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families: A Qualitative Study. Sydney: Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney.

Zeichner, N. (2013). Mapping a teacher boycott in Seattle. [Article]. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(2), 52.

Authors

Country

Study description

N

Data collection

Analytical

Findings

method Mu & Childs

Canada

Examined how

N=104

(2005)

(Ontario)

parents‟ beliefs

Questionnaire

Descriptive

More than 70% of parents believed the large-scale test results provided

Grade 3, 4,

statistics, chi

accurate evaluations of individual students, schools, and school boards.

about large-scale

and 5

squared

Most agreed that such testing improved student learning and

assessments related

parents

analyses,

accountability and that the comparing of data should be encouraged. The

correlations

more sources of information they reported accessing about the tests, the

to how they obtained

more positive their evaluations were of such assessment. These parents

information about

didn‟t seem overly concerned about stress or other potential negative

these assessments

side effects.

Barksdale-

USA (2

Explored parent

N=20

Individual semi-

Phenomeno-

Parents reported little knowledge of standards, but said schools kept

Ladd &

large

knowledge of state

parent

structured

logical analysis

them informed about the tests. Most parents did not see benefits from

Thomas

states)

standards, policies,

(2000)

interview

such tests and many reported observing student anxiety as a result of

and tests alongside

these assessments. There were diverse parent actions reported in

their experiences of

response to the testing ranging from those who completed intense

these tests and test

coaching at home with worksheets to those who chose to keep them

preparation (in

home from the test.

schools and at home).

Osbourne,

USA

Analyzed parent

N=190

Self-report

Percentages;

The majority of parents (55%) responded that standardized testing is

Stegman,

(Arkansas)

beliefs about

Grade 5

survey and

ANOVA

important to their children‟s educational progress, with 88% reporting

Suitt, &

standardized tests

students

student Stanford

analyses

interest in their children‟s scores. 76% reported that such testing was not

Ritter (2004)

alongside the

and parents

Achievement

overly stressful for students, but they did acknowledge that teachers were

Tests scores

under pressure. Parents who reported pressure to help improve their

correlations between these and

child‟s score had children who were lower performing, suggesting these

student test

data may help parents identify that their children are having difficulty.

performance Freeman,

USA (New

Investigated parent

N= 47

Focus-group

Constant-

This study identifies both support and resistance to dominant discourses

Mathison, &

York)

discourses relating

parents

interviews

comparative

surrounding accountability testing. Their study noted parents had

Wilcox

to state and

analysis; data

complex viewpoints about what standardized tests could and couldn‟t tell

(2006)

national

used to create a

about a child‟s achievement. Parents were aware that such tests did not

accountability

performance

always provide accurate data about student learning, might affect what

testing, identifying

dialogue of four

teachers did in the classroom, and may not serve children with diverse

ways these support

dialogic acts

learning styles. However, they still reported using them to make

and resist existing

judgements about children as they did want to know how their child was

practices

doing. More examples of resistance to testing appeared within the district where test scores were telling parents that their schools and children were failing.

Whitlam

Australia

Examined parent

N=568

Telephone

Percentages

While 56% of parents reported being in favour of NAPLAN testing

Institute

attitudes towards

Grades 3-9

administered

(fathers more so than mothers), 34% were against it. 70% found the data

(2013)

Australia‟s national

parent

survey questions

useful, with 40% reporting that it caused their child stress. Only 17%

literacy and

as part of a

said they compared schools‟ test scores on the Myschool website.

numeracy testing

wider omnibus

Shepard &

USA

Examined how

N= 33 Year

Individual semi-

Interview data:

77% described informal sources of information (e.g., seeing graded

Bliem

(Colorado)

parents evaluate

3 parents

structured

coded to

work samples, talking to the child‟s teacher) as most useful for judging

the utility of an

(interview);

interviews and

categories, with

their child‟s progress and the quality of the education they were

questionnaire

some code

receiving, viewing this as giving them the most specific information

(1995)

assessment and explored their

N=105

frequencies

about their child‟s strengths and weaknesses and what they could do to

attitudes towards

Grade 3

provided.

help. Parents reported trusting teachers and their professional judgments.

both standardised

parents

Questionnaire

While approving of both, parents had higher approval ratings for

and performance

(question-

data:

performance assessments than standardized tests, seeing them as

based assessments

naire)

percentages

encouraging students to think and providing useful diagnostic

calculated.

information.

Percentages

Parents in the study wanted assessments which provided information

Northwest

USA

Investigated

N=1009

Online survey

Evaluation

(national)

parents‟ assessment

parents of

calculated for

about their child and could be used to personalise learning, with 95%

Association,

preferences and

K-12

individual

endorsing monitoring child‟s general progress in education and knowing

& Grunwald

needs

students

questions

when to be concerned about my child‟s progress as the most important

Associates

functions of assessment as extremely or very important. They also

LLC (2014)

agreed that a wide range of subject areas and skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem solving) should be assessed, even though many US assessment programs focus far more heavily on English and mathematics. While 84% of parents rated formative assessment as extremely or very useful, on 44% gave summative assessments the same rating. Many parents value the ability to compare their students to others locally (40%) and in other districts (32%) and want more information on how to interpret and use assessment results. They also want timely reporting, with 79% saying assessment information becomes of minimal use after one month.

Cheng,

Hong

Examined parents‟

N=315

Andrews, &

Kong

perspectives of the

Yu (2011)

Ratnam-Lin

Singapore

Exploratory

This study found that parents‟ knowledge and opportunities to learn

secondary

factor analysis,

about School Based Assessment along with their perceptions of SBA

school based

school

independent and

were associated with the amount of support they reported providing their

assessment

parents

pair sample t-

children on school based assessments. It also found that parent

practices recently

test and multiple

perceptions of SBA were directly and significantly related to their

implemented in

regression

children‟s perceptions.

Hong Kong.

analyses

Examined parents‟

N=13

Questionnaire

Open ended

Qualitative

While most parents agreed that the practice of substituting smaller, lower

& Tan

perceptions of

secondary

(2015)

„Holistic

questionnaire

analysis, coding

stakes assessments for the major midterm and end of year exams in the

school

data to the

first two years of primary school was positive as it might allow students

Assessment‟

teachers

themes

to transition better and cause these young students less stress, they

practices trialled in

who were

perceptions,

perceived that the serious backwash effects from the high stakes testing

some Singapore

parents of

practices, and

culture of other grades caused problems with the practical

primary schools

Primary 1

tensions

implementation of this policy. There were concerns about if teachers

or 2

were equipped to provide the formative, qualitative feedback this

children

assessment style requires given their previous focus on exam preparation and doubts about if students and parents really understood this feedback. Some of the parents also thought it would be easier for students to prepare for two major tests rather than lots of diverse „bite sized‟ assessments; parents were also concerned about if their students would be adequately prepared for the major tests they would encounter in all other years of primary school.

Meisels,

USA

Examined parent

N= 246 K-

Survey

Descriptive

The majority of parents preferred the Work Sampling System (WSS) to

Xue, Bickel,

(Pennsylva

responses to a

3 parents

questionnaires

statistics,

traditional report cards. Parents‟ perceptions of teachers‟ willingness to

Nicholson,

nia)

performance

and children‟s

correlations,

use the WSS and staff availability to answer parents‟ questions about the

& Atkins-

assessment system,

school

hierarchical

WSS strongly affected parents‟ attitudes toward the WSS regardless of

Burnett

looking at specific

achievement

regressions,

the relative achievement levels of their children. Parent-teacher

(2001)

factors affecting

data

their attitudes

structural

communication was a strong predictor of parent attitude towards the

equation

WSS system.

modelling Holyk

Canada

Examined

N= 18

Semi-structured

Theme analysis

While parents supported use of province-wide testing (which they saw

(2011)

(British

indigenous

Grade 4

individual

as providing evidence that their children received an education similar to

Columbia)

Canadian parents‟

parents

interviews

those in more urban areas), they wanted assessment to provide

understandings of

information which would help children achieve outcome rather than just

school assessment

identify those who were not doing well. Although they described having minimal knowledge about classroom and province-wide assessment practices, they reported generally agreeing with teachers‟ judgements about their children. They also articulated that assessment practices should be used in ways which did not damage student self-esteem.

Analyzed parents‟

N=188

Questionnaire

Fixed response

Parents articulated that assessment‟s main purpose was for checking

Martinez, &

perceptions of

Grade 3

with both fixed

items:

student progress. They said they were relatively uninformed about

Perez (2004)

children‟s

parents

and free

frequencies,

assessment policy although they considered it important; those with

response items

percentages, and

higher levels of education reported higher knowledge. Parents identified

chi squared

schools most frequently assess student knowledge; they wanted more

measures. Free

emphasis on student effort and student interest in learning and less on

response items:

student behaviour and participation. 90% of parents reported always or

Martinez,

Spain

assessment in primary school

qualitative

frequently agreed with their student‟s assessment results, with 64%

content analysis

satisfied or very satisfied with the current assessment system.