Originally published here on April 12, 2008.It would be inaccurate (melodrama or hyperbole, perhaps) to say that we have just started at my school to get ready for the
test. My West Virginia readers will all think of the
WESTEST without me specifically mentioning it. If you are from some other state, I'm talking of course about the annual high stakes test that helps meet the accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)...
The truth is that we began getting ready for the WESTEST during the first or second week of September at my school. We looked at last year's scores (along with other data) and began identifying our weakest reading and math students. We began building interventions into their schedules (for my readers who aren't professional educators, that's jargon - a technical term for
extra help in a subject outside the time when it is normally taught to the whole class). We met regularly to discuss how those particular kids were doing and to look for ways to improve their grasp of core subjects. To the extent that the test is just a measure of academic progress and success at a school, we've been preparing for the WESTEST for over seven months.
That said, we have recently begun to prepare more specifically for the test in the last few days. When you're only nine or ten years old, a year is a long time. So we've tried to remind our students about what the test is like and re-impress upon them the importance of the test. We've tried to re-examine some skills specific to test taking. And we've tried to identify particular weaknesses that our students still have and look for ways to pay additional attention to those weaknesses as we go through our normal instructional day. We have three weeks of school left to find our problems as "fix" them...
At this point, my polite description of the month to come and the process of accountability is complete, and I intend now to become more philosophical (perhaps even political) as I consider
the test. If you are easily offended or have a weak heart you should find something else to read...
The test (whether it is the WESTEST or the SAT9, the Iowa test of Basic Skills or the Virginia Standards of Learning test) is
not what the school year is all about. When someone says it is, I'm usually offended. I try to hide it; but occasionally I slip up and correct them - sometimes with vigor.
I would never argue that accountability is wrong or bad. The
primary purpose of school is to teach. But I've said
elsewhere that it certainly isn't the
only purpose. And while high stakes testing is certainly one way to measure learning (and, by implication, teaching), it is not the only way.
NCLB's emphasis on
disaggragate data has been good for American education. It protects minorities and shows weaknesses in the process of education.
The moral judgments that NCLB's accountability provisions make on a school are too narrowly defined. The bottom line is that we have to make a certain score (at least in Math and Reading) in order to be seen as having made adequate yearly progress (AYP). A certain percentage of our kids have to display mastery of the subjects tested, or we're a "bad" school. Mastery is like a low "B" and the students could score in categories above mastery on the test. At the moment the percentage of students that have to score mastery on the test is probably reasonable for our school. Next year it will be higher.
Eventually (2014),
every child will have to score mastery on each of the tests. That, of course, is ludicrous considering that No Child Left Behind says it doesn't matter that the child may
- have a learning disability
- not speak English fluently
- have an IQ of 62
- have recently moved to the school from somewhere else
I have no problem with the test itself. My problem is with the use of the test. The test is being used to eventually show that the concept of public education is flawed. The Bush Republicans want to privatize education - or at least justify the creation of a large scale private alternative to public education. And they want it to be church-based and paid for with vouchers. They are willing to
use the disabled and minorities to accomplish their goal.
No industrialized country on earth sets the standard as high as 100%. It is an unreasonable standard, and at the moment we move a little closer to that unreasonable demand each year. The purpose of the unreasonableness is simple: the Bush agenda (dating back to his 1999 campaign for his first term) is to eventually be able to say "most public schools are
bad schools and we need an alternative."
It is not clear to me that this years requirements are either reasonable or unreasonable. But it is clear to me that the requirements will eventually become unreasonable, and unachievable.
I work at a good school. I think we'll make AYP this year. But I work at a good school whether we make AYP or not. I work with highly trained people who try very hard and who care about the kids they teach. And because I
know that the accountability requirements of NCLB are purposefully designed to eventually become absurdly unachievable, those requirements lose a great deal of their meaning. Maybe this is the year that they become unreasonable...
Perhaps the next President will change the law and make the accountability provisions more meaning. Perhaps.
The release of a study by the non-partisan Center for Education Policy (CEP) triggered the AP story. The CEP says that about half of the states set their benchmarks in a manner that might best be described as back loading- something like a balloon payment at the end of a loan. Those states set small goals in for the first half of NCLB and larger goals for the second half. One state, for example, has seen a 10% improvement in math scores in the last six year - from 14% proficient to 24% proficient. Now, in the next six years, they need a 76% improvement to satisfy the laws requirements...
