NAEP and NCLB
Almost a week has passed since the release of the new NAEP results, and it's worth taking stock of what it all means. I think reactions to the results are extremely instructive, and, in the case of many of the states, disturbing.
Let me say up front what I make of the results: I think the most important thing they demonstrate is that NCLB is not a panacea nor a long-term solution. There are those who would like to suggest that the NAEP results can't be attributed to NCLB, but while NCLB can't take 100% of the causality, it certainly has its fair share. Think about it this way: If NCLB truly has had such marginal impact on American education in the three years after it was passed that its impact can't be felt on a well-respected national assessment, then things are even worse than we thought.
While NCLB certainly hasn't yet reached full implementation (it's not till next year that all states have to have grades 3-8 tested), there has been an enormous amount of money and manpower spent on implementation. Whether bemoaning or praising the law, we've heard hundreds and probably thousands of testimonials regarding the direct effects NCLB has had in the classroom. Every time encouraging state assessment results were released, the same proponents were claiming the victory of NCLB. It is almost silly to suggest that a solid residual from NCLB wouldn't show up in NAEP results (especially in elementary school, where kids have been learning under its auspices for most of their school lives). But the ironic implication of that argument is that NCLB is extraordinarily low-impact. Fact is, 4th grade reading scores went up by 1 point. NCLB is no booster fuel.
That being said, I still think NCLB is a good law in that it forces schools to take account of its low-end students instead of flat-out ignoring them and also that it's forcing districts and states to build the necessary infrastructure of accountability. 18 states currently lack unique student identification numbers, but the vast majority of them are working on designing them, and most of the others are upgrading their respective data systems -- that, too, can be attributed to NCLB. A good short-term program, anything but a long-term solution.
[There, and you thought I'd never come right out and tell you my position!]
What's incredible is how the various factions in our little educational drama are reacting. Fordham is shocked, shocked I say, to find that gambling is going on here:
What's even more ludicrous are the state's reactions.
Let me close with this last thought on NCLB and NAEP: Entering a landscape with little accountability, little alignment to standards, few data systems and the wholesale negligence of a significant portion of the student population, you would expect the early years to show the most improvement. It's not there. Even on state results, most 3-year gains (the years under NCLB) have remained in the single digits. The achievement gap still streches to the horizon. Student learning is stagnant.
NCLB is the foundation. It's about time we consider ways to put up the walls.
Let me say up front what I make of the results: I think the most important thing they demonstrate is that NCLB is not a panacea nor a long-term solution. There are those who would like to suggest that the NAEP results can't be attributed to NCLB, but while NCLB can't take 100% of the causality, it certainly has its fair share. Think about it this way: If NCLB truly has had such marginal impact on American education in the three years after it was passed that its impact can't be felt on a well-respected national assessment, then things are even worse than we thought.
While NCLB certainly hasn't yet reached full implementation (it's not till next year that all states have to have grades 3-8 tested), there has been an enormous amount of money and manpower spent on implementation. Whether bemoaning or praising the law, we've heard hundreds and probably thousands of testimonials regarding the direct effects NCLB has had in the classroom. Every time encouraging state assessment results were released, the same proponents were claiming the victory of NCLB. It is almost silly to suggest that a solid residual from NCLB wouldn't show up in NAEP results (especially in elementary school, where kids have been learning under its auspices for most of their school lives). But the ironic implication of that argument is that NCLB is extraordinarily low-impact. Fact is, 4th grade reading scores went up by 1 point. NCLB is no booster fuel.
That being said, I still think NCLB is a good law in that it forces schools to take account of its low-end students instead of flat-out ignoring them and also that it's forcing districts and states to build the necessary infrastructure of accountability. 18 states currently lack unique student identification numbers, but the vast majority of them are working on designing them, and most of the others are upgrading their respective data systems -- that, too, can be attributed to NCLB. A good short-term program, anything but a long-term solution.
[There, and you thought I'd never come right out and tell you my position!]
What's incredible is how the various factions in our little educational drama are reacting. Fordham is shocked, shocked I say, to find that gambling is going on here:
"As we look at those numbers, we wonder whether or not the progress being reported at the state level is for real," said Michael Petrilli, vice president of the Fordham Foundation. "Are states subtly making their tests easier in order to make their scores look better?"Your winnings, sir. By the by, at least 16 states are changing their assessments in substantive ways for the '05-'06 school year (at least 13 are changing cut-scores). You can bet not all of them are increasing the rigor.
What's even more ludicrous are the state's reactions.
Education officials in Maryland and Virginia said it's natural for scores to rise more quickly on statewide tests than on the national assessment. Material tested in the Maryland School Assessment and the Standards of Learning exams is drilled into students. Preparing students for the state tests is a singular focus of teachers. Under No Child Left Behind, schools reap rewards if they do well on the tests, penalties if they do not.
By contrast, schools and teachers have little motivation to prepare for the national assessment. Results aren't reported for individual students or for most school systems. The national test is somewhat out of synch with local lesson plans. A fourth-grader in Maryland who takes the national test may face a question that has not yet been asked or answered in any Maryland school -- or one that was covered two years earlier.
The national assessment "doesn't test state standards, which is how we're judged on No Child Left Behind, which is how our systems are judged," said Bill Reinhard, spokesman for the Maryland State Department of Education. "That's basically where everything is going. Our teachers are told to put their focus on the Maryland School Assessment."
Let me close with this last thought on NCLB and NAEP: Entering a landscape with little accountability, little alignment to standards, few data systems and the wholesale negligence of a significant portion of the student population, you would expect the early years to show the most improvement. It's not there. Even on state results, most 3-year gains (the years under NCLB) have remained in the single digits. The achievement gap still streches to the horizon. Student learning is stagnant.
NCLB is the foundation. It's about time we consider ways to put up the walls.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 7:38 PM.
|
