Since the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001 and was signed by President George W. Bush, American schools, teachers, and children have been trapped in a bi-partisan avalanche of high-stakes tests that seem designed to enrich test publishers and data sorters. Teachers and parents are generally baffled why children spend so much school time preparing for and taking so many reading, writing, math, NAEP, PIRLS, TIMSS, Smarter Balanced, PARCC, and assorted other Common Core aligned tests.
A detailed report called How High the Bar? just released by the National Superintendents Roundtable (NSR) and the Horace Mann League (HML), adds new fuel to the testing debate. It concludes that the high-stakes tests like the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) and Common Core exams are designed so that the vast majority of students in most countries are unable to demonstrate proficiency. The authors argue the U.S. has established test score benchmarks so high that they are neither useful nor credible. In other words, these tests are designed so that most students will fail. The results are then used to disparage public education, teachers, and teacher unions, and to garner support for vouchers, charters, and privatization.
The NSR/HML findings show that “in no nation do a majority of students meet the NAEP Proficient benchmark in Grade 4 reading,” “just three nations have 50 percent or more of their students meeting the Proficient benchmark in Grade 8 math,” and “only one nation has 50 percent or more of its students meeting the Proficient benchmark in Grade 8 science.”
According to Dr. James Harvey, executive director of the NSR, “Many criticize public schools because only about one third of our students are deemed to be ‘proficient’ on NAEP assessments. But even in Singapore — always highly successful on international assessments — just 39 percent of fourth-graders clear NAEP’s proficiency benchmark.” The report criticizes the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for the NAEP, for misusing the term “Proficient.” For most people it means competent. In schools it means grade-level performance. But grade-level students often get unsatisfactory grades on these tests, especially the often cited NAEP.
According to the authors of the report, “No one can doubt that among the central purposes of schooling in the modern world is the obligation of educators to produce graduates who are competent in reading, writing, and mathematics – and prepared to earn a living. Assessment and accountability are critical components of delivering on that promise. But it is not too much to say that schools have been overwhelmed by a species of assessment imperialism in which what is tested becomes what is important . . . Education is about more than testing. It is about more than earning a living. It is about living a life. Students are not just standardized test results. When curriculum is forced into a straitjacket of what will be tested and the purposes of schools become constrained by the economic utility of their graduates, the larger purposes of education in a democracy are at risk . . . Economic competitiveness is important but potentially at risk is something much more significant: the ideal and the dream of America . . . Despite the challenges facing public schools, we must not lose sight of their importance in creating the America we all know and love. It is that America that is at risk. And it is the values embedded in that America that represent the real standards around which educators, citizens, and the assessment community should rally.”
The recommendations by the National Superintendents Roundtable carry extra weight because the group is not identified with the anti-testing Opt-Out Movement. Harvey claims the NSR believes in assessment, just not these assessments, the way they are graded, and how they are used to evaluate schools, teachers, and students.
Follow Alan Singer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ReecesPieces8