Comment

Julian R. Betts and Robert M. Costrell make several contributions to policymakers' understanding of standards-based reform. First, Betts and Costrell's economic analysis helps identify the likely costs and benefits of policies that require higher standards for high school graduation. Their analysis reveals where policymakers should target resources to mitigate the probable costs of raising standards. They point out, for instance, that policymakers should focus their energies on the group of students who may reduce their effort or drop out of school because they do not expect to be able to meet the higher standard.

Second, the authors try to determine how higher standards will affect the achievement of high school students. Because accountability policies are so new, direct evidence of their effectiveness is thin. Therefore, the authors review data about the effects of more homework, harder grading standards, and summer school on student achievement. Although more research is needed on these topics, Betts and Costrell's review of this literature suggests that asking more of students generally raises their achievement. This conclusion is consistent with claims from the Effective Schools movement of the 1980s about the importance of "academic press" for student achievement.⁹¹ And although Betts and Costrell correctly worry about possible negative effects of raising standards for lower-achieving students, most of the evidence they review points to the benefits of high standards for all students. Only time will tell whether this conclusion continues to hold after states implement higher standards for retention and high school graduation.

Because microeconomics is the study of how rational actors respond to incentives, microeconomic theory provides a good starting place for an analysis of the likely costs and benefits of standards-based reform. However, Betts and Costrell's economic perspective ignores some insights from sociology and psychology that may be useful for constructing policies that maximize the benefits (and minimize the costs) of standards-based reform. Moreover, much of Betts and Costrell's analysis focuses too narrowly on how high school students will respond to high-stakes assessment. The effects of standards-based reform on younger students and parents, as well as the people and institutions implementing the reform such as teachers, schools, and districts, deserve as much, if not greater, attention.

Much of Betts and Costrell's discussion, and much political rhetoric, assumes that high-stakes testing will improve student achievement by encouraging students to work harder. This assumption has several flaws. To begin with, it relies on a reinforcement theory of motivation. Scholars of motivation have identified a number of problems with trying to improve student achievement by using extrinsic rewards and sanctions.⁹² First, several studies have shown that external rewards may make students less willing to take on challenging tasks. When students expect to be rewarded for some discrete accomplishment, such as reading a certain number of books or earning straight A's, they typically choose the path of least resistance so as not to jeopardize their chances of receiving the reward. Second, if students are encouraged to engage in a behavior, such as learning, simply to receive a reward, such as a high school diploma, this may convey the message that learning is not worth doing for its own sake. Emphasizing external incentives for learning may not be an optimal long-term strategy for encouraging students to become life-long learners. Third, worries about punishment and failure can cause excessive anxiety, which may hinder learning.⁹³ In our study of fourth graders, we found that some students whose report cards were marked "may be retained" because of their low performance on Stanford 9 exams would raise their hands in the middle of lessons and go up to teachers and aides in the middle of activities to ask, often for the third or fourth time that week, "Am I going to pass?" Clearly, for these students, the possibility of failure interfered with the learning process.

Finally, and most relevant to the testing-with-consequences...