NCLB reauthorization editorial

["anna g" <aclarag@hotmail.com>]

With thanks to Monty Neil,

Featured editorial in Ann Arbor News
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Sunday, 15 July 2007

Summertime is upon us and the last thing anyone wants to think about is 
school, but by the end of this month congress may well be voting on the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as 
No Child Left Behind.

Most people don?t really understand what NCLB is. They have a vague idea 
that it is about school reform and testing, that it might have something to 
do with vouchers, but mainly that teachers complain about it, which may not 
be a bad thing.

NCLB is the most sweeping set of educational reform legislation since the 
Civil Rights Act and its accompanying legislative ripple. Weighing in at 
just under 1500 pages it attempts to account for virtually every aspect of 
the K-12 educational experience. And this accounting is to be done through 
testing, time tables, and punishment for those who do not meet expectations. 
The current set of expectations is to have every child in the nation reading 
and calculating at ?grade level? by 2014 and we will see that this 
expectation has been met through the use of standardized tests.

The first question we must ask ourselves is, ?is this expectation 
realistic?? Standardized testing makes a false promise of accountability and 
accurate measurement. When I see how my son is developing, quickly in some 
areas, less so in others, I know that if something really important was on 
the line (like whether or not he would be allowed to graduate), his success 
in self feeding, crawling, drinking out of a cup and potty training still 
wouldn?t be predictable (as in child X will improve Y% over Z period of 
time) or even relevant (within reasonable ranges.) Competence in reading, 
algebra or geophysics (like competence in potty use, cup-drinking, etc.) is 
only really about whether one can perform as a reader, a mathematician or a 
geophysicist (or a potty-user or a cup-drinker).

As an educator, I understand the impulse to default into these simplistic 
forms of measurement. They are quick, standardized (the same test for 
everyone means less work for the educator) and render easily measured 
outcomes ? either they pass or they don?t, no argument, no problem.

Sadly this form of measurement does not work. According to the Harvard Civil 
Rights Project, every state has applied for some sort of amendment or 
exception to the NCLB testing procedures (rendering the data nearly 
useless). Additionally, few schools have made Adequate Yearly Progress. 
According to the Michigan Department of Education 436 Michigan schools, 
including Huron and Pioneer, did not make AYP in 2005, three years after the 
law went into effect. Finally, large-scale test evaluation is fraught with 
problems. Poorly designed and accident-prone electronic evaluation (this is 
where the ?Scantron? goes) is complemented by poorly paid and overworked 
human evaluators (who read the essays). Neither of these have the ability or 
the inclination to evaluate beyond the most basic level of competency. 
Shouldn?t measurement that controls potential opportunities (both 
educational and, ultimately, economic) for our children be more thoughtfully 
administered?

Who makes AYP? Schools that enforce strict ?teaching to the test? policies. 
The miracle schools that we read about have taken it upon themselves to pass 
the tests at all costs, and it does cost: extensive test preparation, 
including before and after-school programs, targeted professional 
development and specific (and expensive) test preparation curriculum all 
take bites out of already stretched education budgets. Additionally, 
successful schools actively seek support from the community by making 
promises of increased federal funding. Imagine the effect if this energy was 
dedicated simply to supporting the educational goals of the state ? to 
meeting our existing curriculum standards, which allow for a variety of 
measurement options.

Why haven?t our best schools made it? The short answer is because we try to 
educate everyone. The way AYP is measured, each school is expected to have 
each subgroup (black, white, special needs, English language learners (ESL) 
etc.) meet a predetermined percentage increase in their AYP scores. Unless 
we kick out every student who threatens to bring down the score or remediate 
for test success (for some this would mean the exclusion of virtually all 
other educational experiences), we can expect to maintain our current, 
failing status.

What should we do? Let congress know NCLB needs more than a quick 
reauthorization. The following are ideas for a stronger evaluation process 
that stresses competence in areas beyond test-taking ability:

I.	End unrealistic AYP requirements. Expect schools to make reasonable 
progress based on real world rates of student improvement.
II.	Require testing once each in elementary, middle and high school, 
scrapping requirement to test in 3-8th grades. Over-testing takes time away 
from teaching and learning.
III.	Assess academic progress using multiple sources of evidence, not just 
standardized test scores. Provide funding to help states and districts 
develop locally-based performance and classroom assessments to improve 
teaching and learning as well as accountability.
IV.	Replace the test and punish approach with support for improving 
educational quality. Expect all schools to take reasonable steps to improve, 
including use of high-quality professional development and strong parental 
involvement. Replace current sanctions-based system with a focus on targeted 
assistance.

Tell your representatives and senators to rely on the
Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB and the legislative recommendations 
of the Forum on Educational Accountability to guide their votes on 
reauthorization of NCLB. Also see fairtest.org for updates on NCLB and what 
can be done to influence the reauthorization process.
House contact info: Rep. George Miller, Chair, House Education Committee, 
2181 Rayburn, Washington, DC 20515; 202-225-3725; fax 202-226-5398. Find 
your Rep at www.house.gov and Ed. committee members at 
http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members.shtml

-Anna Gersh, Educator

_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com