Are Standardized Tests Ensuring that No Child is Left Behind?

In 1965, president Lyndon B. Johnson and congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as an extensive statute to fund primary and secondary schools, promote equal access to education, establish high standards and accountability, and shorten achievement gaps between students. Since then, the government has continued to try and accomplish these goals with reforms to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In 2002, president George W. Bush and congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. There has been much debate since then as to the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind, particularly on the administering of standardized tests and their ability to evaluate students and teachers. I argue that standardized tests limit how we view students as intelligent, keep us from educating all students in a well-rounded manner, and is hasn’t really achieve what is was set to do nor helped educators or law makers come up with a solution in how to close achievement gaps. Arne Duncan, the education secretary in 2015, is quoted in the article No Child Left Behind’s test-based policies failed. Will Congress keep them anyway? as saying, “it’s long past time to move past that law, and replace it with one that expands opportunity, increases flexibility and gives schools and educators more of the resources they need” (Strauss, 2015).

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence is based on the notion that intelligence is not a single entity, but rather a combination of strengths. Where one person may excel in reading, they may struggle in math or vice versa. So if we decide a student who doesn’t do well on a standardized test is not as smart as student who does very well on a standardized test then aren’t we limiting the student who didn’t do well? What if the student who didn’t do well is really good at composing music or making videos? What if that’s the way they are able to express their feelings or convey their thoughts? This is the problem with No Child Left Behind and the use of standardized tests. According to the article The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools, the act “led educators to shift resources away from important but non-tested subjects, such as social studies, art, and music, and to focus instruction within mathematics and reading on the relatively narrow set of topics that are most heavily represented on the high-stakes tests” (Dee, 2010). How is this fair to students who excel in the arts or social studies?

This article leads to my next point, No Child Left Behind keeps us from educating all students in a well-rounded manner. By taking time away from the arts and subjects that are not included on these standardized tests, we are not allowing students to have the opportunity to explore all of their potential in different subjects. The same article also stated that “in the presence of a high-stakes performance threshold, schools may reallocate instructional effort away from high- and low-performing students and toward the “bubble kids” — those most likely, with additional attention, to meet the proficiency standard” (Dee, 2010). This means not only are educators focusing on certain subjects, but they’re also focusing on certain students, those they feel have the best chance to improve their test scores with help. So now, not only are we keeping students from exploring a vast array of options but we are also taking away attention from students because we assume they are going to test very well or very poorly whether they receive help from teachers or not. “The problem is a system that favors a largely automated accounting of a narrow slice of students’ capacity” (Strauss, 2015).

In the article No Child Left Behind: What Standardized Test Scores Reveal About Its Legacy, Monty Neill gives some statistics comparing the rate of progress before and after NCLB which are as follows: (2015)

• The rate of progress on NAEP at grades 4 and 8 was generally faster in the decade before NCLB took effect than since. That is a consistent trend both overall and for individual demographic groups, including blacks, English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities.
• Score gaps in 2012 were no narrower and often wider than they were in 1998 and 1990.
• The slowdown in math was pronounced, especially at grade 4.
• In many cases, the rate of gain slowed even more after 2007.
• Score gains slowed after NCLB for English language learners, while score gaps increased between ELLs and non-ELLs.
• In three of four grades/tests, scores for students with disabilities flattened or declined, while gaps with whites remained unchanged or widened.
• Scores for high school students have stagnated. NAEP scores were highest for blacks, and gaps the narrowest, in 1988. Hispanic scores and gaps have stagnated since NCLB.
• SAT scores declined from 2006 to 2014 for all demographic groups except Asians.
• ACT scores have been flat since 2010 for all demographic groups.

These statistics lead me to believe that we have, in the terms of Nick Sousanis, gotten in a rut. In his book Unflattening, h ewarns that “we walk in the paths worn down by those who came before us” (p.107). It’s like we’re trying to find a different way but we can’t seem to get away from the notion of this is how it’s always been done. Sousanis also states that “when ideas are written in stone with the certainty that we got it right, we risk following without reflection” (p.110). If we continue to test students and continue to see that the gains are not what we strive for them to be, then we are doing all that we can to close achievement gaps for our students.

Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall 2010/2010b_bpea_dee.PDF

Neill, M. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind: What standardized test scores reveal about its legacy. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/10/no-child-left-behind-what-standardized-test-scores-reveal-about-its-legacy/

Sousanis, N. (2015). Unflattening. S.l.: Harvard University Press.

Strauss, V. (2015, February 13). No Child Left Behind’s test-based policies failed. Will Congress keep them anyway? Retrieved July 8, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/13/no-child-left-behinds-test-based-policies-failed-will-congress-keep-them-anyway/