I would like to congratulate Sue Busch, Conference 1999 Chair, and her committee for producing an outstanding conference this past October. Her vision of creating links between the arts and literacy provided us with food for thought as we enter the new millennium. Thank you Sue!

The advent of each new school year marks a host of innovative new methods, materials, and assessments. As we turn to the second half of this school year, and the new millennium, foremost in the minds of many teachers in our area is the New York State English Language Arts exam. Interest in using statewide assessments for high stakes, such as for curriculum reform or accountability, has met with optimism (Cooley, 1991; Popham, 1987; Popham, Cruse, Rankin, Sandifer & Williams, 1985) as well as criticism (Bracey, 1987; Ellwein, Glass & Smith, 1988; Shepard, 1991; Smith, 1991; Smith & Rottenberg, 1991). Some critics have suggested that such practice may lead to a fragmented, narrow, and trivialized curriculum that is deflected from its intended purposes (Bracey, 1987). Proponents of such measurement-driven instruction, however, have suggested that well-developed assessments may be the most cost effective way of improving the quality of education (Popham, 1987). The state of Maryland, for example, has been using high-stakes statewide performance assessments for nearly a decade now. Research evidence has shown that teachers across the state have made a multitude of changes to their curriculum (i.e., the types of instructional tasks, methods, materials, and learning environments) as a result of the assessment (Almasi, Afflerbach, Guthrie, & Schafer, 1995).

Throughout this past fall we repeatedly heard administrative pleas, attended scores of inservices, and prepared our students for the ELA exam. The politics that brought about the assessment are well known, and the pressures surrounding such high-stakes assessments are unfortunately very real. However, in this forum I'd like to consider its promises and possibilities. As teachers we have long recognized the limitations of standardized tests-the closed-ended format does not assess the reading process as we have come to understand it, rather it treats reading and writing as if they were aggregates of isolated skills. Standardized tests also evaluate students by using passages that are much shorter than what students are expected to read in their classrooms. Additionally, standardized tests do not take into account genre differences or differences in students' background knowledge (Lipson & Wixson, 1997).

The New York State ELA exam was designed using "best teachers' best practices" and therefore includes: longer, more authentic reading passages; varied genres including expository text; written responses intended to reveal student's thought processes; and a focus on critical thinking. These are some of the features that have yielded the most attention this fall as we prepare our students. Although the format of the ELA assessment is not a panacea, it does come closer to reflecting assessment that does assess process. From last year's results we have been able to tell, in general, that many of our students are not familiar with reading expository texts. Likewise they are not used to responding to open-ended tasks that promote critical thinking, reflecting across multiple texts, or writing to explain their thought processes. These results have brought about a number of efforts to prepare students. Some efforts are short-term efforts designed to improve test scores. Some efforts are more elaborate and involve redesigning curriculum. The former is probably not the type of effort that will effect long-term results, for this is a test that is designed to alter practice. The test by-and-large imitates good assessment practice and is based on sound research.

For example, for over a decade researchers have encouraged teachers to expose elementary students to expository text structure (Meyer & Rice, 1984). Such instruction improves comprehension (Geva, 1983) and memory and recall of information (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 19987; Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980; Taylor & Samuels, 1983). Yet, research has also shown (and now the results of the ELA exam as well) that elementary children are unfamiliar with expository text structures (Englert & Hiebert, 1984). Thus, children lack a schema for this genre and find it difficult to read.

Similarly since the mid-80s researchers have encouraged teachers to focus on teaching the reading process as a self-regulatory one--one in which readers are metacognitive (Baker & Brown, 1984). When we design a curriculum that encourages children to be self-reflective and metacognitive they become aware of the processes that they use when they read-and are able to write about the processes they use. Researchers have also encouraged teachers to engage children in purposeful writing using a variety of forms for a variety of audiences (Dyson, 1984; Graves, 1983; Temple & Gillet, 1989).

Yet since the work of Delores Durkin in 1978 research has shown that we do not, as a whole, provide explicit instruction in comprehension processes. Instead instruction focuses on skills that are assessed via closed-ended tasks and activities that do not further critical thinking-the same elements found on standardized tests. For years we have contended that the assessments that "count" (i.e., standardized tests) do not match our day-to-day instruction. We now have a statewide assessment that is designed to do a better job of actually assessing higher-level comprehension processes-in a way that is more aligned to what good teachers already do in their classrooms. Additionally, each of the practices that have found their way into the ELA assessment is based upon a preponderance of sound research findings. Yet, we tend to look only at its shortcomings, and we find ourselves preparing our students for it as if it were a standardized test-providing short-term drill and practice that is isolated from the curriculum. Yes, such practice may involve reading expository texts and completing open-ended writing tasks, but have we altered our curriculum as a whole or have we, as Bracey (1987) warned, fragmented our curriculum by having separate "practice for writing" and separate "practice reading expository text?" This fall I have been dismayed that many teachers feel they do not have time for "regular reading" and "peer discussion" because they are too busy preparing for the ELA. This tells me that we are treating this process-oriented test in a very product-oriented manner. Once the test has been given will we continue to alter our practice-perhaps even redesign or rethink our curriculum--or will we feel relieved that we do not have to "prepare" the students any more? If we continue to fragment the curriculum rather than integrate it there won't be "time" for writing, and reading, and peer discussion-only time for test practice-which doesn't sound much different from preparation for a standardized test. We must redesign our entire literacy curriculum so that students are engaged in literacy-literacy that requires them to use the comprehension processes that we teach them to read and inquire about authentic expository and narrative texts, to do purposeful writing, to think critically, and to engage in thoughtful dialogue with their peers about what they have read. Once we are able to incorporate these research-based practices into our everyday teaching in every grade in an integrated manner then students will do well on their own, and there will be no need to "practice" for the test.