Guest Columnist Endorses NCLB Joint Statement Recommendations

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

An excellent example of the kind of column grassroots assessment reform 
activists can submit to local newspapers. The Sunday Rochester, NY 
newspaper has a circulation of 220,000 (plus web viewers)

USE AN ARRAY OF ACADEMIC YARDSTICKS; SCRUB STANDARDIZED TESTS
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle -- July 29, 2007
by David Hursh, guest essayist

In my view, No Child Left Behind needs to be significantly overhauled, 
if not rescinded, and I present below several proposals for change.

However, I would also like to make a more general point: If we are to 
improve education, it is crucial that we ask the right questions and 
carefully consider the evidence.

For example, NCLB proponents cite recent research by the Center for 
Education Policy indicating that more students have demonstrated 
proficiency in math and reading since the passage of the legislation.

However, the real question should be whether the percentage of students 
achieving proficiency since the passage of NCLB is increasing faster 
than it did before the law, and the answer is no.

What we were doing to improve student learning before the passage of 
NCLB would have likely resulted in the same increases.

Moreover, even the Center for Education Policy cautions that its data 
showing improvements in students' test scores should not be used to 
conclude that the new policy is working.

It writes that improved test scores may "reflect easier tests ... 
changing rules for testing, or overly narrow teaching to the test."

We should also question whether improved test scores demonstrate that 
students are learning more. Recent reports show that while students' 
scores on state standardized exams have increased, their scores on the 
national standardized test, the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress, have increased only in some subjects and grades.

My own view echoes that of 137 national education, civil rights, 
religious, labor and disability groups that have signed a joint 
statement on NCLB that concludes high-stakes standardized tests fail to 
adequately inform us about student learning, and that argue "the law's 
emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise 
test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the 
systemic changes that improve student achievement."

<>As reported by FairTest, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing 
(fairtest.org), the recommended changes to NCLB, which I support, include:

# Replace over-reliance on standardized tests with the use of multiple 
achievement measures to provide a more comprehensive picture of student 
and school performance.
# Supplant arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement 
targets based on rates of success achieved by the most effective public 
schools.
# Enhance the knowledge and skills that teachers, administrators and 
families need to support high achievement and improve state and district 
capacities to assist them.
# Increase NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs 
that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations.
# Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems 
that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children. <>
<>
Over the next several months, the federal government will consider 
revamping NCLB. In my view, it needs substantial overhaul.
<>
But whether or not you agree, now is the time to become informed about 
the policy through Web sites (Fairtest, U.S. Department of Education, 
The Coalition for Common Sense in Education) and public hearings, and to 
voice your opinions to federal representatives on how you would like the 
law changed.
<>
<>Hursh is an associate professor at the University of Rochester's 
Warner School of Education and a member of Rochester's Coalition for 
Common Sense in Education dedicated to improving public schools.

   
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070729/OPINION02/707290342/1039/OPINION