It was difficult for Congress to agree on a replacement for the failed No Child Left Behind. NCLB was supposed to be reauthorized in 2007, but it took eight long years to finally reach a bipartisan agreement.
The good part about the Every Child Succeeds Act is that it spells the end of federal punishment for schools, principals, and teachers whose students have low test scores, and it restricts the ability of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to dictate how schools should reform. There is no more AYP (adequate yearly progress); there is no more deadline of 2014 by which time every student everywhere will be proficient, which was always a hoax that no one believed in.
The bad part about ESSA is that it preserves the mindset of NCLB, a mindset that says that standards, testing and accountability are the keys to student success. They are not. NCLB proved they are not. Since “A Nation at Risk” in 1983, policymakers have been in love with the idea that this combination will cause a dramatic rise in test scores and close the achievement gap among different groups. It has done neither, yet ESSA continues the fable.
At the outset of the Senate deliberations, Senator Lamar Alexander offered a choice between annual testing, as in NCLB, and grade-span testing (e.g., grades 4, 8, 12). A group of civil rights organizations issued a statement saying that annual testing guaranteed the civil rights of disadvantaged minorities. This sealed the deal; most other organizations and the Democratic majority fell in line behind the civil rights groups. In my view, annual testing does nothing to advance civil rights; to the contrary, it labels children based on test scores and disproportionately and adversely harms children of color and children with disabilities and English language learners. These groups should have been fighting for measures other than standardized tests, but they did not.
And so the children of American remain saddled with annual testing, and states remain saddled with the enormous expense of annual testing.
My view: The federal government should not dictate any testing. The decision to test or not should be left to every state. Contrary to the belief promoted by ex-Secretary Duncan, NAEP testing gives us all the information we need based on sampling about performance in math and reading, by race, language, gender, poverty status, disability status, and also achievement gaps. Annual tests of every child are a waste of instructional time and money. They provide no useful information.
I am disappointed, though not surprised, that the law encourages more privatization of public schools by promoting the funding and expansion of privately managed charter schools. More genuine and beloved community public schools will be replaced by corporate McSchools. The new federal money plus Walton’s new $1 billion commitment, plus Eli Broad’s charter zealotry, will spur the continuing destruction of public education, especially in urban districts, but their ambition is to go beyond the big cities and into the suburbs, the exurbs, and even rural areas.
I am disappointed that the new law encourages phony “graduate” schools of education, like Relay and Match, which have no scholars, no research, nothing but charter teachers teaching charter teachers how to raise test scores. This will not improve education. It will simply expand the supply of charter school enforcers who have learned to “teach like a robot.”
I am disappointed that there are strict limits on the number of children with disabilities who can be exempted from regular state testing and given accommodations. This seems to me to be a decision that should be made at the school level, not by the federal government.
I am disappointed that the law does not permit parents to opt out of state testing. As a law written by a dominantly Republican Congress, it is surprising that it does not recognize parental rights. Furthermore, a Congress that favors choice of schools should also favor the parents’ choice to say no to testing that they believe is useless and unnecessary for their child’s education.
I would have written a different law.
I would have removed testing and accountability altogether from the law and left that to the states. Why should Congress decide how often children should be tested? What is their authority for making this decision? What knowledge do they have? If states want to know how they are doing, they can review their NAEP scores.
I would have strengthened the enforcement of civil rights and student privacy within the law.
I would have established standards for charter schools, so that they disclose their finances fully and accept students that are similar to those in the community they serve. I would have prohibited for-profit charter schools and for-profit virtual charter schools.
I would have increased funding for special education.
I would have encouraged teacher education programs to raise their standards for entry, but not by relying on standardized tests (they might look, for example, at grade-point average and essays about why the candidate wants to teach. I would have encouraged the professionalism of teachers by requiring certification in the subjects taught, as well as at least a year of student teaching, so that states were not able to drop their standards for teachers. I would have required certification for district superintendents and state superintendents.
I would have funded and required school nurses, psychologists, librarians, guidance counselors, and social workers in every Title I school. I would have expanded funding specifically for reduced class sizes in Title I schools. I would have required an arts program staffed with certified arts teachers in every school.
But instead, we are saddled with standards, testing, and accountability.
The good thing that the law does is to shift the issues to the state level (except when it doesn’t). That means that citizens have some chance to get a better perspective on education by voting out those legislators who are currently crippling public education in their states.
The outlook is that, as a result of ESSA, the states in a downward spiral–like Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, and many more–will continue in that direction until there is a rebellion among the citizenry. ESSA gives people a chance to take action. But that’s about all it does. I’m grateful that AYP is gone; I am grateful that the timetable is gone; I am grateful that the Secretary of Education can no longer boss everyone around. I am glad that Race to the Top is gone. Otherwise, it is NCLB handed over to the states to tinker with.
After 15 years of nonstop testing and accountability, we need a new vision. ESSA is not it.
“
Duncan’sESSA’s Views on Testing”(The Good, the Bad and the Ugly)
We’re only for the Good tests,
And really hate the Bad
And certainly, the Ugly tests
Were always just a fad
Reblogged this on Teachers in Distress.
I would like to have seen ESSA offer funding to incentivize integration. I believe as long as districts are segregated, we will continue to have institutionalized inequity. Separate is never equal. I would also have liked to see new ways to fund public education other than property taxes to fund public education. Segregated housing patterns and insufficient tax revenue have fueled inequities in public education.
I like your idea of offering funding to incentivize integration. I have absolutely no idea how to do it, but if enough heads are put together I have a feeling we could come up with some viable, creative ideas.
Imagine if Race to the Top had offered $5 billion in rewards for states and districts that decreased racial segregation in schools. Many minds would have figured out ingenious solutions.
Thank you for your insight and commitment to public education
“I would have required an arts program staffed with certified arts teachers in every school.”
Yes, ……
provided these art teachers are not certified via Relay, Match and the teacher prep programs rated high in those ridiculous US News and World Report ratings, or the new Gates-funded “Inspectorate” system. Those US News and World Report ratings are provided by the mislabeled “National Center for Teacher Quality.”
Also, as you know, staffing is just part of any program but it is great to see such a clear statement of this along with other components of an “alternative vision” for public schools.
It’s possible this has been written about before, but I was wondering where I could find a brief history of State testing in NY State since the early 1980’s (Which tests were given, which grades were tested, how long the tests were, over how many days the tests were given.)
When I first started teaching, I gave an annual test in ELA and Math. I may be mis-remembering, but I think they were given on the same day and each was about an hour long. I’m not saying they were comprehensive in their assessment, but they seemed to fit the needs of the State at the time. They were un-intrusive and no one got upset by them. The “data” seemed to supply whatever it was that data collectors were looking for, without negatively impacting students, teachers, and curriculum. I believe the tests were just given in 3rd and 8th grades back then.
It’s not that I think we’ll be able to go back to that philosophy of testing entirely, but it would be good to have the information for true comparison. For those of us interested in the facts…
Thanks!
I agree with your opinion about the state tests in New York. They interfered a lot less with academics than the current high stakes climate. After NCLB we started to duplicate testing using the CAT tests on each grade level in addition to state assessments. As an ESL teacher, I had to give the NYSESLAT and all the other tests, except the ELA, for which the ESL test substituted. It got to be a ridiculous amount of over testing. At least, no one was fired for not meeting projected growth scores.
Hooray for this in the Washington Post today:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-testing-opt-out-movement-is-growing-despite-government-efforts-to-kill-it/ar-BBoVNfP?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
Thanks for your detailed summary and analysis, Diane. I have a question. How does this new law affect Response To Intervention, or is that part of IDEA?
Jill,
I don’t know. My guess is that these issues are resolved at the state level.
This is a good question. Good ‘ol RtI! Love that name. Isn’t an intervention a response? So a synonym could be Intervention to Intervention. Or Response to Response. Regardless, the name is lucidity itself.
RTI is in full swing in our CCSS aligned district in Lower Hudson Valley – the flow chart makes me dizzy! For Parents reading – if you suspect learning disabilities or a huge lag in reading/math for your student, please bypass RTI and go straight to your CSE for testing. Please do not waste time in RTI Purgatory! They consider a 2 “letter” progress in Fontas & Pinnells RTI to be “progress” – this despite the fact that said child is already 2 years behind in reading. We were told in 2012 “we do not have RTI level III in place, yet”. It is district level but based on RttT funding (here anyway)!
Excellent post, Diane. it seems that the ESSA is a step in the right direction, as long as, that which promotes opportunity, creativity, and learning – to start – is the direction that is (smile)….
“I would have increased funding for special education.” Thank you for saying this.
So every state is free to chase its own tail without fear of punishment if they fail to catch it.
What I find so sad is that thousands of pages have been written over the last several decades about these issues and it has made little or no difference, especially to educational policy makers. In the Introduction to Thomas Armstrong’s great book (The Best Schools) about the “Academic Achievement” paradigm that reigns supreme over today’s public education, Peter Elkind points to the true cause of our problems–the fact that “what we do in our schools has nothing to do with what we know is effective pedagogy for children. Rather, what we do in our public schools is largely determined by social, political, economic, and cultural considerations. The best interest of children are too often left behind.”
Despite the high praise Diane and others have received for their books, the only changes we see are tiny band-aids and more feel good language about “success” to pacify the public for the short term. We must stop preaching to the choir and find a way to get the word out to parents and the public in general about what is being done to the nation’s kids. Opting Out of tests was a good start, but what we should be opting out of is the whole “academic achievement of bust” paradigm. And Opting In to education based on research on human development.
What’s it going to take for us to stop complaining and start making things happen?
Academic achievement was never the main purpose of K to 12 schooling. The expectation of high level academic achievement for all has always been a fool’s errand.
The main purposes of schooling include social, civic, emotional, vocational, and cognitive development. The main outcomes after 13 years of school experience have little to do with pure academic achievement. This is why the emphasis on using test results to demonstrate teacher/school accountability is just so misguided. This is also why the nearly complete devotion to math and ELA has also been counter-productive to the true goals.
When I speak of academic achievement, I’m talking about the subjects that have long been defined as a “liberal arts” curriculum. Why have all the “non-academic” subjects, such as music, art, drama, vocational classes, and even health been cut from the curriculum to leave more time to teach literacy and math…and occasionally science. And why have the curricula of many poorer schools curricula been reduced to ONLY LA and Math.
Those in positions of power keep telling us that the only way to “success” (by their definition) is through academic achievement…even though they know (or should know) that it’s an impossibility. And because it’s an impossibility, it’s yet another opportunity to “prove” that schools are failing and need to be turned over to “for-profit” billionaires.
I’m using “academic achievement” in a specific way–based on the book I mentioned (Thomas Armstrong’s The Best Schools). He makes a pretty compelling argument for the government’s push in that direction because they claim they can “measure” that achievement and give us hard data to prove that schools are or aren’t effective. What isn’t effective…or the least bit educationally sound…is ignoring the fact that there’s no such thing as a “standard” person…nor have I ever met anyone who wanted to be one.
For Parents reading and wondering about RTI, please check this out – this data was not available when we were referred to RTI in 10/2010. http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=602dfe20-92b8-4ca5-906d-54f4556fb593&c=a9cee950-cc4b-11e3-ae95-d4ae527536ce&ch=aac900c0-cc4b-11e3-afc6-d4ae527536ce
[…] https://dianeravitch.net/2016/01/31/my-views-about-essa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ […]