Adrienne Woolbright NCLB and State Standard Based Testing

Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and signed it into law on January 8, 2002. The act is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. NCLB continues to define and describe these education programs and has added new accountability mandates that states must meet in order to receive funding for the programs. The primary goal of NCLB is to close the achievement gaps between various student demographic groups. The act requires that all states bring all students to state-designated proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014.

The primary accountability measure in NCLB involves annual assessment of student achievement via state-developed standardized tests. While testing is one logical means to assess student achievement and progress, educators and others have concerns about the validity and fairness of the current testing system, especially the inconsistencies in standards, assessments, and test proficiency levels from state to state. This paper will review these concerns as well as proposals to change the testing system when NCLB is reauthorized. The accountability mandate in NCLB requires that each state develop standards for reading, math, and science as well as assessments (tests) based on these standards; and then establish test score proficiency levels that are to be met by all students by 2014. Schools in the state then administer the tests annually and use the test scores in reading and math to show each year that schools are making annual yearly progress (AYP) towards their 2014 proficiency goals. Furthermore, annual test data must be disaggregated into prescribed population subgroups and each subgroup in a school must show progress. These subgroups include economically disadvantaged students; students with disabilities; students with limited English proficiency (LEP); major racial and ethnic groups; and gender. The students in all demographic groups must make annual yearly progress in order for

Adrienne Woolbright
the school to make AYP for the year. If schools dont make AYP, then they must implement school improvement measures and may be subject to sanctions. So the state assessments have high stakes for the schools (No Child Left Behind).

State standards and assessments generally do not reflect the knowledge and skills needed for student success in college and careers. The rigor of standards and assessments varies widely from state to state. Under the current version of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), virtually every state has developed not only its own content standards and assessments aligned to those standards, but also its own definition of proficiency. Because of this lack of uniformity, students with the same actual achievement levels could be considered proficient in one state, but may not be in another. Comparing states performance on the yardstick of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a rigorous assessment that is consistent across all states and is known as the nations report card, reveals that states have significantly different definitions of proficiency. Some states reporting a high percentage of students performing at the proficient level actually have lower student achievement than other states with a relatively small percentage of students at the proficient level (Carey).

Under the accountability system introduced by NCLB, many states have lowered their standards. By comparing the NAEP scale equivalent of each states standards from 2005 to 2007, researchers documented that in states with a significant change in their NAEP scale equivalent, standards most commonly became easier. In eighth-grade mathematics, for example, among 12 states with a significant change in their NAEP scale equivalent, nine had significantly decreased their expectations; only three significantly increased them. In eighth-grade reading, all seven states with a statistically significant change had lowered their standards (Bandeira de Mello et al., 2009). Recognizing the importance of college- and career-ready standards, almost every state 2

Adrienne Woolbright has joined a state-led initiative to develop a common core set of standards for mathematics and English language arts (ELA) that reflect what students need to know and be able to do for success after high school.

One way to deal with the current inconsistencies is to simply make each state revise over and over until they get standards, assessments, and proficiency levels that are somewhat consistent and in line with NAEP. Another way to deal with it is for the feds to get out of education and give all control back to the stateso there are no national comparisons and each state can do its own thing. However, the major solution proposed to deal with the state-to-state inconsistencies is to encourage or mandate that states adopt national standards and assessments (and consistent proficiency levels on the assessments)

Many arguments for and against national standards exist. One approach includes changing NCLBs accountability where standards are at both the state and national level. The Broader Bolder Approach (BBA), proposes new accountability systems using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Recommendations from this approach include state and national policies abandoning focus on basic academic skills and focusing more on development of children with academic skills, physical health, character, civic and social development, from birth through the end of formal schooling (A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education). On a different note, Jack Jennings states Two previous attempts at national standards and tests died when Congress showed opposition. The same could happen this time (Jennings). He goes on to say that he believes federal government needs to be removed completely from education and allow states to make their own decisions as to what needs to be done to improve education. Also, against national standards is Andrew Coulson. He states that Not only is it impossible to create

Adrienne Woolbright a single set of standards that would serve every child equally well, such standards would fail to significantly improve our schools (Coulson). Liam Julian is also against national standards but for a different reason. In her opinion, the possibility of developing excellent standards shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of middling countrywide uniformity. Better to push forward the process--sluggish though it is--of improving state-based standards than to preempt these local efforts with "voluntary" national standards concocted by interest groups and the educational establishment (Julian). She is not against the thought of national standards per say but rather that these standards would be voluntary.

Although the above statements are all negative against national standards, one approach to national standards and assessment that has recently been favored by the Department of Education, is the Common Core Standards. The basis and initiative of these Common Core Standards are that governors and state commissioners from 48 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have joined a state-led initiative to develop a common core set of standards for mathematics and English language arts. Developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, these standards will define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K12 education careers so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs. The standards will be based on evidence of what knowledge and skills are needed to enroll in college courses without remediation and to be successful in careers, internationally benchmarked to the worlds highest performing countries, and build on the strengths and lessons of current State standards. Almost 40 states (as of September 2010) have agreed to adopt these standards, including
Illinois. There are also two groups of states (including Illinois) currently involved in developing tests based on these standards (Common).

Adrienne Woolbright Based on the information that has been previously provided, it is obvious that although
testing is one logical means to assess student achievement and progress, educators and others have concerns about the validity and fairness of the current testing system, especially the inconsistencies in standards, assessments, and test proficiency levels from state to state. Although some states

believe the current testing system is supporting their students learning, most states are struggling to meet the standards of NCLB, AYP, and still teach the state standards. Due to this, states have been lowering their standards in order to keep a low profile. Some revisions have been proposed to make NCLBs accountability system a better and more reliable one, such as the Broader Bolder Approach, and other ideas are set forth to completely resolve the state testing issue by making testing nationwide. By making tests and standards nationwide, every teacher, parent, and student would be aware of what each student needs to do to be successful in school regardless of the state they live in.

In my opinion, if testing is going to be the continuing factor in which schools success is rated, the tests need to have nationwide standards. It is hard for me to understand how it is currently acceptable for each state to have its own standards. With state tests it is possible for someone to grow up in Illinois and pass every state test, but then move to another state and possibly have problems passing these tests due to a lack of compatibility of state standards. Also, if states lower their standards to pass AYP, they may not be teaching nearly enough for each grade level, therefore leaving the curriculum stagnate. Obviously an apparent need exists for a nationwide testing system because NCLB is a nationwide policy. All in all, I believe national standards/ assessments are a great idea and states should be mandated to adopt national standards/assessment.

Adrienne Woolbright

Adrienne Woolbright Work Cited

"A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education: School Accountability." 25 June 2005. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.boldapproach.org/20090625-bba-accountability.pdf>.
Bandeira de Mello, Victor, Charles Blankenship, and Donald McLaughlin (2009). Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 20052007 (NCES 2010-456). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2010456.pdf. Carey, Kevin (2006). Hot Air: How States Inflate Their Educational Progress Under NCLB. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector.

Common Core State Standards Inittiative. Web. 26 Sept. 2010. <www.corestandards.org>. Coulson, Andrew. "The Case against National School Standards | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary." The Cato Institute. 14 Aug. 2009. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10446>. Jennings, Jack. "National Standards." American School Board Journal. Center on Education Policy - Center on Education Policy, National Independent Advocate for Public Education and for More Effective Public Schools. Sept. 2009. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. <http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=2 86&documentFormatId=4361>. Julian, Liam. "Against National Standards - Let the States Decide What to Teach- They'll Do Less Harm - An Authoritative News Source for Elementary School, High School, and Higher Education News and Education Articles." EducationNews.org - An Authoritative News Source for Elementary School, High School, and Higher Education News and Education Articles. 23 Aug. 2009. Web. 08 Nov. 2010. <http://ednews.org/articles/against-national-standards---let-the-states-decide-what-toteach--theyll-do-less-harm.html>. "No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers." 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. <www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/toolkit_pg12.html>. "Smart Testing: Lets Get It Right." July 2006. Web. 26 Sept. 2010. <http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/pb_testing0706.pdf>.