 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Find more Kappan articles in the Subscribe today to access complete current issues online!
WASHINGTON COMMENTARY: Clean Up the Test Mess THE BIGGEST mistake about the current testing mess is thinking that the biggest mistakes going on are the mistakes in scoring by the testing giants. That is truly a minor problem compared to the really big one: continuing to cling to the status model of adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. If public education is going to do what it should do for all kids, then the current AYP model needs to be eliminated, zapped out of the legislation. It has not worked, and it cannot work -- no matter how much the seemingly double-jointed U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings bends over backwards to make the law palatable in an election year. All the studies and proposals for improving NCLB that are beginning to pour out of associations, groups, and special interests show that we are spending an awful lot of time trying to fix the AYP mess, when our best efforts ought to be focused on finding ways to demonstrate accountability that are grounded in some research. We are dealing with a failure of policy making. Testing to make sure schools are accountable seems like such a simple idea, one easily embraced by the public. But the public never said it wanted "a" test, only that it wanted some way of judging whether schools and students are making progress. While NCLB calls for a single test for accountability, the task has not turned out to be simple, nor have the results provided the public with clear messages. The AYP calculations under NCLB, for example, frequently conflict with state accountability results, leading to confusion and justifiable exasperation with the whole system. A second fault of the policy making has been its premature dependence on a testing sector that is not ready to carry such a load. The few missteps of this spring -- incorrect scores, tests not ready on time, the hiring of $10-an-hour scorers for Florida's high-stakes exams -- are small gaffs compared to what's ahead. As Tom Toch says in a well-researched report for Education Sector, "the surge in testing" has created immense challenges for the testing industry and state education agencies. NCLB's lofty goals, he says, are being undermined by "the scale of the NCLB testing requirements, competitive pressures in the testing industry, a shortage of testing experts, insufficient state resources, tight regulatory deadlines, and a lack of meaningful oversight of the sprawling NCLB testing enterprise." And the testing for AYP isn't even in full swing yet. The most critical fault of the policy making, however, is that the "flexible" responses to the AYP threat of sanctions have involved game playing and dumbing down, not decisions that created better learning situations for students. The widespread use by states of rule changes or "outs" provided in the legislation is understandable. These are rational ways to deal with an irrational system, but the more that students in certain subgroups are not included in testing and the greater the use of statistical elbow room, the murkier the picture of whether schools are making progress becomes. The most egregious outcome of the manipulations to avoid NCLB sanctions, however, is that they are taking classroom instruction -- and eventually the results of education in this country -- in exactly the opposite direction from the one that is needed. For example, in March the New York Times featured excerpts from a document exposing the narrowing of teaching and learning, the fourth annual report on NCLB from the Center on Education Policy (CEP). While this story was getting play across the country, I was finishing state and national reports for the Public Education Network (PEN) on its hearings in nine states on the impact of NCLB. Every finding in the CEP report covered by the Times resonated with me because I have heard it over and over -- from students, parents, teachers, and community leaders. The PEN reports, to be released this month, are full of stories confirming that the education students are receiving is no better, and in many cases is worse, than it was before NCLB. I have no quarrel with the argument that low-performing students are getting more attention than ever before and that perhaps four consecutive classes of English or math will raise test scores. But what are teachers and schools learning from tests focused on limited subjects and limited skills? The 100% proficiency target in NCLB -- an impossible goal in the first place -- is a very weak indicator of performance. All the effort is being directed toward meeting proficiency targets by bringing up the scores of students within reach of the target. If students make incredible progress moving off the bottom, their effort and that of their teachers will not be rewarded under the AYP system, and so such achievements get little support or analysis. The effect within schools is disturbing. I have heard teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards say that they were reduced "to handing out ditto sheets." Students in advanced literature classes complained of spending time underlining sentences, and struggling students said that teachers were focusing on students whose test scores were more likely to improve proficiency levels in the schools. High achievers and low performers alike said that their curriculum had become no more than test prep, not real learning. The most chilling testimony came at a hearing in Texas, whose accountability model NCLB adopted for the rest of the country. Testing has become so pervasive, witnesses said, that parents as well as teachers were leaving the public school system. At another meeting where NCLB was discussed, a teacher union official pointed out that the 100% proficiency target and AYP put teachers in low-performing schools in an impossible situation. Their students start so far behind that they cannot make the kind of progress in a year that is required under the law, and nothing will change, she predicted, as long as the incentives basically encourage the commitment of "immoral acts." Research indicates that many, if not most, teachers tend to go for teaching checklists, not the "big ideas" or concepts underlying their subject areas, partly because they don't understand the concepts well enough. Recent improvements in professional development have tried to help teachers achieve a broader understanding of content, often through analyzing student work and tying formative assessments to standards. The AYP craze, however, is undermining all of these efforts. The corruption of learning in this country can be stopped if policy makers halt the irrational accountability requirements. States that have already developed their own thoughtful measurements that encourage deep learning ought to be allowed to continue their work. For most other states, exploring growth models would be a good start. More realistic targets ought to be devised, using the available research. Policy makers need to work along with researchers and the public in fashioning testing and accountability systems that reflect agreed-upon values about what students should know and be able to do and that encourage excellent teaching. I find it ironic that, since New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman set off a firestorm with his notion that "the world is flat," some of his columns have revealed countercurrents to the mad rush toward meritocracy and greater accountability espoused by business leaders and policy makers. The economic behemoths he wrote about, India and China, are now worried that they are not producing the innovation and creativity needed to complement their technology assets. Innovation was once the genius of this society. But when students all over the country are saying they have no time to discuss ideas or to learn to think critically, one worries about the big mistakes we are making. ANNE C. LEWIS is a national education policy writer living in the Baltimore area (e-mail: anneclewis@earthlink.net). |
|
|
