Korean High schools have utilized the Stanine Evaluation System to evaluate or select students. The evaluation system consists of nine categories, whose first grade only about four percent of students deserve. The system is so norm-referenced that it has driven students to compete too much fiercely for the exams rather than to cooperate with one another. It is inevitable that the severe stress and the heavy burden from the competition have seriously hurt students’ physical and mental health. It conflicts with Revised 2009 Curriculum imagineered to foster globalization, creativity and personality education, and has hindered the Curriculum from implementing innovation. To resolve the contradict between the two, the Achievement Standards-based Assessment(ASA) was introduced.

As in the innovation of other education systems, the role of teachers is important in order that ASA can successfully settle down in the school field because teachers are not only users to carry out ASA but also factors and variables in the process of standards-based education reform (Hall & Hord, 2013, Kim, Suk-Woo, 2014) Its success or failure will depend on teachers’ concern and use. Therefore, it is essential to analyze Stages of Teachers’ Concern and Levels of Use for ASA.
Achievement Standards-based Assessment(ASA) is an education system based on a criterion-referenced evaluation. In this system, students are evaluated by the achievement standards and achievement levels which are well known up front, and they are not in competition with their peers, but with themselves. Thus they get to study and learn in cooperation and collaboration. Above all, the point is not what and how much teachers instruct, but what how much students learn (Zagranski & Whigham & Dardenne, 2008).

Under the circumstances of various high school patterns and curriculums as in science high schools, foreign language high schools, vocational high schools and general high schools, the common cut-off score method of achievement levels is inappropriate unlike middle schools. In order to find valid cut-off scores for the final grading, the standard setting method such as Angoff, Ebel, and Book Mark are supposed to be applied to high schools (Cizek & Bunch, 2007).

Concern-based Adoption Model(CBAM) is composed of three diagnostic dimensions in implementing innovation: Innovation Configurations(IC)-how we can clarify the innovation, Stages of Concern(SoC)-how different feelings and perceptions about the innovation can be understood and addressed, and Levels of Use(LoU)-where characteristic behavioral profiles of implementers are. When it comes to the study, SoC and LoU are utilized.
The objective of the study is to analyze the Stages of Teachers’ Concern and Levels of Use for the Achievement Standards-based Assessment depending on the Concerns-based Adoption Model(CBAM, Hall & Hord, 2013), and Moore & Dilling(1984)’s five Levels of Use as well .

The study is guided by the following major questions:
1. How are the stages of teachers’ concern in high school?
2. What differences do the individual variables make in the stages of teachers’ concern in high school?
3. How are the levels of teacher’s use in high school?
4. What differences do the individual variables makes the levels of teacher’s use in high school?

In the study, survey research objects were chosen through the random sampling method and the stratified-sampling method. First, the latter was used in school patterns or tracks and the former in whole subjects. About 360 high school teachers were chosen from 12 schools in Busan, but only 156 objects were analyzed excluding missing, unacceptable data, and vocational high schools. A questionnaire based on CBAM model was used as a research tool. First, the data were analyzed by frequency and weighted mean. Second, Multivariate Analysis of Variance(MANOVA) was conducted to analyze the differences between Stages of Teachers’ Concern and Levels of Teachers’ Use, according to respondents’ background variables such as age, career, job position, and school patterns. The results are verified to the significance level .o5.

The results of the analysis are summarized as follows:
1. The results of teachers’ stages of concern with ASA are expressed as follow: Stage 0 has the highest (M=93.77). 3. Stage 1 is the second highest (M=71.67), Stage 4 is the lowest(M=38.69), and the figures from Stage 5(M=48.76) to 6(M=60.18) is rising.
2. The difference of concern from background variables is found in educational career, and training frequency. The difference in the career is meaningful at stage 3 with UF 3.318 (p<.05), and at stage 5 with UF 3.829 (p<.05). The difference in training frequency is meaningful at stage 0 with UF 6.670(p<.05), at stage 1 with UF 4.032(p<.05), at stage 2 with UF 4.575(p<.05), and at stage 6 with UF 3.891(p<.05).
3. The results of Teachers’ levels of use with ASA are similar to those of the stages of concern. Level 0 is the highest (M=88.51). Level 1 has M=56.14, Level 2, M=57.85. Level 3 is the lowest(M=35.49), corresponding to Stage 4 of concern.
4. In the levels of teachers’ use, the difference of the levels from background variables is found in job position, school grade, and training frequency. The difference in job position is meaningful at level 2 with UF 5.688(p<.05), at level 3 with UF 9.727(p<.05), and at level 4 with UF 6.168(p<.05). The difference in school year is meaningful with Wilks’ Λ .807, F 3.38(p<.05). The difference in training frequency is meaningful with Wilks’ Λ .685, F 4.002(p<.05).
The analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of how teachers’ concern and implementation about Achievement Standards-based Assessment(ASA). In this study, teachers’ concerns are highest on Stages 0 and 1 (93.77, 71.67 each) and lowest on Stages 4 and 5(38.69, 48.76 each). Stage 0 (94.2) is occupying much more ratio than that of nonuser’s(72.0).
In teachers’ Levels of Use(LoU), the study shows that Level 0, Nonuse is the highest, Level 2, and Level 1(88.51, 57.85, 56.14, each), and Level 3, Effective Use is the lowest(35.49), and Level 4(41.05). Level 0 (96.8) is occupying most of all the subjects.
It shows that teachers are not fully aware of the ASA and are much more concerned about other things, and are not fully implementing the ASA and are doing other things much more. In other words, it is indicating that there are a number of other initiatives, tasks, and activities that are of concern to teachers. Also teachers’ concern and use in this study is tailing up at the end. This is similar to negative One-Two Split with Tailing Up at Stage 6 and Levle 4. When the end tails up, we can infer that the teachers have ideas that they see as having more merit than the proposed innovation. Thus, any tailing-up of the end is a warning that the respondent might be resistant to ASA(Kim, Dae-hyeon & Yong, Mu-yhol, 2013). Such a severe tailing-up should be regarded as an alarm(George & Hall & Stiegelbauer, 2008).

In conclusion, the study has shown that teachers in high school have low concerns and use over ASA in general. According to the results of the analysis on teachers’ concern and use about ASA, the teachers show the typical pattern of the early where they experience changes. While most of the teachers are occupying Stage 0, the unconcerned stage, they are considered having nonuser attitudes lacking concerns about ASA. On the other hand, they are more interested in improving ASA rather than trying to accept it as it is and cooperate with one another.

The results of analysis on teachers’ concern and use or implementation by individual or background variables, the higher job position and the more workshops they have, the higher concerns and implementations they have about ASA. Concerns and implementations are not something that can be influenced only by administrative drives, but can be moved to a higher stage or level by appropriate educational supports, psychological comforts, and administrative financial incentives for teachers.