© 2012 Mothering Magazine. Powered by Huddler Families
By Monty Neill
Issue 108, September/October 2001
With great fanfare, George W. Bush focused the first week of his presidency on a plan to radically increase testing and institute vouchers through a new federal education program. While the voucher scheme did not pass Congress, the testing proposals passed both Houses. They constitute a major threat to assessment reform efforts and will harm poor children in particular.
In the name of "accountability," Bush proposed that, in exchange for receiving federal funds, the states be required to test all public school students in grades 3 to 8 in language arts and math every year. Students in low-scoring schools that fail to improve over three years would be able to use their share of federal funds to attend other public schools, while the schools and districts face severe sanctions. The threat of federal funding sanctions will make state tests high-stake, even where they now are not.
In promoting his plan, Bush appropriated Children's Defense Fund founder Marion Wright Edelman's slogan "No child will be left behind." But in Texas, the primary model for his proposal, many students are left behind.1 Although scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test have risen, similar gains have failed to appear on most other tests. Reading scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) did not rise in Texas from 1992 to 1998, while the score gap between minority students and whites increased. At least some of the increase seen in scores on the state test can be traced to three factors: intensive test coaching instead of real teaching, classifying more students as "special needs" (and not including them in the results), and much higher grade retention and dropout rates.
Texas's dropout/pushout rates are among the highest in the nation and have risen in reaction to the state's high-stakes testing program. Of the 15 urban districts in the nation with the worst dropout rates, six are in Texas. Houston, whose schools were headed by US Education Secretary Rod Paige until January 2001,is one of them. At the same time, the number and proportion of Texas students entering college who need reading remediation has increased, and SAT scores have not risen as fast as they have in other states. Bush has implied that opponents of his testing plan are "racist" for supporting "low expectations." As the evidence from Texas shows, however, it is his testing proposals that will really harm minority and poor children. Over the years, research has demonstrated that low-income and minority group children are much more likely than middle-income or white children to have their schooling reduced to preparation for tests. Stories abound in Texas of schools dropping untested subjects or requiring science or history teachers to teach reading and math instead of their own subjects. The consequences of testing throughout the twentieth century have mostly been to stratify the quality of schooling and the access to higher education by race and class. The new cycles of tests, including those based on "standards," are having the same effect.
It has become clear that schools by themselves cannot overcome the effects of poverty, even though they can and should do more than they now do. Many schools lack the resources to make the difference they should make. Bush's scheme not only fails to address these problems, it also distracts attention from these more fundamental realities by focusing on testing.
<!--pagebreak-->Unwanted Mandates
Currently, only 15 states test all students annually in both English and math in grades 3 to 8. Sixteen only test those subjects twice in that grade span. The rest fall in between, with about ten testing three of the six grade levels and the rest divided in various combinations. In short, half the states test less than half the amount the Bush proposal would require. Clearly, many states will have to drastically increase the amount of testing local policymakers have determined is appropriate. This federal intrusion into the process of school reform will force states to turn schools into test-prep programs. Yet research has demonstrated that the states that administer the most tests and attach the highest consequences to them tend to have the weakest education programs.2 Why should federal policy be based on states that do the worst and are less likely to show improvement?
Several independent studies have found that most state tests fail to measure the higher learning standards on which they claim to be based. Only a handful of states meet the mandate of the federal Title I program to use multiple measures. (Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the major federal public school support program, and it now includes state testing and accountability elements.)3 States with the most testing are also most likely to have the weakest, lowest-level exams. Rather than have states do assessment properly and fine-tune Title I, the Bush administration will push for more testing, with a probable further weakening of the quality of exams as another consequence.
The Bush administration claims it is necessary to assess each student's progress annually to determine who is falling behind. But this does not require standardized tests. Evaluating each child's progress should be a school and district process, perhaps with some state oversight, as the Massachusetts Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education recommends in its proposal for an authentic assessment system.4 Given the inadequacy of most exams, more testing will hurt, not help. As Bill Goodling, former chair of the House Education Committee, said, "If more testing were the answer to the problems in our schools, testing would have solved them a long time ago."5
The "accountability" provisions attached to the testing will intensify narrow teaching to the tests and cause great damage. [Note: House and Senate versions differ in some details; this description focuses on the most stringent House version.] Under the proposal, schools that failed to meet federally mandated "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in improving test scores could lose up to 40 percent of their Federal Title 1 (remedial education, which goes mostly to schools with a high percentage of low-income students) funding because those funds could be given to students for tutoring or other after-school programs, if parents so request. This loss of funding would be detrimental to all the students remaining at the school and would make it even more difficult to meet improvement goals.
The improvement requirements in the proposed law, which are based solely on test scores, would be impossible to meet and would result in most schools in the nation eventually being labeled failures and facing severe sanctions. All students would have to reach the "proficient" level on state mathematics and reading tests within ten to 12 years and would have to make AYP toward that goal. Each significant demographic group--racial minority, low-income, special needs, limited English proficient--within each school would have to demonstrate AYP. Any school in which any one demographic group, or the school as a whole, did not make such progress would be identified for "school improvement." If it did not meet the requirement in the subsequent year, "corrective action" would have to be taken. If it still did not meet the requirement, it would be slated for "reconstitution," which would mean one of the following: reopening the school as a public charter school, replacing the principal and all or most of the staff, contracting management to a private company, or turning the operation over to the state.
Making decisions based solely on test scores would result in mistakes. Test scores are estimates, and many factors can cause fluctuations in school-level scores, such as having a few very high- or low-scoring students. This is particularly true of schools with fewer than 60 students in each grade, which encompasses a large percentage of the nation's schools.
While it makes sense that the state intervene in malfunctioning schools, the evidence from states and districts that have used "reconstitution" is that it does not work. Reconstituted Chicago schools in which the school's student body has not changed have seen no improvement. In other words, the federal government will require interventions that have no history of success.
<!--pagebreak-->Under the Bush plan, an expanded NAEP that tested reading and math in grades 4 and 8 would be used to evaluate state progress. This would undermine NAEP's use as a neutral monitor. If states align their tests to NAEP, schools will indirectly align their curriculum to NAEP, bringing a national curriculum in the back door without any real public discussion.
The Bush scheme also proposes to increase testing while reducing other federal regulations, many of which provide important safeguards for vulnerable students. Implicitly, the Bush plan says that the only accountability needed is found in test scores. But there is simply no good evidence to support the assumption that as long as scores go up, education is better for all.
Fighting Back
By September, when this article is published, Congress almost certainly will have passed, and President Bush signed, a bill containing the annual testing and "adequate yearly progress" requirements. Within a year or two, the consequences will fall like a hammer on most states. What can be done?
FairTest, the national assessment reform advocacy organization that I direct, initiated and led a coalition that stopped George H. W. Bush's national testing plan and also helped stop Bill Clinton's similar effort. The Clinton plan was stopped by a coalition of liberal (mostly black and Hispanic) and very conservative representatives in the House. A similar alliance, of white liberals and fewer conservatives, came close to stopping George W. Bush's plan this time. We need to strengthen that coalition.
Act to Stop Bush's Testing Plan
There are three main kinds of action people can take to respond to President Bush's testing plan: 1) reach members of Congress directly; 2) persuade groups you are a part of; and 3) educate and mobilize locally.
Reach Congress
A. You need to persuade your senators and representative to vote to stop the testing. A list of members of Congress and their addresses can be found at www.whitehouse.gov [1] Call or write them that you oppose the testing provisions of the Bush school reform plan. You can give reasons, both personal (as a parent, a teacher, etc.) and more general. The FairTest website has much more detailed information you can use in making your arguments. E-mails are not nearly as effective as writing (first) or calling (second). Similarly, form postcards or petitions do not have much impact.
If you call, ask to speak to the legislative aide who handles education. If you write, specifically ask for a response to the particular points or questions you raise. If you receive a response that actually says something, it can help you in planning further contact, either thanking them (and sharing with others the reasons why the congressperson agrees with you) or continuing to press the issue.
B. Meet with your representative or senator. Try to arrange a meeting with the actual congressperson, not a hometown staffer who may not deal with policy issues. If you want to have a meeting, send a small group (if possible) that represents a variety of constituencies (parent, teacher, different demographic or geographic groups). Plan your presentation in advance and bring written materials to leave with the person.
Persuade Groups
Developing a national coalition of groups will help defeat the Bush testing plan. Education and civil rights organizations are the most likely participants. Local or state chapters of a national group can help by sending resolutions to their national associations. The FairTest website lists the names of organizations that have taken a stance on this issue.
A. Encourage local or state groups to have their members contact representatives and senators.
B. If a number of groups get involved, have them form a local coalition to work together to build pressure.
C. A possible draft resolution your group or coalition could endorse and use in framing letters to local editors:
"We, the members/board of _______, hereby call upon the members of Congress who represent city/state/region in the US Senate and House of Representatives to oppose any legislation mandating that every state test every student every year from grades 3 to 8, or that use tests as a sole or primary method of evaluating or imposing sanctions on schools. We believe that this one-size-fits-all bureaucratic scheme will neither promote accountability nor improve those schools that really need help. Instead it may damage both equity and educational quality by diverting resources to the kind of narrow coaching that can improve test scores."
Educate and Mobilize
A. Send letters and opinion columns to your local newspaper(s), both dailies and weeklies.
B. Contact education reporters who might be doing local stories about the Bush education plan. Also, meet with the editorial boards of local newspapers.
C. Call local talk shows and get on local cable TV shows.
D. Speak to local groups.
E. If you do not get a positive response, you may want to hold a rally at the congressperson's office. This can be used also to reach the media.
All these actions are opportunities to address state and local testing issues and to link the two. For example, the Bush plan would increase the amount of testing in many states, or force states to use tests for accountability in ways they are not now doing. Overtesting, misuse of tests, and other harmful consequences are similar regardless of who mandates the testing. Use the Bush plan not only as a threat, but also as an opportunity to further the work on this issue.
NOTES
1. See FairTest Examiner, (Summer 2000), (Spring 2000), (Winter 1999-2000). The quarterly newsletter of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), the Examiner is available by subscription, and all articles are posted on the FairTest website, www.fairtest.org [2].
2. FairTest Examiner, (Winter 1997-98).
3. FairTest Examiner, (Fall 1994).
4. FairTest Examiner, (Fall 1999).
5. Joetta L. Sack, "The End of an Education Presidency," Education Week, (January 17, 2001). www.edweek.org [3].
FOR MORE INFORMATION
FairTest
342 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139
617-864-4810; Fax: 617-497-2224
fairtest@fairtest.org [4]
www.fairtest.org [5]
Also see the book Failing Our Kids: Why the Testing Craze Won't Fix Our Schools edited by Kathy Swope and Barbara Miner (Rethinking Schools, 2000). www.rethinkingschools.org [6]
Monty Neill, EdD, is executive director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest). He has directed FairTest's work on testing in the public schools since 1987 and has taught and administered at the pre-school, high school, and college levels. Neill is the author of Implementing Performance Assessments: A Guide to Classroom School and System Reform and Testing Our Children: A Report Card on State Assessment Systems, the first comprehensive evaluation of all 50 state testing programs.
Illustration by Marc Mongeau.