In Brief
·
·
·
'No Child
Left Behind' regulations. ·
Does
standardized testing improve schools
and teacher quality, and increase educational opportunity? ========================================== STAR - CAHSEE - API The State of CST test items are
linked to what
the state calls 'content standards.' These 'standards' are not general
goals, principles or benchmarks.
Rather, they specify in detail the course content and skills at each
grade
level in basic school subjects. Almost no discretion about what and how
to
teach is left to schools, the districts, local community, teachers, and
other
school and community based educational professionals. CST
tests are currently given in English language and mathematics in grades
2 to 11
in the late spring of each academic year. A writing test, part of the
English language
test, is given in grades 4 and 7. A social science-history test is
given in
grades 8 and10, and a science test in grades 5, 9, 10, and 11. Recent legislation authorizes STAR testing
for second graders until July 2007. This was a concession to objections
by
parents, child development experts and teachers that standardized
testing is
counterproductive to sound teaching and learning practices particularly
in the
kindergarten and early grades. Upon
signing the legislation Governor Schwarzenegger released
a statement that testing second graders was vital to CST
tests are what are called 'criterion referenced' tests. This means that
scores
indicating acceptable levels of performance are set according to some
agreed
upon cut scores that purportedly indicate levels of proficiency. CST 'proficiency' scores are set by state
appointed panels composed of educators, subject matter experts,
administrators,
and teachers. The panels are presented
with pools of multiple-choice test items (including answers) developed
by ETS,
the test contractor, and for each grade level are to asked rank the
level of
difficulty of the test items, and give their opinions about how many of
the
items must be answered correctly to establish an acceptable level
proficiency.
The cut off scores are submitted for approval to the State Board of
Education,
an eleven member body, appointed by the governor. Note that there is no
effort
to ground test cut off scores in individuals’ actual proficiency in the
subject. There is no basis whatsoever to
presume, for example, that students' proficiency scores on a CST
multiple
choice mathematics or reading test bear any relationship to their
actual
ability to do math and read. CAT/6 tests are given
in grades 3
and 7 cover reading-language arts, math, and spelling. While CST
tests are not
timed, they take about nine to fifteen hours depending on grade level.
Testing
consumes about two weeks of school time not including time spent on
test
preparation. CAT/6 are timed 2 1/2 hour
tests. Parents have the
unqualified
right to exempt their children from all STAR
tests
by informing the principal in writing. They need give no reasons for
their
decision. The state, however, requires that 90% of students in a school
take
the STAR tests in order for the
school to receive an API ranking. The
federal government requires 95% take the state mandated STAR tests in order to calculate a school’s AYP,
or Adequate Yearly Progress. (See
below for explanations of API and AYP.) Severely
handicapped students may be eligible to take California
Alternate Performance Assessment
or CAPA in lieu of STAR tests. Eligibility is very limited because the
regulations arbitrarily limit CAPA tests to one half of 1% of the
school
population. The
STAR program also mandates the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education or
SABE/2,
a norm referenced test of language, math, and spelling for
Spanish-speaking
students. It is given to children of recent immigrants whose first
language is
Spanish. SABE/2 results are not used for
calculating the API or AYP. CAHSEE: This is an
untimed, approximately 6 1/2 hour set of standardized 'criterion
referenced'
tests in English and mathematics. The test items are tied to a state’s
so
called 'content standards. ' Cut scores are determined by approximately
the
same process used for the CST. CAHSEE
was developed to serve as a requirement for high school graduation.
However the
State Board of Education, bowing to strong public pressure, delayed its
use as
a requirement until 2006. Though not a requirement, CAHSEE test results
are
used along with STAR test results to calculate schools’ Academic
Performance
Index or API. Parents cannot exempt their children from CAHSEE. Though
there is
pressure on students to take the test, there are no legal negative
consequences
for students who miss or boycott the test. STAR and CAHSEE tests are all
multiple-choice format with the exception of the CST writing tests. API:
The Academic Performance Index. To avoid sanctions, schools must achieve API targets set by the state. Schools and the teachers in schools meeting or exceeding API targets were initially rewarded with additional state funds. However such funds have not been appropriated for the last four years. Schools that fall short of annual API targets are branded as failed schools and subject to sanctions or 'corrective action'. They are listed on the California Department of Education 'program improvement' web page and are legally entitled and required to receive expert help provided by the state in order to meet the required API targets. (This does not insure that schools in fact receive such aid.) Schools failing to meet API targets for three successive years are targeted for closure and 'reconstitution'. This means that principals, teachers and school staff are dismissed or 'reassigned' and the management of the reconstituted schools passes to the state and/or is sub contracted to an education management organizations or EMO. Note that schools may meet or exceed the state's API targets but nevertheless be designated as failing according to federal rules for calculating Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP. (See No Child Left Behind regulations below.) Before 1998
to be
accepted to an elementary teacher credential program at a In 1998 the
legislature passed Senate Bill 2042 which forced
colleges and universities in On
their face there is nothing apparently controversial in the language of
these
broadly stated standards or TPEs. What, however, is remarkable and
controversial is the extraordinary degree of state control over what
these mean
in practice. For each TPE there is an extensive catalogue of skills,
abilities,
and bodies of knowledge set out in detail for satisfying that standard.
In
addition, new regulations issued by the Commission
on Teacher Credentialing specify in even greater detail the
expectations
(TPEs) that each candidate must meet to be eligible for a teaching
credential. The
state specifies that each institution must assess whether each
credential
candidate is prepared to teach the State's mandated curriculum (or
'content
standards') to elementary and secondary school students, and to prepare
them to
take the STAR tests and the high school exit exam (CAHSEE). All
institutions
offering credential programs, undergraduate or graduate, must devise
'Teacher
Performance Assessments' (TPAs) to insure that each teacher credential
candidate meets the expectations (TPEs). Course descriptions and
proposed assessment
tasks must be submitted to state officials for approval. By
2004 the major flaws of the Act were apparent. In the seven years since
the law
was passed no state funds have been allocated for development of the
Teacher
Performance Assessment tasks (TPAs) nor for the costs of developing a
system
for reporting results and maintaining the record keeping required by
statute.
Virtually all funds allocated were directed to the California
Department of
Education for training and administrative purposes.
In the face of massive cuts in the education
budget, state officials pressed for 'voluntary' compliance. The results
are
major disruptions of teacher education programs across the state
without any
regard for their quality, the dismantling of successful multicultural /
diversity programs, the rearrangement, renaming and the standardization
of
courses, and diversion of scarce program resources to satisfying state
regulations that have no demonstrable educational benefits. The
No Child Left
Behind Act History
The
No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB was signed into law Title
I is considered the flagship of the Act. In 2004 $12.5
billion in Title I funds were provided to schools that serve low-income
children in approximately 53% of the nation’s public schools. Almost
65%
percent of children in these schools are of color, the great majority
African-American and Latino. What's
in NCLB? There
are two primary goals claimed for the act: 1) to institute high
academic
standards for all students; 2) to
insure that there are 'highly qualified' teachers in every States
accepting NCLB dollars are expected to adopt a system of
accountability with the following elements: Academic
Standards. States must
adopt 'content' standards' that must be certified by
federal authorities as in compliance with regulations. In effect, NCLB
federalizes the nation's curriculum, shifting power to shape curriculum
and
teaching from teachers, principals and local authorities to federal and
state
bureaucrats and elected officials. Annual Testing. Beginning with
the 2005-06 school year, students are to be
assessed in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8. (There are
limited
exemptions for physically and learning disabled students). States select
or design
their own assessments that must be in alignment with the state’s
content
standards. 95% of the students in a
school are required to take the state mandated tests. Beginning
2007-08, states are
expected to administer annual tests in science, once during elementary,
middle,
and high school A sample of 4th and 8th graders in each state is also
required
to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests
(NAEP)
in reading and mathematics every other year. These results are intended
to be
used to 'calibrate' test results across states thereby establishing a de facto centralized, standardized
national curriculum. Adequate
Yearly Progress
(AYP) and Sanctions Students
in all schools are
expected to score at the 'proficient' level in reading and math by
2014, and
all schools are expected to make 'Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP. This translates to gaining a specific number
of test points each year in order to avoid federal government
sanctions. Each
of the fifty states uses its own system of testing and calculates the
specific
number of test points needed on the state's mandated tests to satisfy
federal
NCLB regulations. Schools falling short of
their AYP targets for two consecutive years are
considered failing. These schools are required to receive technical
assistance
from the school district. Parents of
children attending schools designated as failing according to federal
regulations are given the right to transfer their children to a school
that
meets or exceeds federal AYP targets. Transportation costs are
subtracted from
the failed schools' Title I funds. After
three years of failing to make AYP targets, parents have the right to
seek
supplemental services for their child from private tutoring companies
with
tuition and transportation paid by the district. If a Title I school
fails to
make AYP targets for four consecutive years, the district is required
to take
'corrective action', such as replacing the school principal and
teaching staff,
or adopting a new 'scientifically based' curriculum. After five years
of
inadequate test score gains, a school is identified for
'reconstitution'. This
usually means dismissing staff and re-opening as a charter school
and/or under
the management of an EMO, education management organization. States have the
responsibility for identifying schools needing improvement, and taking
corrective
action specified by federal regulations.
If any one 'numerically significant' subgroup, based on
class,
ethnicity, race or learning disability (these are designated by federal
regulation) within a given school fails
to meet AYP targets, the entire school is considered as failing. The
rule is
waived if the failed subgroup makes 10% annual improvement. Note
that schools may be designated as
successful under state rules for the API yet be classified as failures
according to federal regulations for AYP.
'Highly
qualified teachers' By the 2005-06
school year,
all teachers must be certified as 'highly qualified' by the federal
government. 'Highly qualified' means
that individuals hold a credential or license to teach and are
proficient in
the subjects(s) they teach. Beginning in
the 2002-03 school year, all new teachers in Title I schools were
expected to
have met NCLB 'highly qualified.'
regulations. By the end 2005-06 school
year all school paraprofessionals must have completed at least two
years of
college, obtained an associate's degree or higher, or passed a test to
demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability. This requirement is already
in
effect for newly hired paraprofessionals. All judgments about who is
'highly
qualified' must be 'scientifically based'.
In practice this is established by
standardized testing. 'Reading
First' and
'Scientifically-Based' teaching and learning School
prayer The federal
Department of
Education must provide guidance to states, districts, and the public to
be
revised every two years on 'constitutionally protected prayer' in
schools.
Also, districts must certify to their state education agencies that no
state or
local policy 'prevents or otherwise denies participation in
constitutionally
protected prayer.' Military
recruitment Schools
must provide military recruiters access to students similar to that
provided to
college and job recruiters. This includes government access to basic
student-contact information upon request. Though parents have the legal
right
to exempt their children by submitting a request to their local school
district, they are rarely informed of this right. Take
note ¨ Section 1905 of the NCLB Act says that
federal officials or employees may not 'mandate, direct, or control a
state,
local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content,
academic
achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of
instruction.'
This provision is routinely ignored by the federal government and by
state
governments, which with few exceptions increasingly act as agents of
the federal
government.
¨
NCLB regulations are laid on top of existing state testing and
credential regulations. ¨
There is no authorization in the NCLB Act for cutting off Title I
funds from schools or districts for noncompliance or failure to make
AYP or API
targets. Does
standardized testing improve schools and teacher quality,
and increase educational opportunity? The avowed
purpose of standardized tests in recent years is to
raise standards of academic achievement and provide 'highly qualified'
teachers to US classrooms. Lewis
Gerstner, former IBM CEO, a chief advocate for standardized testing,
justifies
standardized testing as follows: "We must establish
clear goals and measure progress to them, articulate exactly what we
expect
from schools, teachers, principals, students and parents, … provide
rewards and
incentives … If the goals are not met enact stiff penalties --changing
leadership, and even dismissing staff members in schools that aren’t
performing. All of this …requires testing and assessment of both
students and
staff. The logic of the policy
appears straightforward. Schooling is
labor intensive and costly. Public expenditures for education, federal,
state,
and local, accounts for a large proportion of all domestic spending.
Testing is
needed to inject discipline and accountability to a system rife with
bloated
bureaucracy and incompetent or indifferent teachers and administrators. Furthermore, the argument runs, standard
testing advances equality of educational opportunity because the same
high
standards are set for all children regardless of parents’ wealth, race,
or
ethnicity. The dean of free
market
economists, Milton Friedman, provides another justification for
standardized
curriculum aligned with standardized testing. "….
[T]he only way to make a major improvement in our educational system is
through
privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of all
educational
service is rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else
will
destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the educational
establishment —a
necessary pre-condition for radical improvement in our educational
system. …[In
addition,] the privatization of schooling would produce a new, highly
active
and profitable industry." Privatization, or more precisely, corporatization of education requires significant returns on capital investment. Standardized measurement linked to standardized curriculum is required to measure productivity, affix monetary value, and calculate annual gains and losses. These policies have their origins in a bipartisan effort by presidents, governors, chief state education officers and national corporate leaders to install national testing as the cornerstone of federal and state government policy. The technology of standardized testing is familiar. Each test is composed of dozens, sometimes several hundred ‘items’, each of which presents lines of text, mathematical problem, table, diagram, drawing, chart, photo, spoken text, etc. The test-taker’s task is to choose the best or correct response from an array of four or five alternatives, and darken the corresponding bubble on an answer sheet or computer display. This technology trumps any and all other indices of educational success and failure Deeper understanding, subtlety of thought, creativity, critical thinking, perseverance, leadership and sensibility about self and the world cannot be measured by multiple-choice technology. When sanctions are tied to standardized tests, the effect on curriculum, teaching, and learning is predictable and well documented. The curriculum shrinks and learning narrows, particularly in schools designated as failing or in danger of being designated as failing. Subjects and areas of study and forms of learning –music, drama, the arts, social and moral development, physical education, oral language– that do not count when calculating a school’s ranking are ignored or marginalized. Many acknowledge the limitations of academic achievement tests and grant the obvious –that a score on an academic achievement test and true academic achievement and growth are not one and the same. Yet in public discourse and in the press, even among some who are highly critical of these policies, a school’s relative standing on academic achievement tests is taken as a reasonable, if not wholly adequate, indicator of school quality and teacher effectiveness. This careless use of language that confounds test scores with actual achievement, school quality, and teacher effectiveness is a major source of confusion over educational policy and diverts the public’s and lawmakers’ attention away from addressing the social and educational problems we face as individuals, families, states, and nation. The mindless and ubiquitous use of standardized tests as the sole measure of educational progress is as unjust as it is absurd. It has had the effect of labeling close to one third of the nations 91,400 schools as failing in 2002-3 based on the failure to make AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) targets set by federal regulation. It is estimated that if current rules hold, as many as 90% of schools in most states will be classified as failing in ten years. Irrevocable decisions are made that shape the direction of the lives of many millions of individuals based on the score on a single standardized, multiple-choice test. None of the tests used to calculate AYP are grounded in observed and documented academic ability or achievement. Reliance on standardized tests affects all students and communities, but as numerous researchers have carefully documented, there is a particularly adverse impact on students and communities of color. Teachers and administrators in low scoring schools which disproportionately serve communities of color are under such extraordinary pressure to raise test scores that those most likely to be first in line for a narrow and culturally truncated curriculum, and shrinking educational opportunities are the children of the poor, immigrants, and people of color. Because there is no evidence to support the claim that standardized tests are a valid and credible measure of academic achievement, these tests are a particularly invidious form of institutional racism lending the cloak of science to policies and practices that have denied, and are continuing to deny, persons of color equal access to educational and job opportunities. Federal and state policies that mandate standardized testing technology tied to prescribed curriculum undermines democratic values and cultural diversity. Democracy can only be sustained by an informed, engaged public that possesses the inclination and critical skills to question political authority and public policy. The equating of quality schools with test scores has the effect of further marginalizing humanities, civic and anti-racist education, discussions of controversial topics and fundamental political and moral questions that are at the heart of living in a culturally diverse democratic society. Furthermore, at the core of democracy is the commitment that ordinary people should be able to exercise their right to participate fully in making decisions that affect their lives and the life of their communities. This includes control over the public schools that educate their children. Current policies shift political control of schools from local communities, local governing boards, parents and teachers to state and federal governments bureaucrats, test experts, and private contractors, who are distant from classrooms and everyday school life. The future of assessment. Standardized testing now taken as a given in American education is an arcane form of information technology, a relic of the early years of the twentieth century. It was developed at the time when the mechanical hole punch and manual sorting with pins was state of the art information processing technology. While the statistics used for tallying and reporting results have become highly sophisticated, the multiple-choice technology of standardized testing has not changed since its invention. Among the more formidable obstructions to change in assessment policy is a belief, widely shared in this society, that whatever the deficiencies of standardized testing, there are no other practical ways to document educational progress, sort students, and evaluate teachers. However, contrary to this widely held belief, there is no shortage of systematic evaluation methods for documenting and assessing teaching and school learning and for gauging the quality of academic and other forms of school learning. The digital microprocessor and desktop computer technology developed over in last fifteen years has transformed our technological capacity to collect and document students’ writing, math, art, and a wide range of educational achievements without reducing them to a set of multiple-choice test scores. Though technology cannot replace human judgment, digital information technologies have enormous and as yet untapped potential for the development information systems that foster democratic decision-making, and responsive, systematic, and locally conducted assessments. The current direction of educational assessment policy must be reversed if we are to have a system of public education that serves our children, parents, and our communities, and strengthens rather than undermines our democratic institutions. v.
2.0 Feb 05 Drafted by Harold Berlak hberlak@yahoo.com
May
be circulated
|