This may very well come off as a bit of a rant - and I apologize in advance for the length - but as a teacher, education is something I feel strongly about. My entire career is guided by a high stakes, annual exam required of all students between 3rd and 10th grade by the woefully misnamed "No Child Left Behind" law, more correctly named the "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" (ESEA - complete text here).
Now, I realize that the annual exam varies somewhat from state to state, so all comments I make here are based on the Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP). Given as directed, this test requires a minimum of 3 days, with 3 1-hour testing sessions on each day, 1 day each for Reading, Writing, and Math (and remember, this is for kids - ages 8-16), all of which must be completed within 2 weeks; students in grades 5, 8, and 10 must also take another test, in Science, which requires a 4th day with 3 1-hour testing sessions. These are children, remember - and one of my TKD students told me that one of the reasons his child is in private school is because he thinks it is absurd to give a test to elementary students that takes twice as long as he took to take the Bar exam.
This test is, supposedly, intended to provide feedback to teachers so that they can improve their instruction... but the test is given in March, the scores are not available before school lets out, and even if they were, they are compared year to year (that is, 3rd graders who take the test in 2007 are compared to 3rd graders who took the test in 2006) - rather useless from the viewpoint of improving instruction, as the only thing those 2 groups may have in common is the neighborhood they live in and the school they attend. I will give Colorado's new governor this - he is planning to change the reporting structure such that students will be compared to themselves over time (that is, Child A's scores from 2007 will be compared to Child A's previous scores from 2006) - a much more meaningful way to use this information, because it will allow teachers to track growth over time, and to look for patterns in skill weaknesses. Nonetheless, the current method (year to year) is the one mandated by law.
One of the primary concerns I, as a special education teacher, have with this test is that ESEA/NCLB is in direct conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004 - the current incarnation of the special education law); ESEA/NCLB requires that the vast majority of students be tested without modifications or accommodations that are mandated by IDEA 2004 - thus giving an inaccurate picture of students with disabilities when compared to their peers, and further convincing students with learning problems, who are confronted by a test that is often too hard, and without the aids that allow them to participate with their peers, that they are stupid - which they aren't, but many of them see their friends do the same work (or harder) with greater ease, and this test rubs their faces in it in a way I find unconscionable - but I cannot take those test days off, because I will not leave my students to face the damn thing alone.
Another concern I have is the number of people who think teachers don't want to be accountable for what they teach - the supposed rationale for ESEA/NCLB. I'm all for accountability - but an annual, high-stakes exam is not the way to get it. Learning occurs all year, and at highly variable rates (and due to quite a few variables outside the schools' control) - good teachers are constantly assessing their students (formally and informally) so that they can adjust their teaching methods appropriately to the needs of the students - but that only works when the information comes quickly - results obtained months later have little, if any, benefit.
Yet another concern is the cost. As with other programs pushed on the states by the federal government (the drinking age comes to mind as a comparison), this is an unfunded mandate; in fact, schools who don't comply with the annual testing requirement lose all of their federal funding - to the extent that many smaller districts choose to skip the test, because the lost funding (as badly as it is needed) is less than the cost of actually administering the damn test. Schools that administer the test but perform poorly risk further loss of funds, and may potentially be taken over by the state, while schools that perform well may be awarded additional funding. This is going to improve the quality of education, how?
Then there is the opinion of the students. They hate it. It's several days of high stress that they don't want or need, and have little or no investment in. They don't get graded for it. They don't get class credit. Their schedules are completely rearranged to meet the needs of 1-hour testing blocks - impossible in a daily schedule built of 47-minute classes - so the first day is spent making sure all the kids are in the right room.... but you can't take too long doing that, or you won't be able to start the first session on time, which will screw up the whole rest of the day (if you're lucky) or the rest of the week (if you're unlucky). In fact, it's so bad that the local NBC news affiliate is reporting on student groups that are trying to cajole, coerce, or otherwise convince their peers to take the test seriously - because many students blow it off; it has no real meaning for them, because it has no effect on their lives.
So what triggered this rant this time? I opened my work email, and found the following notice:
Now, notice that we did, as a district, meet 92.72% of our goals in reading and math - but that's not good enough under the law. We are required, by law, to meet 100% of our goals - all of the above concerns (and quite a few others) notwithstanding. What other industry requires 100% of goals to be met, and considers anything less to be failing? Because under the law, we are a failing district - and that's why we've been placed on corrective action by the CDE (Colorado Department of Education).
So what triggered this rant (besides the above email)? As I said in the title of this post, it is testing season again. It is also time for ESEA/NCLB to be reauthorized - which means this is the time we could get this law changed to something more reasonable, realistic, and useful - but only if enough people contact their legislators and make their concerns known. If the above concerns you - whether you think the law is too strict, not strict enough, or needs changes in its details - then please, I am begging you, contact your legislators NOW and make your concerns known.
And if you're all the way down here... thanks so much for reading all the way through.
Now, I realize that the annual exam varies somewhat from state to state, so all comments I make here are based on the Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP). Given as directed, this test requires a minimum of 3 days, with 3 1-hour testing sessions on each day, 1 day each for Reading, Writing, and Math (and remember, this is for kids - ages 8-16), all of which must be completed within 2 weeks; students in grades 5, 8, and 10 must also take another test, in Science, which requires a 4th day with 3 1-hour testing sessions. These are children, remember - and one of my TKD students told me that one of the reasons his child is in private school is because he thinks it is absurd to give a test to elementary students that takes twice as long as he took to take the Bar exam.
This test is, supposedly, intended to provide feedback to teachers so that they can improve their instruction... but the test is given in March, the scores are not available before school lets out, and even if they were, they are compared year to year (that is, 3rd graders who take the test in 2007 are compared to 3rd graders who took the test in 2006) - rather useless from the viewpoint of improving instruction, as the only thing those 2 groups may have in common is the neighborhood they live in and the school they attend. I will give Colorado's new governor this - he is planning to change the reporting structure such that students will be compared to themselves over time (that is, Child A's scores from 2007 will be compared to Child A's previous scores from 2006) - a much more meaningful way to use this information, because it will allow teachers to track growth over time, and to look for patterns in skill weaknesses. Nonetheless, the current method (year to year) is the one mandated by law.
One of the primary concerns I, as a special education teacher, have with this test is that ESEA/NCLB is in direct conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004 - the current incarnation of the special education law); ESEA/NCLB requires that the vast majority of students be tested without modifications or accommodations that are mandated by IDEA 2004 - thus giving an inaccurate picture of students with disabilities when compared to their peers, and further convincing students with learning problems, who are confronted by a test that is often too hard, and without the aids that allow them to participate with their peers, that they are stupid - which they aren't, but many of them see their friends do the same work (or harder) with greater ease, and this test rubs their faces in it in a way I find unconscionable - but I cannot take those test days off, because I will not leave my students to face the damn thing alone.
Another concern I have is the number of people who think teachers don't want to be accountable for what they teach - the supposed rationale for ESEA/NCLB. I'm all for accountability - but an annual, high-stakes exam is not the way to get it. Learning occurs all year, and at highly variable rates (and due to quite a few variables outside the schools' control) - good teachers are constantly assessing their students (formally and informally) so that they can adjust their teaching methods appropriately to the needs of the students - but that only works when the information comes quickly - results obtained months later have little, if any, benefit.
Yet another concern is the cost. As with other programs pushed on the states by the federal government (the drinking age comes to mind as a comparison), this is an unfunded mandate; in fact, schools who don't comply with the annual testing requirement lose all of their federal funding - to the extent that many smaller districts choose to skip the test, because the lost funding (as badly as it is needed) is less than the cost of actually administering the damn test. Schools that administer the test but perform poorly risk further loss of funds, and may potentially be taken over by the state, while schools that perform well may be awarded additional funding. This is going to improve the quality of education, how?
Then there is the opinion of the students. They hate it. It's several days of high stress that they don't want or need, and have little or no investment in. They don't get graded for it. They don't get class credit. Their schedules are completely rearranged to meet the needs of 1-hour testing blocks - impossible in a daily schedule built of 47-minute classes - so the first day is spent making sure all the kids are in the right room.... but you can't take too long doing that, or you won't be able to start the first session on time, which will screw up the whole rest of the day (if you're lucky) or the rest of the week (if you're unlucky). In fact, it's so bad that the local NBC news affiliate is reporting on student groups that are trying to cajole, coerce, or otherwise convince their peers to take the test seriously - because many students blow it off; it has no real meaning for them, because it has no effect on their lives.
So what triggered this rant this time? I opened my work email, and found the following notice:
Now, notice that we did, as a district, meet 92.72% of our goals in reading and math - but that's not good enough under the law. We are required, by law, to meet 100% of our goals - all of the above concerns (and quite a few others) notwithstanding. What other industry requires 100% of goals to be met, and considers anything less to be failing? Because under the law, we are a failing district - and that's why we've been placed on corrective action by the CDE (Colorado Department of Education).
So what triggered this rant (besides the above email)? As I said in the title of this post, it is testing season again. It is also time for ESEA/NCLB to be reauthorized - which means this is the time we could get this law changed to something more reasonable, realistic, and useful - but only if enough people contact their legislators and make their concerns known. If the above concerns you - whether you think the law is too strict, not strict enough, or needs changes in its details - then please, I am begging you, contact your legislators NOW and make your concerns known.
And if you're all the way down here... thanks so much for reading all the way through.
