NCLB Striving to be Average

No Child Left Behind is really a misnomer. The federal initiative is perhaps more appropriately termed, Every Child Average, Set the Bar Lower, or Teach to the Test and Forget Substantive Learning—the latter was probably too long and not catchy enough.

I’m not too far removed from grade school education; I graduated from high school in the late 90s. When I was in elementary, there were two required tests: The California Achievement Test (yes, I know, who would want to live up to CA’s less than lofty standards?) and the Stanford Achievement Test. Today, we have state developed/approved and state specific tests. PBS provides great descriptions of how these state tests are different from achievement tests. At the rudimentary level—which let’s face it, is the most important—achievement tests measure content knowledge; criterion referencing tests (i.e. NCLB state tests) measure students against state set benchmarks or acceptable ranges. In other words, achievement tests measure how well or poorly students are learning or mastering concepts; criterion referencing tests simply make sure that children are at least average or on par with state minimum standards. Understanding these fundamental differences provides insight as to how and why instructors have abandoned teaching concepts which are applicable across a broad range of subjects and life for teaching test taking 101.

I am neither staunchly for nor against standardized tests. What I am against are benchmark tests which are means of testing only for the sake of testing. I am averse to multiple choice and true/false tests as they are lazy means of measurement, but I understand the need for them especially in an effort to glean insight. These tests should not be used as the primary means of making determinations of admission or advancement, nonetheless. Further, studies have demonstrated that gifted children have difficulty with multiple choice tests because of their ability to make connections to broader concepts and inability to diminish concepts to the smaller framework/parameters allowed in multiple choice.

I recall one of my best and hardest working teachers deplored the use of multiple choice—Mrs. Barksdale. For our weekly vocabulary tests, we were required to write the meaning of each word or if given the meaning, provide the word—no multiple choice. Her goal was mastery, the enhancement of vocabulary and ultimately our knowledge. This should be our collective strife, mastery of concepts, not a race of whom can be the best of the worst.