Emma Yaussy

Commentary Paper 2
Dr. Carter
12/13/16
Educational Testing and NCLB
Educational testing consists of the use of tests for the purpose of
measuring students achievement in their subjects of study. These
tests may be standardized or unstandardized at the class, school or
state level and can be used to mark progress and make important
institutional decisions. Others are used nation-wide to assess general
knowledge and predict college or graduate school performance in order
to help universities make acceptance decisions. Some standardized
tests, in accordance with the No Child Left Behind program, are used to
make federal decisions such as where to allocate funds and resources
or what programs to implement in certain schools or school systems.
This systematic use of testing as a powerful mechanism for decisionmaking may be benificial in some areas but can have detrimental
effects for certain school systems and demographics, as will be the
main point of discussion in this commentary.
College admissions testing is a widely used and accepted tool for
college acceptance decisions. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and
American College Testing (ACT) are most commonly used, becoming
modern-day markers of educational progress. This use of admissions

testing has proven to be useful, as studies have shown that ACT scores
account for about 50% of variance in student college grades,
demonstrating high predictive validity. Tests are also used for graduate
school admissions, mainly through the use of the Graduate Record
Examinations (GRE). The GRE assessess a multitude of skills,
categorized into verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning and
analytical writing sections. Computerized adaptive testing is often used
in combination with GRE testing, actively personalizing the test to
include questions that should more accurately assess the achievement
of the individual taking the test by taking responses to previous
questions into account. This method saves time and helps find test
items that will better estimate achievement. Overall, the college
admissions testing system provides a relatively fair, useful and efficient
method for making institutional decisions, as compared with the
standardized tests developed from the No Child Left Behind program.
This is mainly due to the fact that high financial stakes for school
systems are not attached, so the issues that result from the NCLB
program are not present.
The No Child Left Behind Act was implemented in 2002 as a
revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. NCLB
places federal control over schools by assigning federal funds to
schools and districts based solely on standardized test scores. In turn,
the state is responsible for setting forth standards and developing and

administering criterion-based tests to assess student achievement.

These test scores are used to allocate funding and resources; schools
and districts with higher test scores receive more benefits. This is
problematic in and of itself, as affluent schools that are already
performing well probably have more money and resources to begin
with and schools that have trouble meeting standards are more likely
to lack these resources. The allocation of funds to schools that already
have the resources needed to succeed leaves less priveleged schools
and their students in the dust, creating a cycle that only further
strengthens the desparity between affluent and poor schools and
districts. NCLB also results in unethical teaching strategies and
cheating within school systems. When such power is placed in test
scores, teachers feel the need to teach to the test so that requirements
are met, putting less emphasis on teaching students how to learn and
think in novel and creative ways. For the same reasons, teachers and
faculty at the school and county level have taken part in cheating and
answer changing on student tests to yield higher averages. In many
ways, this program does the opposite of what it claims to intend on
doing- strengthening federal power over the education system and
unfairly and inequitably allocating the resources that everyone, even
those negatively affected, pay for.
The article Testing as a Mechanism of Public Policy: a Brief
History and Description by Madaus et al., (1993) discusses the history

of achievement testing as an administrative mechanism to affect

public policy and the effects of using tests in this way. The article
highlights six principles of effects of testing, being: their power over
individuals, teaching to the test, curriculum becoming based on past
exams, test scores becoming the main goal of schooling, transfer of
control to test making agencies, and distortion and corruption of the
education system. All of these issues are due to the high stakes of
exams, as scores are an influential decidual factor. The article then
goes on to discuss future proposals of extending testing to a national
testing system, stating that this would inevitably result in even more
stress put on tests scores and assert more federal power over schools.
Despite the many negative effects that NLCB has had on schools and
individuals, we continue to move towards further emphasis on testing
and centralization of the education system.
The article Who is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind? by
Theoni Soublis Smyth (2008) discusses the side effects of testing,
focusing on its adverse impacts on students. Most students experience
test anxiety and exhibit negative attitudes towards testing, often
manifesting in emotional, psychological and physical symptoms. While
these issues are concerning, students of low socioeconomic status,
students of racial minority, limited English proficient students and
students with disabilities are even more seriously affected by this
testing system. Studies show that standardized testing has biases

related to race and socioeconomic status, putting students of these

categories and schools with higher percentages of these students at a
stark disadvantage. Furthermore, these poorer schools most likely lack
the resources and materials to adequately prepare their students for
these exams in the first place. The article explains that NCLB does not
take schools that specialize in special needs education into account.
The legislation allows for schools to exclude 2% of its test scores; for
schools that are fully or substantially comprised of special needs
students this leeway is irrelevant. These schools cannot meet the
standards required for increased funding, and therefore have a harder
time hiring well-trained teachers and staff and providing the resources
needed for their exceptional students. No Child Left Behind is, ironically
enough, systematically leaving many groups of children behind.
The article Idealogical Success, Educational Failure? On The
Politics of NCLB by Michael W. Apple (2007) also discusses the
negative effecs of the program, but
with focus on the ideologies behind it and the centralization and
marketization of the educational system that result from it. Apple
points out a substantial problem in the works of NCLB- that it ignores
complexity. By reducing accountability to singular test scores and
using nothing else to assess school progress, the program ignores the
complexity of the school system and its members, leaving out many
important factors such as cultural diversity, socioeconomic status,

language and ability. The article further discussses this reduction in

terms of marketization. Apple states, it would be a grave mistake not
to see the connection between privatization and increased federal
control and intervention through testing (111). He compares the
treatment of the school system under NCLB to the treatment of a
market and analogizes schools to products of this market and
students to its consumers. In order for such privatization to take
place, there must be an influence or shift in the idealogies of the
people supporting the system. The politics of Conservative
Modernization, a sort of alliance between the neo-liberal focus on the
market and the neo-conservative focus on control over curriculum and
standards, is an underlying factor that lead to the passing of the NCLB
act and that continues to privatize and centralize our education system
to this day. To hinder this growth, our country must reevaluate the
ideaologies that we place behind our education system, moving
towards emphasis on creative and stimulating learning environments
and multifaceted rather than simplistic assessment/evaluation. A
democratic schools movement can be perpetuated if the public comes
to be aware of the ways in which our school system and individuals are
suffering. Anyone in his or her right mind, if paying attention to what is
veritably happening, would want this for our future.
REFERENCES

Apple, M. W. (2007, April). Idealogical Success, Educational Failure?

Journal of Teacher Education, 582(2), 108-116. Retrieved
December 2, 2016.

George, M. F., & Kellaghan, T. (1993, April). Testing as a Mechanism of

Public Policy: A Brief History and Description. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26, 6-10. Retrieved
December 2, 2016, from ERIC.

Smyth, T. S. (2008, January 1). Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving

Behind? Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 133-137. Retrieved December 2, 2016.