Mallory Malesky

Mallory Malesky
3 December 2007
Research Essay
English 202 – 9:05 am
Dr. Sherwood
Teaching For Today’s Test, But Not For Tomorrow

No Child Left Behind
“The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and read, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state assessments.” This excerpt comes from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, passed under the Bush Administration. The act was passed in order to reform public schools in the nation and set a series of standards for all students. Another purpose of the act is to close the achievement gap between higher and lower achieving students. In order to close the gap, school districts are expected to set up a twelve year timeline to bring all of their students up to the state level of proficency. The districts are required to set up “adequate yearly progress” goals based on test scores from the 2001-2002 school year. Each year following, they have to meet their goal or there are consequences, outlined in the law, and by the state. Adequate yearly progress is measured by scores on assessment tests, administered by each state. Although states have control of what type of test they will use, the law requires all elementary and secondary school children to be assessed on the subjects of reading, math, and by the 2007-2008 school year, science.
Most assessments used are set up as standards-based tests. The individual state boards of education set a criterion of standards for the tested subjects. However, the law calls for these assessments to contain: “Challenging academic content standards in academic subjects that- i) specify what children are expected to know and able to do, ii) contain coherent and rigorous content, iii) encourage the teaching of advanced skills.” According to Twitchell, “…students are measured not against each other, but against these clearly stated performance objectives. Therefore, it is possible for ALL students to perform well.” But is the law living up to its promises half-way into the twelve year timeline? Although testing is just supposed to measure what a child learned throughout the school year, it seems that now testing is the primary focus of schools. Teachers have to find more time to teach the core subjects so that each student can score well, causing less instruction time in the subjects that are not tested. This negative effect is causing stress on school districts, teachers and most importantly the students who are not receiving the “high-quality education” promised by the law.
State Involvement
Unfortunately, these negative effects were not planned for when each state was designing their assessment. Specifically looking at Pennsylvania, the state has adopted the PSSA test to administer to students. All students in grades three through eight are tested in reading and math, and students in grades five, eight, and eleven are assessed in writing. The test is a “standards based, criterion-referenced assessment used to measure a student’s attainment of the academic standards while also determining the degree to which school programs enable students to attain proficiency of the standards” (Pennsylvania). There are four levels of proficiency that students are graded by: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic.
The state holds each school district accountable for their scores based on an “accountability system”. This system set an adequate yearly progress goal, starting in 2002 with a 45% proficiency in reading and a 35% proficiency in math and by the year 2014, 100% proficiency in both subjects (Pennsylvania). When school districts fail to meet their AYP percentage goals, they are first placed a warning level. If the school fails to meet the goal again the following year, there are four higher levels of corrective action. Stated on the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s website, the corrective actions include assistance, tutoring, supplemental services, changes in curriculum, leadership, and most drastically, changes in school government. Additionally, federal dollars can be given to or taken away from a district based on their PSSA performance.
Problems With The Test
According to NCLB, states are required to test in reading, math, and science, although some states have incorporated writing, and social studies into their testing curriculum. The material on tests varies from state to state, but each has their own set of specific criterion. Assessments tests are formatted in multiple choice so that they can be scored by a computer. Although multiple choice type tests allow for easy scoring of right and wrong answers, they do not allow a student to show his or her thought process. Multiple choice tests just give the student an opportunity to pick the right answer out of a set other wrong choices. How the student achieved the answer is not important in the score of the test, even if he just guessed. Laurie Perez quotes in a 2001 paper, “Standardized tests do not reveal what a student actually understands and learns, but instead only prove how well a student can do on a generic test.”
Although we are seeing more controversy in the news about assessment testing lately, it has been under scrutiny long before No Child Left Behind was passed. In a 2000 journal article, Laurie Shepard writes,
The negative effects of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning are well known (e.g., Madaus, West, Harmon, Lomax & Viator, 1992). Under intense political pressure, test scores are likely to go up without a corresponding improvement in student learning. In fact, distortions in what and how students are taught may actually decrease students’ conceptual understanding. While some had imagined that teaching to good tests would be an improvement over low-level basic-skills curricula, more recent experiences remind us that all tests can be corrupted.
Assessment tests are supposed to prepare students for the future, but they may be doing the opposite. In college, students will take many multiple choice tests, and additionally they will also be faced with essay tests, and problem solving tests where it is vitally important to show work in order to get credit. Multiple choice testing in math, reading, and science do not help to prepare for future testing. Because this type of testing is not traditional in all schools, more classroom time is also being spent on learning how to take the tests. Students preparing for an assessment test are now being taught how to recognize wrong answers and how to fill in bubble sheets with a number two pencil (Perez). Furthermore, more schools are turning to multiple choice tests for regular class tests in order to prepare students for the state assessment. This type of testing will not properly prepare a student, specifically a high school student, for the types of challenges they will be faced with in college.
Another negative of assessment tests is the stress they place on school districts, teachers, parents, and students. Because schools are so concerned with their students improving on the test, they may over look the stressors placed on the students. “Test anxiety” may be common among college students, but you never really think of students in high school, or elementary school having it. Due to the intense emphasis on passing the assessment tests, test anxiety is becoming more prevalent with students. In Texas, “Parents report that the kids have a higher number of stomach aches and other stress-related illnesses on test days” (Standardized). Students feel a lot of pressure to pass the test because they are made to feel that it is the most important part of their schooling. “Years of test taking has caused students to believe that good grades are more important than understanding” (Quoted in Tobin). Students who would be conventionally considered above average, or average, now feel that they only need to learn and study the material they will be tested on so that they can obtain a high score. They do not focus on other material in the class, simply because they know it will not be on the test. This is the opposite of what NCLB is advocating. Students do not show a desire to learn more, or master the whole concept of the subject.
Classroom Time
Part iii of the excerpt from the law quoted above, states that the assessment should “encourage the teaching of advanced subjects”. It seems that when a standards-based curriculum is implemented, it does not provide enough time to teach advanced subjects. Because students learn at different paces, teachers have to allot enough time for all of the students to master the material on the assessment.
NCLB proposes to accomplish a statistical impossibility (that all children score in the top twenty-fifth percentile); it raises false expectations; it’s built on an illusion that tests alone can–and should–measure worthwhile standards; that schools can do it all; that progress comes in steady increments; that penalties will motivate children and teachers; that lack of money is a mere excuse; that a single nationwide system is part of the American dream; and, finally, that schools can do it all. The law literally dictates the books we are allowed to use on a national basis, not to mention the pedagogy for teaching literacy and, coming soon, math. Before long, until eighth grade, little else will get taught at all. (Meier)
Although this quotation is opinionated, the issues raised are valid. For all children to score within the top twenty-fifth percentile is far out of reach. Only then, would the teaching of “advanced subjects” be able to occur. Is this going to happen in less than twelve years? Will every child in America be on the same level of learning? Perhaps, if all of the time in school is spent learning the core subjects and the material they are tested on. School districts and the government are making it possible for even more time to be spent on the core subjects. A special part of the No Child Left Behind law is a program called Reading-First. Reading-First is implemented by many schools across the nation. On average, these students receive one hundred more minutes per week on reading than schools that do not use the program (US). This program provides help in reading to students who need it, and those who do not.
Another program providing more instruction time for students is the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), implemented in seventeen states. KIPP schools are free, college-preparatory schools mostly attended by “underserved” students to prepare them to excel in high school and college. One of the main goals of KIPP is more time, which is obtained when “students are in school learning 60 percent more than average public school students, typically from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, every other Saturday, and for three weeks during the summer” (About KIPP). They are “preparing” these students with more time in the classrooms than their parents spend at their jobs, and far more than a college student spends in the classroom. The KIPP program also focuses primarily on the core subjects.
Yet another example, comes from Pittsburgh where in 2006,
The district on Aug. 21 opened eight accelerated learning academies, many of them in disadvantaged neighborhoods, with a longer school day, an extended school year and increased class time for literacy and math. Each day, the schools will provide 2 1/2 hours of highly structured literacy instruction — 30 minutes of skills development and an hour each of reading and writing — to students in kindergarten through grade three. Ninety-minute daily “ramp-up” courses will be provided to students performing two or more years below grade level” (Smydo).
All of these examples show how much time is being dedicated to learning the core-subjects. This falls at the expense of the non-tested subjects. In one study done at Boston College, findings show that, “More elementary and middle school teachers than high school teachers reported that they increased the amount of time spent on tested areas and decreased the time spent on non-core subject areas and on other activities” (Pedulla, et al).
It is obvious that spending more time learning a subject will improve a student’s understanding and in turn his or her test scores, however what will losing time that used to be spent learning history, art, music, and foreign languages do to a child’s learning experience? Spending time on only core-subjects does not leave room to foster thoughts and imagination in children. A child is not exposed to a liberal education when so much emphasis is placed on taking and passing state tests. A well rounded education is necessary later in a student’s career if he chooses to go to college and is faced with a course load of “liberal arts” classes. Most often the first classes to be cut into are the arts, such as music, art, and drama. Jane Alexander, former NEA chair quotes “Children learn better with arts as part of the curriculum. They learn all their subjects better. They’re more engaged. Teacher attendance goes up. The child is happier; the teacher is happier” (Saving).
An area of study falling in between neglect and emphasis is computers. Traditional computer classes are being cut short in order for more core subject instruction time, but on the other hand educators are using computer software and internet resources to aid students. There is an array of programs available to schools and parents that can help a child practice material and test taking skills, however students are not learning basic computer skills in the classroom. Although computers are a part of daily life for most people, some unfortunate children only have the opportunity to use a computer at school. If the only computer skills they learn are through these study-aids, they are at a disadvantage. Many job applications are done via the internet today, and without a set of computer skills a job seeker would be unable to submit an application. Computers are becoming more engrained into everyday life, and eventually everyone will have to use one sometime. Until now, computers have mainly been used as a supplemental addition to classroom exercises, or offered as an elective course in schools. Computer skills are proving to be a necessity as we move further into the twenty-first century, and assessment testing is not allowing time to be spent learning these skills in the classroom.
Case Study
The Albert Gallatin Area School District is located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The district ranges four townships, and is made up of six elementary schools, two middle schools, and a senior high school. Of its almost 4000 students, the amount of students coming from low income families is more than 50%. (Pennsylvania) For the 2006-2007 school year, two of its elementary schools, one of its middle schools and the high school did not meet their AYP target and were placed on a warning (Academic).
A survey was given to teachers at one elementary, one middle school to obtain information and opinions about the PSSA test. There were two surveys, one for core subject teachers, and another for non-core subject teachers. The results are located in the appendix.
The majority of the questions focused on PSSAs in the school and how it is affecting classroom environment. When asked how much more emphasis has been placed on PSSA preparation and test taking, all of the nine respondents from reading, math, and science, said that there has been more emphasis placed on it. A fourth grade math teacher said that the emphasis is “overwhelming”. While a third grade science teacher comments, “So much of my day is teaching ‘to the test’ and not the content I should be teaching.” Many of the teachers said they have had to change their traditional teaching methods in order to comply with the new law. Most stated that they have to move at a faster pace so that they can cover everything that will be on the test. Additionally, a fourth grade reading teacher explained that “…many of the reading elements that I teach now in fourth grade I taught at the junior high level years ago.” A few teachers went on to add that they have incorporated computer aid programs into their instruction. The “Study Island” website and program has been adopted by the school district, and is now included in classroom instruction.
Another topic questioned in the survey was the amount of time spent on reading, math, and science in the classroom. Just recently, the elementary school was “departmentalized”, so teachers who used to teach all subjects, are now only teaching one, just like the middle school and high school teachers. According to the respondents, if extra instruction is needed by a student there are tutors available. Students are pulled out of other classes in order for private tutoring sessions. Additionally, if a student scores below basic in reading or math, he or she is required to take a “PSSA Reading or Math” class in addition to his regular reading or math classes. The additional time spent on PSSA preparation also cuts into the time that used to be spent on field trips and other activities. The majority of the respondents felt that their school has decreased the amount of “fun” activities for students over the past five years. One teacher further added that he no longer has time to show students simple science experiments to demonstrate a topic because their is not enough time. A middle school reading teacher, who has only been teaching for two years feels that, “…there are not many enjoyable activities compared to my years as a student in school.” This shows how the law has changed the atmosphere of schools in just about a decade.
The non-core subject teachers answered that their students show enthusiasm for learning their subjects, especially foreign language and computers. These teachers have also had to incorporate “assessment skills” into their classes. They answered that it is not that hard to do, such as “teaching numbers in French” according to the foreign language teacher. The elementary computer teacher said that she has not had to incorporate reading, math, or science into her lessons, but she “…tried to incorporate more core subject material to help out the regular classroom teachers.” She did this by requiring more writing assignments and by using software “emphasizing math skills tested on the PSSA.” The elementary art teacher also uses her classroom time for extra practice of core subjects by, “Using projects that students have to use skills such as measuring and vocabulary.”
When asked if the teachers felt that their students were stressed, thirteen out of the fifteen respondents answered yes. The two that answered no were the elementary art and physical education teachers. Other respondents also added that parents and other teachers have an increased stress level as well. As seen here, in a school district where only the first level of corrective action has been taken, nothing good is coming out of constant assessment testing. The main emphasis of the school day is to teach for the test, so that they can meet their goal this school year. According to other answers from the survey, some teachers feel that their students are not learning anything, but rather just memorizing material to pass the test. Though some feel that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, others feel that it is an uphill battle. For now, the school district is doing its best to move forward and meet its goals for a few more years.
Looking at the Future
Over the past six years, No Child Left Behind has been a work in progress. Today, we can see both negative and positive effects of the law, however the cons are heavily outweighing the pros. Although students in 2014 may come out of high school being able to read a passage and answer questions about it, or solve the quadratic equation, but will he be able to write an essay that outshines the 2,000 other applicants to the college of his choice? Or will the student who does not want to go to college be able to get a job without interviewing or computer skills? How will these students be able to select a career path if they have not been exposed to various classes and opportunities?
Undoubtedly, the law needs to be reformed in order to achieve its goals. Right now, students in the public school system are not receiving the high quality education promised to them in 2001. Students who are able to perform at a proficient level are losing instruction time in other important areas, while the students who are at a basic level are being out cased and made to look less superior. Schools are being punished because of low scores, but whose fault is it? The stress of constant testing is proving to reduce the standard education a teacher can provide, and that a student can learn.
Although No Child Left Behind is attempting to do something that will possibly benefit not only students, but future generations, it seems far out of reach at this time. Specifically, the way the law calls for advancement and achievement to be measured. Assessment tests can show scores, and compare them to other schools, but they can never truly measure if a student has mastered a concept. Every child learns at a different pace and in a different way. Just because a child is not outstanding in math, does not mean he or she will not excel in another subject. Children need to receive an education that will not only provide them skills in core subjects, but also opportunities to explore other areas of interest so that they can find a passion, hobby, and eventually a future career path to take up after graduation. Right now, No Child Left Behind is not making this possible, and the chances that it will by 2014 are grim. Serious legislative action should and needs to be taken to re-examine this law and amend the way a student is tested on the mastery of a concept because state assessments are not conducive to the promises of the law. No child should be left behind, but unfortunately many are at the hands of the government.

Works Cited
About KIPP, Five Pillars. Knowledge is Power Program. 15 Oct. 2007.
“Albert Gallatin Area SD” PA Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2006-2007. 15 Oct 2007.
“Albert Gallatin SD.” PA Department of Education. 10 Oct 2007.
Meier, Deborah. “No Politician Left Behind.” The Nation. 27 May 2004. 15 Oct 2007.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. no. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).
< http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf>
Pedulla, Joesph, et al. “Perceived Effects of State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings From a National Survey of Teachers.” National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, Boston College. March 2003. 15 Oct. 2007. http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/nbr2summary.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. 2 Nov. 2007.
Perez, Laurie. “Standardized Tests: Do They Ultimately Help or Hurt Students?”. Fresh Writing. 28 March 2001. 2 Nov. 2007.
“Saving The Arts.” The Merrow Report. 15 Oct 2007. http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/sta/quotes.html
Shepard, Lorrie A. “The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture.” Educational Researcher. 29.7 (2000): 4-14.
Smydo, Joe. “No Child Left Behind has altered the face of education.” Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 28 Aug 2006. 15 Oct 2007.
Swimming Kangaroo. “Standardized Testing: Is It Good For Education?” Publisher’s Blog. 25 June 2006. 15 Oct 2007.
Tobin, Jeff. “Psychologist says standardized tests undermine a child’s ability to learn.” Santa Cruz Sentinel. 14 Aug 2005. 15 Oct 2007.
Twitchell, Brian A. “Standardized va. Standards-Based Tests.” Articles For Educators. 10 Oct 2007.
US Department of Education. 10 Oct 2007.
Wenning, Richard, et al. “No Child Left Behind: Testing, Reporting, and Accountability.” ERIC Digest. Aug 2003. 10 Oct 2007.