In the battle over testing, only the children should win

As Congress finally begins to reauthorize NCLB, tensions are high over one issue in particular: testing. We must not forget that our common goal is a better education for all students.

If someone asked me what education issue is the most misunderstood and in need of major rebranding, I would provide my answer without a moment’s hesitation: testing.

It seems the whole country is talking smack about testing these days, and the grievances are numerous and expansive. Ever since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual high-stakes testing for English language arts and math in grades 3-8 (and once in high school), educators and parents have bemoaned the awfulness of what they perceive to be an education system obsessed with testing. Teachers complain that yearly testing’s outsized influence on classroom instruction and student achievement is misguided at the very least and, at worst, destructive. Parents are concerned that too much testing is crowding out other aspects of education that they hold dear, such as arts, music, and gym. Then there’s the larger question of how best to measure student achievement. Do standardized tests really provide teachers and parents with a complete picture of a student’s abilities and potential?

Just as the education community loves to get behind silver bullet solutions, it also loves to pile on when one issue gets singled out as the root cause of all problems. Now that testing has moved to center stage in Washington (Congress has finally taken action on how to reauthorize NCLB), the education community, true to form, has lit up the skies with a barrage of opinion pieces and editorials about the good, the bad, the everything of testing.

The shot across the bow that started it all was a draft bill to reauthorize NCLB that was authored by the chairman of the Senate Education Committee Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). Introduced in mid-January, the bill offers several testing scenarios. The most controversial would allow states (and maybe even districts, pending state approval) to decide for themselves how often to test students. This would be a drastic change from the annual testing requirements that are part of NCLB. Metaphorically speaking, this version of the bill would shrink the federal footprint as it pertains to annual testing from a size 12EEE to a diminutive size 5A. The Senate bill also included an option that would retain the current annual testing requirements of NCLB but without the federally mandated consequences. (For you dog lovers, this would be the “all bark, no bite” scenario). A House version of the bill, introduced in early February, also maintained NCLB’s testing requirements.

Local vs. federal

While most policy makers believe a final bill to reauthorize NCLB will retain the current law’s annual testing requirements, it is amazing that we are even talking about an option that would drastically reduce the federal government’s power to hold schools accountable for student achievement. Despite the fact that local governments provide most of the funding for public education, the federal government has led the charge for educational equity and opportunity since World War II. And it is both ironic and telling that this draft bill was introduced at the start of 2015, exactly 50 years after the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first passed in 1965. Public opinion about testing and accountability and the federal government’s role in both has clearly shifted.

The early stages of this shift began with the federal government’s decision to hold schools accountable for student performance using standardized test scores and then labeling schools that were unable to make the grade as “failing.” While this kind of rigorous accountability system ensured that the performance of all student groups was being monitored and tracked, it also set in motion an antitesting and antifederal oversight movement that is gaining steam. Although student knowledge has been tested by teachers for centuries, it wasn’t until the federal government associated high-stakes and derisive labels with test results that resentment and anger began to build. The Obama Administration added fuel to the fire when it required states applying for a Race to the Top grant or a federal NCLB waiver to put in place high-stakes teacher evaluations based on student test scores. Once again, testing was cast as the federal government’s single-minded answer to a complex policy problem.

Public opinion about testing and accountability and the federal government’s role in both has clearly shifted.

As if that was not reason enough for people to dislike standardized tests, the new tests developed by the federally funded assessment consortia to measure student learning against the Common Core State Standards are being rolled out in states across the nation. These tests are time-intensive and more difficult than most previous tests. They’re also computer-based and test students’ knowledge in different and more varied ways. The newness of the tests, coupled with the looming suspicion that the federal government is somehow controlling schools and passing unfair judgment on teachers and students, has added another ingredient to that simmering pot of parent-public angst about testing.

That these tests were carefully developed by state-led groups that involved parents and educators seems to have gotten lost in translation. Also lost is the fact that the tests will provide educators with valuable information about student learning and growth that will help them identify problem areas and calibrate their lessons accordingly. Instead, the focus has been on questions of fairness and federal overreach and the nefarious intentions of educational testing companies. Parents and the public don’t seem to trust anyone along the education spectrum anymore, except maybe their kid’s homeroom teacher and the seasoned principal who all the students love and admire. It’s as if all the anxiety and stress previously reserved for just the SAT, ACT, and college applications has now become part of every student’s life, even those in 3rd grade.

A different flavor

In Washington, the testing debate has a different flavor. When Sen. Alexander released his draft bill, different factions of policy makers and advocates immediately began shoring up their talking points and building alliances with like-minded colleagues and constituents. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), has called upon Congressional leaders to end “the devastating obsession with high-stakes testing and the ever more corrosive effects of test-based accountability.” Organizations like FairTest and parent groups across the country also have spoken out and opted out of what they perceive to be unfair testing requirements.

Then there are those — some of whom are unimaginatively called “reformers” — who passionately believe that using test data to measure and track student performance is the best way to hold schools and teachers accountable for the performance of all students. Others have voiced concerns for students most at risk, fearing that a looser system of accountability with a limited federal role would dial back efforts to ensure equity and close persistent achievement gaps. Add into the mix some very profit-driven testing companies that want to stay in business and a few presidential candidates, and you have the makings of an education policy quagmire. Little wonder testing has an image problem.

Put students first

Like many complex social issues, education policies are developed and implemented under the shadow of politics, advocacy, and money.

Making space for a more reasoned and less constituency-driven dialogue about testing is complicated by what scholar Jonathan Rauch so awkwardly called “demosclerosis” in his 1994 book of the same name. Rauch argues that “creeping social interest gridlock” has created a paralyzing morass of multiple interest groups, both amateur and professional, each with their own concerns and narrative. The groups actually do more to stifle democracy than support it and make it very difficult for government to adapt and function effectively. I worry that this phenomenon already has affected the current debate on testing and will continue to do so throughout the reauthorization process.

Like many complex social issues, education policies are developed and implemented under the shadow of politics, advocacy, and money. The current testing debate is a casebook example of how these forces can bear down on schools and families. From where I sit, the biggest policy challenge we face is figuring out how to get students out from under the weight of those forces so their concerns trump all.

Citation: Ferguson, M. (2015). Washington view: In the battle over testing, only the children should win. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (7), 74-75.