In 2001, President George Bush proposed the No Child Left
Behind Act that created, among other policies, a method for basing school
funding on student progress. The act mandated that every student in a state
take the same state-created assessment to ensure that his or her rate of
learning increases year after year, and ultimately, in 2014, all students are
required to be proficient in reading and math. If students in a school do not
improve their scores on the state assessments for 2 or more years in a row, the
school is said to have not met “Adequate Yearly
Progress” and faces sanctions, eventually leading to replacement of
teaching staff and/or restructuring of the school. At first glance, the idea of
holding schools accountable for their end product (e.g., a student’s
education/mastery of skill) doesn’t sound like a terrible idea. Why shouldn’t
we hold teachers and school administrators to standards of improvement? Anyone
in the business world would agree that a company president would not be allowed
to continue in his post if the company repeatedly failed to make a profit, and
it only makes sense that we extend this same accountability to our schools. The
problem is not that schools are being held to standards of achievement, the
problem lies in the way it is being approached.
The core problem with the No Child
Left Behind Act is that it focuses solely on proficiency in reading and math. Schools
are not held accountable for improvements in other subjects such as science,
social students, the arts, etc. Rothstein argued in his 2006 article that “When
we demand adequate math and reading scores alone, educators rationally respond
by transferring resources to math and reading instruction (and drill) from
[other subjects].” President Obama recently stated that due to No Child Left
Behind and the recent economic crisis that forced significant budget cuts, “the
child is not having the well-rounded educational experience I benefited from
and most in my generation benefited from.”
Another problem with the Act is that
it requires proficiency for all students, including those with learning
disabilities, cognitive impairments and those who are learning English as a
second language. For these populations, it is of course desired that they learn
to read and become proficient in basic math skills, but the rate at which this
is achieved will not be comparable to other students at the same grade level.
Also, students are not encouraged or allowed time to pursue their own academic
goals. The requirement of proficiency for all students “neglects the authentic
range of educational needs and desires among the diverse array of communities
and young people within contemporary democratic states. Individual students
with a diverse array of passions...may be prevented from developing their
knowledge and skills because of the lock-step requirements imposed by [the
Act]” (Levinson, 2011). Newly developed curriculi such as the Common Core State Standards are
encouraging a broader focus of the curriculum by, for example, including
literacy standards throughout other core content areas, but this is not going
to solve the issue.
The third
major weakness of No Child Left Behind is the way in which proficiency is
measured. By requiring all students to reach a minimum score on a test
developed by the state in which they live, and then basing school funding on
this achievement, we are “pervert[ing] incentives and distract[ing] educators
and students from the real work and value of learning” (Levinson, 2011).
Recently, there have been several high profile cases involving cheating on
these tests by teachers and district officials. In Philadelphia, the presence
of “suspicious erasures” on multiple student response forms caused a
statewide investigation. In Atlanta, acclaimed
student achievement was found to be caused by a conspiracy among a large amount
of district principals and administrators. It seems we are encouraging a
culture of dishonesty with this system. At the very best, Levinson argues that
our testing system is “promoting compliance rather than educational improvement”
(2011).
A better
accountability system will take a significant amount of planning and investment
on the part of our government. Currently, two
groups are working to improve the method of standardized testing to yield more
quality information regarding student performance and achievement. They are
focused on creating assessments to measure progress toward the Common Core
State Standards, which measure performance on higher-order skills (i.e.
critical thinking) required for success in college. One group is even creating
a computer adaptive model, which will be responsive to student performance on
the tests and tailor the questions to the individual students’ level in order
to obtain more detailed information about their level of proficiency. However,
while they are improved, these measures are still a form of standardized test.
Some alternatives to
testing include the use of diverse observation teams who come into districts to
assess the “quality of instruction” and the “quality of school-facilities” by
observing “whether students are engaged in the kind of group activities likely
to develop the teamwork so valued by employers” and “they should observe
classroom discussions to determine if these are likely to develop the kind of
critical thinking that leads to intelligent voters” (Rothstein & Jacobsen,
2006). However, “observations of student behavior are not as reliable as
standardized tests of basic skills, so we will have to accept that it is better
to imperfectly measure a broad set of outcomes than to perfectly measure a
narrow set” (Rothstein, 2009).
The road ahead is not
clear. But we do know that we cannot return to a narrow set of standardized
assessments if we are to gain a clear picture of student performance and
achievement. Talents necessary for success in the real word include critical
thinking, interpersonal skills and a work ethic. Our educational system needs
to also be held accountable for developing these skills in their students, in
addition to basic reading and writing.
264-72. [8]
Sources
Rothstein, R., and Rebecca Jacobsen.
2006. The Goals of Education. Phi Delta Kappan 88 (4): 264-72. [8]
Rothstein, R. 2009. Getting Accountability Right. Education Week. [4]
Levinson, M. 2011. Democracy,
accountability, and education. Theory and Research in
Education 9(2): 125-44. [16]
Education 9(2): 125-44. [16]
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0705/America-s-biggest-teacher-and-
principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-in-Atlanta
http://www.Wikipedia.org
principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-in-Atlanta
