Entry #6 -- Is it really worth all the stress?

Scene: Wake County Schools (North Carolina), one of the 20 largest districts in the U. S.

On the 3rd and final day of NCLB testing, one child starting crying during the test, and so I gently invited her to move to the rear of the classroom where she could sit by herself and have more space with fewer possible distractions. She progressively became more distraught, and refused to read or complete any further test items even though she was less than halfway finished.

Minutes later, the young student lay on the floor in a fetal position, sucking her thumb, crying while asking for her mom to come get her because "it (the test) was too hard."

What in the name of NCLB's inane standards are we doing to our children!! Where will this end!!!

I once heard a lecturer say that FEAR really is an acronym standing for False Education Appearing Real. Well, AMEN to that, my friends.

I sit here tonight weeping and paralyzed by grief. I never thought I would see this day. I really didn't.

I included this short story because I'm hoping you guys will reply with your reactions and thoughts....

The site I am using to analyze aspects of NCLB for improvement suggestions is listed here: No Child Left Behind. The site lists the main goals of NCLB as defined by the Bush Administration and is used to supplement to the England readings and the classroom discussion. Although, the site details all aspects of NCLB, I will focus primarily on the accountability and testing aspects that were mentioned in our readings and discussions.

The four main goals of the blueprint -- Increase Accountability for Student Performance, Focus on What Works, Reduce Bureaucracy and Increase Flexibility, and Empower Students -- are broken into 7 subsections: 1.) Improving the academic performance of disadvantaged students, 2.) Boosting teacher quality, 3.) Moving limited English proficient students to English fluency, 4.) Promoting informed parental choice and innovative programs, 5.) Encouraging safe schools for the 21st Century, 6.) Increasing funding for Impact Aid, 7.) Encouraging freedom and accountability

Although definitions and explanations for these are listed on the site, one only needs to read these focal points and subsections to realize that many of these have not been met and have not been implemented favorably. Looking at Subcategory #3, for example,ESL and bilingual education programs are oftentimes the first programs cut or reduced from the curricula while sports programs are constantly improved. (Obviously, capitalism plays into this b/c sports bring in money for the schools, etc., but it still shows that NCLB was not implemented fully or correctly.) Flaws and shortcomings of each subcategory can be listed, but I'm sure those reading this have already had a few come to mind so we'll move on from listing anymore of them but will mention that the Bush Administration has posted on its Educational Reform site a fair amount of praise for NCLB by listing information about successes. (Some of the articles will no doubt make a few of you laugh or scoff.)

Let's look at the fourth main goal of NCLB -- Empower Students: How do the current standardized testing and accountability aspects of NCLB reflect this goal? Primarily, in my opinion, they don't. England uses the MCAS exams as an example of this -- with the 6000 students who were not allowed to graduate even though they had completed all other requirements and showed application of the materials needed to pass the exam. As we discussed in class, some who could otherwise pass the exams or could demonstrate learned knowledge of the materials, may not do so because of the high amount of stress involved with resting a student's prospective educational and occupational careers primarily on a few major exams. (Hence, the discussion about some students experiencing PTSD afterwards. Some, as mentioned in the article "Study reveals stressed out 7-11 year-olds" are having pervasive anxiety issues as well.)

I know it is pretty long already, but now I have to list my suggestions/recommendations as we should be focusing on what to do now...

Surely, we can analyze both psychological and educational evidence and histories to find a combination of, or alternatives to, testing methods that might actually empower and encourage students and their learning instead of making them fear their education. As we've discussed in class, helping students create portfolios (and keeping copies of the materials at the schools which can transfer if a student changes schools) consisting of project summaries, non-"major" test scores, essays, etc. can be another way to assess whether (or what) a student is learning (as well as the progress and aptitude) which can be used instead of, or in addition to, standardized exams such as regents and SATs. Schools should be able to evaluate these throughout the year and use common (consistent among all states) rubrics to standardize progress assessments. Also, if the federal government continues to want to be so "highly" involved in the educational process, they can set up another agency/department that consists of education professionals from all states to evaluate and review the assessments the schools make -- and audit the actual portfolios themselves, if needed.

I also think we should evaluate whether progressing students by grades is still helpful for today's students. For example, perhaps they could progress levels by subject instead of by overall grades. Schools can still be divided by age so that 15 yr old students who might be behind in math aren't placed in the same class as 7 year students. Progressing levels by each subject might help with the grade inflation and with lowering standards to pass students just to keep them with their class mates since each class could potentially consist of a various members of different students within a range of ages. Level progression may also help teachers to better tailor lessons towards the students' different learning styles and abilities. Obviously a suggestion like this still requires more research and debate, but it is a suggestion that might be possible with better planning for design and implementation. Standardized testing for each student, should then be done by individual subject level based on the standards set for each. Level progression can still be based on a full year or semester but should also be flexible to assist those who may learn materials more quickly.

Yes, this will mean that some students may progress levels in the middle of a semester, but it is possible to design a curricula according to this flexibility. (Some subjects may be taught on an independent study basis while still having a teacher in the room that can be there for guidance and to answer questions. Students should also be encouraged to work with peers to help learn from each other before asking a teacher, though.) The education/learning is then tailored towards an a student's strengths and learning style and helps to remove students' perceived limitations about how far they can advance in a year which might encourage them to be more proactive in doing their homework, etc.

I also wanted to give you guys a link to an article I found detailing how much money is going into the testing industry and which companies are the primary beneficiaries: Are children really the people who benefit from standardized testing?

Story location: http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=465