Clean up the Test Mess

Abstract

THE BIGGEST mistake about current mess is thinking that biggest mistakes going on are mistakes in scoring by giants. That is truly minor problem compared to really big one: continuing to cling to status model of adequate yearly progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. If public education is going to do what it should do for all kids, then current AYP model needs to be eliminated, zapped out of legislation. It has not worked, and it cannot work--no matter how much seemingly double-jointed U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings bends over backwards to make law palatable in an election year. All 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 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 failure of policy making. Testing to make sure schools are accountable seems like such simple idea, one easily embraced by public. But 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 single test for accountability, task has not turned out to be simple, nor have results provided public with clear messages. The AYP calculations under NCLB, for example, frequently conflict with state accountability results, leading to confusion and justifiable exasperation with whole system. A second fault of policy making has been its premature dependence on sector that is not ready to carry such load. The few missteps of this spring--incorrect scores, tests not ready on time, hiring of $10-an-hour scorers for Florida's highs takes exams--are small gaffs compared to what's ahead. As Tom Toch says in well researched report for Education Sector, the surge in testing has created immense challenges for industry and state education agencies. NCLB's lofty goals, he says, are being undermined by the scale of NCLB requirements, competitive pressures in industry, shortage of experts, insufficient state resources, tight regulatory deadlines, and lack of meaningful oversight of sprawling NCLB enterprise. And for AYP isn't even in full swing yet. The most critical fault of policy making, however, is that flexible responses to 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 legislation is understandable. These are rational ways to deal with an irrational system, but more that students in certain subgroups are not included in and greater use of statistical elbow room, murkier picture of whether schools are making progress becomes. The most egregious outcome of manipulations to avoid NCLB sanctions, however, is that they are taking classroom instruction--and eventually results of education in this country--in exactly opposite direction from one that is needed. For example, in March New York Times featured excerpts from document exposing exposing narrowing of teaching and learning, fourth annual report on NCLB from Center on Education Policy (CEP). While this story was getting play across country, I was finishing state and national reports for Public Education Network (PEN) on its hearings in nine states on impact of NCLB. Every finding in CEP report covered by 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 education students are receiving is no better, and in many cases is worse, than it was before NCLB. …