Assessment in
No Child Left Behind

The Controversy over Standardized Testing and it’s Effects on Young Children

Cynthia M. Kirchner Western Governors University
Sherry Lawler HJT1 Task 1
#54425

Nature of the Controversy:

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Accountability and
Standardized/High-Stakes Testing

No Child Left Behind (NCLB): is the newest iteration of a decades-old education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The original law provided funding to school districts to help low-income students. Today, NCLB holds Title I schools that receive this federal money accountable by requiring them to meet proficiency targets on annual assessments.

Standardized or High-Stakes Testing: These are the tests that are administered by the individual states and consist of multiple choice and true/false questions. The tests are designed to evaluate students in the subject areas of mathematics and reading. These tests have been given to students in grades three through eight. The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is that students will receive 100% proficiency level on these tests by 2014

Accountability: Accountability is the concept that each state set standards for the type and amount of information students know and learn. Children are tested yearly and the scores are reported to the government. Schools that need improvement are identified and they work over the next school year to raise the students’ test scores (Robertson, 2009)

Nature of the Controversy:
Accountability vs. High-Stakes Testing

THE CONTROVERSY
Opponents of No Child Left Behind feel that the unitended consequences (High-Stakes Testing) of No Child Left Behind outweighs the intended consequences ( Accountability). A major argument that is presented against NCLB is the effectiveness of standardized testing. No Child Left Behind opponents feel standardized tests are not a reliable method of testing, that tests are limited in the material actually covered and are only offered in the basic multiple-choice format. The results are an approximate figure of the students’ understanding. Test scores do not provide a true evaluation of a school. (Robertson, 2009)

WHAT IS AT STAKE?
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES: NCLB accountability requirements provide severe economic consequences for states failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress ( AYP) and assessment inclusion goals. Consequently, states develop consequences for districts, schools, and their employees.
LOSS OF AUTONOMY: Another consequence for failure to meet AYP goals is a loss of autonomy. Educators at a district or school not making AYP are likely to lose the opportunity to determine teaching materials and methods,governance structures, and other forms of professionalautonomy, such as the privacy and freedoms common tomost individual classroom teachers. NCLB requireseducators at schools to restructure their practices, andto adopt practices supported by scientifically basedresearch, which implies substantial changes inorganization and behavior.

INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Improving instructional focus on things stakeholders feel students should learn (i.e., aligning instruction to standards).
Increasing instructional efficiency and resource allocation to improve student performance.
Increasing motivation for students, teachers and parents to perform, teach, and support. Reducing the achievement gap between majority and historically underserved or low-performing groups. Increasing the use of evidence-based instructional methods (and decreasing ineffective approaches).

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Narrow curricular focus to teach only what is tested (e.g., eliminating music classes). Academic demoralization among teachers, students, and parents following repeated test failure.
Anxiety among students, teachers, and parents.
Corruption, such as cheating or teaching to the test (rather than to the standards).
Inappropriate resource allocation, such as targeting students near the cutoff while ignoring students not near cutoff levels.
Exclusive use of a single data sources (i.e., test) to make high-stakes decisions.

(Braden & Schroeder, 2004)

Perspectives on Standardized
Testing

PROPONENTS

OPPONENTS

Standardized testing holds teachers and schools accountable.

Standardized testing allows students located in various schools, districts, and even states to be compared.

Standardized testing evaluates a student’s performance on one particular day and does not take into account external factors.

Standardized testing causes many teachers to only “teach to the tests”.

Standardized testing is typically accompanied by a set of established standards or instructional framework which provide teachers with guidance for what and when something needs to be taught.

Standardized testing only evaluates the individual performance of the student instead of the overall growth of that student over the course of the year.

Standardized tests are objective in nature.

Standardized testing can create a lot of stress(“test anxiety”) on both educators and students.

Standardized tests provide accurate comparisons between sub-groups.

Narrowed Curriculum; An enormous amount of time being spent on reading, writing, and mathematics at the cost of instruction in science, social studies, physical education, and the arts.

The Effects of No Child Left
Behind and Standardized
Testing on Young Children

Preschool teachers are pressured to begin teaching children the basic academic skills that are assessed under NCLB. The effects of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation are felt in preschools because policy makers believe that an early start on developing academic skills will help children reach the standards they are expected to achieve in elementary school. They hope also that an early introduction to academics will reduce the gap in achievement between children from economically disadvantaged and more advantaged homes. (Stipek, 2006)

PROPONENTS
The pressure NCLB has put on preschool educators to teach academic skills will stimulate constructive practices that could increase all children’s academic performance and especially economically disadvantaged and non-white children’s success in school.

OPPONENTS
Has the potential of doing more harm than good by promoting educational practices that undermine children’s enthusiasm for learning and, as a result, negatively affect their ultimate academic performance
It could also do harm by reducing attention to other intellectual abilities that are not typically tested under NCLB, such as the development of critical, analytic, and creative thinking and reasoning skills.
Greater emphasis on academic skills in preschool would come at the cost of attention to non-academic dimensions of development that are critical for success in life as well as in school, including social competence, behavioral self-regulation, and physical and emotional well-being.
Elementary teachers typically spend 75 percent of their time teaching reading and math, leaving inadequate instructional time for other subjects. (Cawelti, 2006)

Recommendations to Improve
Assessment in No Child Left Behind

Continual Assessment: Teachers have continual assessment in their classroom they can observe each student and his or her individual progress. When teachers have constant feedback, they are able to carefully plan their lessons to meet the needs of each student.

Comprehensive Assessment and Accountability System: Standardized testing should be just one piece of an innovative, comprehensive assessment and accountability system student

Meaningful and Differentiated Assessment: Achievement should be measured by assessments instruments other than standardized tests. We need a more sophisticated assessment system that places less emphasis on standardized assessments and incorporates more meaningful assessment data at the school level, such as portfolio assessments, demonstrations, oral presentations, and applied projects (Robertson, 2009)

Performance Asssessments: In California, 30 school districts have turned their attention to mathematics assessment. Through the Silicon Valley Mathematics Assessment Collaborative, these districts created a performance assessment system that goes beyond multiple-choice questions to require students to demonstrate problem solving, explain their thinking, and justify their findings. A multiple-choice exam could not duplicate this rich picture of student performance. Moreover, because the assessments provide specific information about student learning needs, they guide professional development, inform instruction, and lead to changes in teaching strategies. (Guilfoyle, 2006)

Bring science to schools: NCLB explicitly requires schools to use methods supported by scientifically based research, in part because such research suggests that there is relatively widespread use of inefficient, unsupported instructional practices. Bringing scientific rigor (e.g., knowledge of measurement, experimental, literature synthesis) to school improvement plans can help schools adopt high quality strategies(e.g., explicit phonemic awareness instruction) to improve student learning, and avoid low quality strategies (e.g., test preparation programs) to change student test scores

Help people cope: Tests induce stress by changing routines, creating uncertainty, and, for some people insome settings, changing lives through promotion, graduation, or, in some cases, radical changes to failing schools (e.g., closure, reconstitution). Educators need to have professional services available to help them understand the testing process, identify and implement evidence-based methods of instruction, and receive emotional support to help them cope with the stresses of testing. (Braden & Schroeder, 2004)

References

Braden, J. P., & Schroeder, J. L. (2004). High stakes testing and No Child Left Behind: Information and strategies for educators. Helping Children at Home and School, 73-77.
Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 64. Guilfoyle, C. (2006). NCLB: Is there life beyond testing?. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 8. Robertson, K. (2009). The Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on the K-8 Setting.
Simpson, R. L., Lacava, P. G., & Graner, P. S. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act Challenges and Implications for Educators. Intervention in school and clinic, 40(2), 67-75.
Stipek, D. (2006). No child left behind comes to preschool. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 455-466.