Click here to subscribe today or Login.
SCHOOL districts, educators and students nationwide have been working to meet the federal government’s stringent standards outlined in its No Child Left Behind Act. The controversial piece of legislation ties student and school accomplishment to standardized test results.
In mid-January, Pennsylvania proposed establishing requirements for high school graduation. Beginning with the class of 2014 — this year’s sixth-graders — students will have to pass a test to earn a diploma.
Pennsylvania’s proposal is more complex than others that have been enacted in mostly Southern states. Pennsylvania students will have four options, but all will be required to pass a test. The most likely exam to be implemented is the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests, the state’s reaction to NCLB’s accountability standard. Students would be required to pass at least six out of 10 Graduation Competency Assessments the state plans to create, or pass Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests. School districts may also develop their own tests — a time-consuming and expensive process that makes this option unlikely.
The state’s action deserves praise. It was motivated by a desire to ensure a high school diploma means something and that students who earn them will be prepared to succeed in college and in their careers.
The plan will succeed in its first goal: A high school diploma will mean that students who receive them passed a standardized test. But will students be better prepared for college or for employment?
Years of data from NCLB-required tests do not suggest that schools are improving because they use standardized testing. Research does not even suggest that the achievement gap has closed. Indeed, testing as the vehicle for school improvement has failed. Motivated principals, better teachers, rigorous curricula, sufficient resources — and an economy that defeats poverty — improve schools, not tests.
Graduation exams have been around for a while. Arizona State University researchers found that at best there is inadequate information to support their use and at worst they hurt students. After the implementation of tests, achievement as measured by college placement tests — such as the SAT and ACT — decreases 67 percent of the time and pass rates on Advancement Placement exams drop 57 percent of the time.
The effects of NCLB can be seen in the classroom every day, where teachers shy away from lesson plans they know are valuable to focus on material that appears on standardized tests. High-stakes assessments cause teachers to limit discussions, cooperative activities and projects, ignore content not tested, and, conversely, increase lectures, multiple-choice exams, and drill and practice.
In its announcement, the state noted the proposed requirement has received support from business leaders. Employers, though, have already stated what they want in an employee — and it’s not a passing score on a standardized test. The federal government’s Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, for example, lists basic skills but also integrity, creativity, perseverance, and time management, interpersonal, problem, thinking and leadership skills. None of that will be measured on a graduation test.
Tests have unintended effects, too. Students who are gifted have already been impacted by the improvements wrought by the testing movement. In their effort to look good on tests, districts across the country have largely given up on teaching thinking and problem-solving skills, and have thus shortchanged kids with high ability. Advocates, such as the Pennsylvania Association of Gifted Educators, opposed the recent move.
Kids for whom English is a second language will have enormous difficulty. In early January, 142 education and civil rights groups petitioned Congress to change NCLB because of the negative effects of mandated tests. These tests especially hurt students with disabilities. Children with plenty of ability, but with a disability in reading, for example, may stop looking forward to college — or worse, drop out of high school.
There are also talented, motivated students who are not good test-takers. The billion-dollar test preparation industry would cease to exist if standardized testing measured what students really know, rather than their test-taking skills.
Professionals in organizations such as the Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals, the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the Council for Exceptional Children, the International Reading Association, and Phi Delta Kappa know what will happen to schools and children if the state adopts a graduation test. Policymakers should listen to their concerns because they have grave concerns.
The basic premise of assessment testing is simply wrong. Withholding a diploma to motivate underperforming students will not create a positive learning environment. Instead of improving schools, the test will suppress good teaching, limit achievement, and limit college and career preparation, and increase drop-out rates— especially among the most vulnerable students.