End of NCLB?

Recent news headlines proclaim: “Obama Announces End Of ‘No Child Left Behind’ Era: Education Is More Than Tests” and many people are rejoicing–after all President Obama wants to see testing down to only 2% of the school year! Sounds great, right? Hmm…let’s stop, run some numbers and then ask some very crucial questions before we throw our “NCLB going away party.”

 

NUMBER CRUNCHING:

Assuming 180 days a year of instruction (pretty standard across the states per compulsory education laws) and a 7.5 hour school day (this is a decent average given the number of districts now with extended days), we have a total number of instructional hours of 1350. Now, take 2% of this number and you get a total of 27 hours–or in school days: 3.6 days a school year.

 

CRUCIAL QUESTIONS:

Nowhere in this article or in any advocacy speech by President Obama or Secretary of Education Duncan (and I’ve been looking) do they state what tests will fall into this category.

1. Will there only be 27 hours of government-mandated standardized tests and no other tests–including teacher generated tests?
2. What counts as a “test”? Government/State created standardized tests? ACTs and SATs? Benchmark tests created by states and districts? Mid-term and final exams? Teacher generated chapter/unit tests? Quizzes? Something not listed here?
3. Is this 2% limit only for the tests themselves or does it include the test prep time as well?
4. How does this 27 hour limit affect those students who have extended-time test modifications, which are legally binding?

No matter how you slice it 27 hours of testing is still A LOT of time in tests–especially for elementary age students. However, depending on the answers to the above questions, this time can either be mostly stress-free or it can be incredibly stressful and take away from the needed instructional time.

If the tests are only referring to teacher-generated tests, then the “teaching to the test” time will be lumped into the general instruction provided by the teacher and will, naturally, lessen the amount of test-anxiety and stress for all in the classroom, teacher included. These kinds of tests provide the teacher with targeted information as to what the students actually learned from the instruction. Quizzes fall into this same kind of feedback, but as checkpoints along the way.

However, if the tests in this 2% of time are government/state standardized tests, then the teacher has no control over the questions to be asked–requiring the teacher to teach to that test. Why? Because the test writers cannot take into account what was actually covered in the lesson. Let’s look at two hypothetical foreign language classes. Class A has had no life experience with the foreign language, they have never been to a country in which that language is the national/native language, they have never had to use the language outside of the classroom, finding resources like radio/television programs or print media in that language are incredibly difficult so they never see or hear the language in their daily life. Class B has had the opportunity as a whole to spend a month living with host families in a country where that language is the native language, they have had the exposure to the language on a daily basis during that month, they had a expectation that there would be people they came in contact with who would have little to no experience with the students’ native language. The types of lessons the teacher will teach in Class A will be significantly different from the lessons of Class B, because Class A will require a lot of background information that Class B would have picked up in their month abroad. Therefore, the tests given to the two classes will look very different if the teacher writes them. However, anyone outside of that classroom setting will have to write a “one test fits all” test. There is absolutely no way for that test to accurately reflect what both classes actually learned in the instruction window. This means that the teacher will either have to teach to the test or will look like a terrible teacher who cannot teach the “most important” information to her students.

The above scenario also does not even address the issue of whether AP, ASVAB, ACT, PSAT and SAT tests count into this same test requirement. According the AP Student Help Website the average length of an AP test is 2-3 hours. The ASVAB typically takes 154 minutes (or just over 2.5 hours). An ACT, without the writing portion, is typically 3 hours long. The PSAT takes 2.75 hours and a basic SAT takes 3-4 hours. These are not counting special education extended-time testing modifications. More and more states are requiring all 11th graders take the ACT, which means that those 3 hours are part of the students’ required testing in 11th grade. The PSAT is designed for every 10th grader to take, though it’s still left to the states and districts to determine if it will be required of the 10th graders. All of these tests are administered in schools. Each one is on average 10% of the time allotted by the 2% of instructional time. Most of these tests require specific training/instruction for taking and many students hire tutors outside of school time to further prepare for these tests, though many schools are now offering classes and after-school courses to help prepare students for these tests (such as the ACT).

Even if a student only takes five tests from the above mix during his four years of high school, that student has spent a good 10-15 hours of test time taking non-teacher created standardized tests. If the student is a “good” student and takes three AP classes and the ACT in one academic year, that student will have used up about 40% of the test time allotted in one year, or 8-12 hours in tests! As already stated, if the students are to be prepared to take these tests to get the best score possible, the teachers must, absolutely MUST teach to these tests–which lock-steps the curriculum and class time and provides very little time to help each student individually understand the material.

 

FURTHER PROBLEMS:

As if the above mentioned difficulties with testing were not enough to make us wary of celebrating the “end of NCLB,” we need to briefly look at what the Department of Education  is saying about NCLB and the changes that President Obama is pushing.

1. NCLB was NOT new legislation. It dates back to the Creation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Every federal education push since then has been wrapped up into ESEA–Goals 2000, NCLB, Common Core, etc.
2. ESEA is a Congressional law, meaning that Congress is the only one who can actually make changes to anything therein. The president can, as many have, make recommendations and encourage Congress to make changes or additions to the law, but the president cannot do anything himself.
3. Here are the things that DOE says are in President Obama’s recommendations

• More vigorous enforcement from the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights
• Equitable resources for all students (mostly low-income families)
• Providing quality learning opportunities to all (specifically universal preschool for low and moderate-income families)
• Accelerating change in K-12 education (career and college prep programs)
• Supporting great teachers and leaders (regulating what autonomy teachers and principals do and don’t have)
• Providing strong systems of community support (rewarding partnerships that encourage “cradle-to-career” training and other educational, health and social service needs in high-poverty communities)

According to the DOE, nowhere in this proposal is a crystal clear statement of removing testing. Nowhere does it mention that President Obama is working to repeal NCLB laws in the ESEA. Rather, the push is simply to “equalize” the educational playing field for low-income and high-poverty students while determining what autonomy the educators in the schools actually get.

 

NOW WHAT:

What does this mean for the American public in general?

• It means that we, as American citizens/taxpayers and not simply those with children in the schools, need to actually get to know what IS happening behind the locked doors of our schools–and its not what the media is telling you is happening.
• It means that we, as American citizens/taxpayers and not simply those with children in the schools, demand transparency from the education community and from the lawmakers regarding what is and isn’t allowed in our schools–program-wise, curriculum-wise, regulation-wise.
• It means that we, as American citizens/taxpayers and not simply those with children in the schools, make the schools an extension of our community and not the other way around (our community an extension of our schools).

Why do I keep saying “we, as American citizens/taxpayers and not simply those with children in the schools”? Because there are two well-known statements which apply here: (1) “the power and the influence lie with the person who holds the purse strings,” meaning that we as taxpayers ultimately get to have a much bigger say in how our education is run than we are led to believe, since it is tax-payer dollars that are being used to fund ESEA; and (2) “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” which means again that we get to have a much bigger say in how our money is being used since “we the people” are the ones ultimately funding ESEA.

So, get out there and make your voice heard! The American government can only do what its citizens allow it to do. If we as a nation stand up and make our position on transparency and accountability heard, then we CAN make a change, but if we simply sit back and buy into the lie that our opinions and votes don’t matter, then we are doomed to whatever outcome the government decides is “best” for its citizens.

Stop celebrating what you have been spoon-fed by the media, no matter how great it sounds. Dig for ALL the information! Take a stand! Make your voice heard! Be the people our founding fathers envisioned we would be! Watch what God can do through us!