In his State of the Union address, President Obama talked about his wish to see teachers move away from teaching to the test. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the landmark education law signed by President Bush in 2002 implemented a high-stakes testing regime throughout the country that severely penalized schools and school systems for failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The heavy reliance on testing data produced some unintended consequences, as some schools began to narrow their focus to reading and math instruction because they were the only two subjects tested under NCLB. Additionally, past incidences of cheating on tests have led the National Center for Fair & Open Testing to urge the Department of Education to avoid tying incentives to test scores.
Recently, the American Federation of Teachers announced that it supported President Obama's calls to move away from test-based accountability as it existed under NCLB. Instead, they argue, test data should be used to improve teacher practices and truly measure student knowledge. As the country moves toward a redefined version of NCLB, or towards a modified understanding of teacher and school accountability, the hope is that a more nuanced approach toward school, student and teacher performance will be taken. If testing is used as a tool to improve rather than broadly criticize, hopefully the pressure to cheat will disappear, and stories like this will not happen in Baltimore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I totally agree that it is high time that education policy move away from high stakes testing that forces teachers and schools to teach to the test at the cost of everything else. And it can certainly be viewed as a move in the right direction that the Obama administration is looking to find ways to move away from the emphasis on high stakes testing in NCLB. At the same time, however, I would like to play devil's advocate and ask whether the administration is really as against the idea as the lip service suggests. A major component of RTTT is that states and districts must use test scores as a major component of new teacher evaluation systems. Is not the use of tests to make hiring and firing decisions a kind of high stakes testing decision? (A good example of this argument can be found in a recent article by Diane Ravitch http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2012/01/does_president_obama_know_what.html
I know, I know. I don't always agree with her but it captures this idea fairly succintly). Just something to consider...
You bring up a great point, and thanks for the link. I actually don't think you and I are in disagreement here. Yes, RTTT requires using tests as a component for teacher evaluation systems. However, I think the Obama administration's emphasis on individual students' growth rather than absolute levels as required by NCLB leaves workable space for states and districts to develop a evaluation system that is not only fair, but still hold teachers accountable. Additionally, I think our conversations about how test scores and evaluations are used are immensely important. If evaluations (and observations) are used as a strong, meaningful tool to improve teachers, rather than an unexplained label, I believe we can move away from high-stakes testing and the type of teaching that accompanies it.
Post a Comment