High Stakes Testing Stephanie Gelman-O'Connor COM112 February 20, 2013 Catherine Bramkamp

Even though high stakes testing creates incentive in students to do well on tests, this kind of aggressive testing puts undue pressure on learning disabled or handicapped students because high stakes testing does not test for potential, only current skills, and it does not alien itself with the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) act of 2001. Students outside main stream learning abilities will need help outside the assigned curriculum to successfully “test-out.” The “No Child Left Behind” act of 2001, in section 2001, specifically states that “The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments (United States Department of Education, 2001) .” This government document relates 12 physical acts that will ensure the success of every student. Among other things, it includes” meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children,” whatever the reason, and “…closing the achievement gap between high- and low- preforming children (United States Department of Education, 2001) .” High stakes testing is contrary to the NCLB act because it enforces only one kind of learning style. High stakes testing reinforces learning and memorization for math and sciences and focuses on students with no learning issues or disabilities. High stakes testing does not test for areas of weakness in a child’s education, and so does not focus on improvement (American Psychological Association, n.d.) Schools understand this, and because they base the educational budget on the success of high stakes testing some schools and school districts are hiding learning disabled scores by modifying the reporting criteria. The government has recognizes this and their reaction was to lowered the cut off scores to a level that allows a higher percentage of passing students (Nathan, Marc). Unfortunately for the learning impaired students, the NCLB act put greater emphasis on accountability and government involvement. This involvement translated to federal money for education based on test scores. Previously to 2001, education was left for the states to decide proper testing. At this time only about seven percent of education is funded by the federal government (Department of Education, 2010.) Teachers and educators are feeling the brunt of trying to teach toward the “test.” Krista Sokolsky is a third grade teacher in San Lorenzo, California. The school near Oakland is classified by the government as lower-middle class. For the past 10 years Krista has focused her teaching on encouraging students to learn and explore. She creates games to help them remember grammar and takes field trips into the park to teach about nature. Her school has failed to meet California’s reading target over the past four years. Because of this the government has instructed Sokolsky to follow a state-mandated, cookie-cutter curriculum. This educational directive is intended to do one thing, and one thing only, raise test scores. The Federal Government has instructed Sokolsky, and other teachers like her, to raise the reading skills of eight and nine-year olds by teaching reading for two-and-a-half hours every day (Rubinstein, n.d.). Two of these hours are mandatory lecture. Anyone one person who has come in contact with eight and nine-year olds will realize how successful this time will be. Included in this government learning solution are prescribed questions and specific practices to management high and low-achieving students. Sokolsky says "We do our best to break things up, but the program doesn't really allow for variation." "A lot of us wonder why you need a teacher in the room if we can't do what we were trained to do. Essentially because, they give me a textbook to follow that anyone who can read could teach." The education style is repetitious, and children complain about reading the same book over and over again to ensure they get all the accompanying lessons on comprehension. Reading for fun does not have a place in this mandated educational program. After two years of teaching in this manner, educators have seen some small increases in scores, though not enough to reach the targets. Scores did drop in the 2007-2008 school year, when teachers had to start sticking closely to the new reading program (Rubinstein, n.d.) The Federal government allows wavers that will release schools from the governance of the NCLB act. These are available to educational facilities that meet the requirements. The law to allow wavers expired in 2007 and because Congress has failed to rewrite it. ("The Balanced View: High Stakes testing," April), but because no other challenge was enacted against it, the president can continue to release them to schools. The condition for these wavers is that school must meet new standards and support the “No Child Left Behind” goal. This waver gives the schools a longer timeline instead of holding to the 2014 date to raise english and math scores. The waivers have allowed the Obama administration to enact parts of its education agenda without sweeping legislation (Nichols, nd.) There is no new funding attached to these waivers, however schools who accept additional help from the government in the implementation of the new conditions may to continue to receive the same financial aid as without the waivers. To date, only one percent of the school taking the wavier has agreed to financial support (Nichols, nd). Twenty states that have received permission to work around No Child Left Behind include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition, six states that did not complete the entire waiver process, and one whose application was rejected received a one-year freeze on the rising targets for standardized test scores: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, and West Virginia. The applications of 10 states and Washington, D.C., are still being reviewed (New York Times, May). California was denied a waiver because the state government refused to tie educator wages to test scores. Policies on “No Child Left Behind” are being examined from every angle. It is clear that there are many issues that a large percentage of people affected by this act (teachers, educators, children, and families) have voiced a strong sentiment of dissatisfaction. The Federal Government is finding ways within the controversy, by use of wavers to help schools meet the educational goals of the nations within a schedule that the schools see as feasible. Teachers are still unhappy and parents of learning disabled and handicapped students are fearful that his or her student will not be getting the attention they need. The goal of bringing up the education requirement for the United States is an important one, but it does not appear that a sweeping guideline like “No Child Left Behind” is a workable choice.

References American Psychological Association. (nd). Appropriate Use of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/testing.aspx Cortiella, C. (nd). Understanding High-Stakes Testing and Its Impact on Students with Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/learning-disability-resources/parent-advocacy-guides/understanding-high-stakes-testing-its-impact-on-students-with-learning-disabilities The Balanced View: High Stakes testing. (April 2008). Westchester Institute for Human Research, 7(1), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.sharingsuccess.org/code/bv/testing.pdf Department of Education. (2010). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act - Vol. IX - Accountability under the NCLB: Final Report. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf Nathan, L. (March 2003). Faces of High Stakes Testing. Retrieved from http://www.pearweb.org/teaching/pdfs/Schools/Boston%20Arts%20Academy/Articles/Nathan%20-%20The%20Human%20Face%20of%20the%20High-Stakes%20Testing%20Story.PDF New York Times. (May 29, 2012). Waivers for 8 More States From ‘No Child Left Behind’. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/education/eight-more-states-get-waiver-from-no-child-law.html Nichols, S. (nd). Motivation for High Stakes Testing. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.nichols/what_is_high_stakes_testing__nclb_ Pedulla, J., Abrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived. Boston, MA: National Board On Educational Testing And Public Policy. Rubinstein, G. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind: The Good and Bad. Retrieved from http://www.parenting.com/article/no-child-left-behind-the-good-and-the-bad