A Professional: extremity of NCLB

Hello Readers,

As I learn more about No Child Left Behind ( NCLB ) and the events leading up to it and afterwards, I’m just surprised by the EXTREMEness of it all.  According to Diane Ravitch, a 1983 report called A Nation at Risk made a recommendation encouraging the nation and its states to update its educational goals and vision ( in order to be up to par with global competition ).  The topic became uber-controversial when a committee created a history standard that revealed its leftist bias.  Although this history standard was never implemented, educational reform has been a hot and sensitive topic since then.

Educational reform has been divisive thus it was difficult to reach a consensus.  States didn't want to lose their power and independence, and some fear that people are giving government too much power and control.  At first glance, NCLB appeared to create bipartisan support.  One side liked how States are defining proficiency in their own terms.  Another liked the idea that government is doing something to address the educational problem ( through federal mandate ).

In retrospect, intentions are not good enough, and actions speak louder than words.  In NCLB’s situation the action chosen to execute its good intention focused on accountability through testing.  This narrow approach meant students’ learning would be measured solely by test results that would generate either rewards ( funding ) or punishments ( failing students, losing one’s job, closing down schools etc ).

Administrators of said tests either ignored warnings or were ignorant about the importance of having reliable and valid tests because “standardized test scores should be used not in isolation to make consequential decisions about students but only in conjunction with other measures of student performance, such as grades, class participation, homework, and teachers' recommendation” ( Ravitch 152 ).

For some schools, the pressure to reach 100% proficiency by 2014 meant lowering standards so a lot more students can pass, or kicking out low-performing students ( to focus only on already high-performing students ), or putting more time in test preparation ignoring other subjects important in a well-rounded education, or employing a worse tactic, such as systematic cheating.

In the long run test scores didn’t improved dramatically.  When test scores did improve, they improved not to show an increase in students’ knowledge, but rather an increase in students’ test taking skills.  Ravitch summarizes the inaccuracy of  test scores: “The trouble with test-based accountability is that it imposes serious consequences on children, educators, and schools on the basis of scores that may reflect measurement error, statistical error, random variation, or a host of environmental factors or student attributes… Tests [ says Ravitch ] must be supplemented by human judgment" (166 ).