Arthur Camins, director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., warns that bipartisan agreement on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind may be bad news.
Just as parents are expressing their disgust with annual testing, Congress is close to mandating annual testing for yet another seven years (or maybe another 12 years if past experience is any guide).
He writes:
Bipartisan agreement makes for strange bedfellows as seeming opponents engage in an uncomfortable collective embrace of federal mandates of yearly, high stakes assessment. In the absence of obvious political alternatives some civil rights groups fear that without the harsh light of disaggregated data poor performance will be ignored. Those whose ideology bends their policy choices toward privatization see inevitable failure in the face unreasonable demands as a means to undermine faith in public education. Some are in the campaign contribution thrall of testing companies that stand to gain or loose billions from publically funded testing expenditures. Still others have an abiding faith in the power of rewards and punishments to compel behavior.
The continued focus of high-stakes assessment is the education equivalent of building inspectors requiring pipe wrenches to be used by all plumbers, framers, electricians, roofers and tile-setters, while bypassing the advice and needs of contractors and workers. For education, the sure losers are deep sustainable learning and equity.
Like building a home, creating an education system is a complex endeavor. As anyone who has undertaken it knows, significant remodeling may be even more challenging. When building or remodeling a complex system, it’s best to have a large, varied set of tools. Choosing the right tool for the right purpose is an obvious but often ignored principle- not least in education assessment policy. Pipe wrenches are great for large plumbing valves, but wreak havoc on smaller nuts. They have nasty teeth that rip and apply too much torque. Selection from a full set of open-ended wrenches would be a far better choice. Needle nose pliers are just the right tool for bending wires for electrical connections, but far too imprecise for removing the accidental building-related splinter. So it is with large scale standardized testing in education. The right tool can get the job done. The wrong tool fails and often causes damage….
Let’s start with the big picture. Education has three equally important purposes: Preparation for students for life, work and citizenship.
The values principle of equity implies that the design of our education system should accommodate and address the diverse needs of all students. To be clear, equity as used here has two meanings: opportunity equity and lived equity. The former refers to what is often called a fair shot to move up the socioeconomic ladder. The latter refers to a shorter ladder, in which position on the lower rungs does not preclude access to a decent secure life, with adequate food, clothing, housing and health care– what we have come to expect of a middle class life. The United States has neither kinds of equity and needs both.
The precision principle suggests the need to develop and select a variety of tools to assess progress and success with respect to all of the purposes and components of an effective education system. To assess education’s how are we doing questions, we need subsystem precision, lest we make the education-equivalent mistake of using meter sticks when micrometers are needed….
Equitable resources are essential, but they do not ensure equitable outcomes. While constitutionally, much of education decision-making authority in U.S. is delegated to the states, the interconnectedness of the nation clearly indicates that local outcomes are a national concern. Ineffective or poorly funded education in one state impacts another. The periodic National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) serves to monitor outcomes across the states. The NAEP is not given to every student at every grade in every year. Instead, it is administered at the end of grade bands and uses the well-known statistical strategy of sampling. Politicians know this technique well. They rely upon it extensively when they do polling to gauge potential policy positions because querying every citizen is impractical and not needed to get the information they need. As a tool for fair state or large city level big-picture achievement monitoring, NAEP does the trick, but different non-comparable state-designed tests do not….
ESEA reauthorization should not:
Mandate consequential state testing;
Include requirements for student assessment-based teacher evaluation.
ESEA reauthorization should:
Ensure funds to provide for and measure the attainment of equitable resources;
Provide funds to locales to increase educator expertise in the use formative assessment strategies to improve daily learning.
It is past time for all supporters of equitable education for life, work and citizenship to call out No Child Left Behind with its high-stakes testing centerpiece as a failed Faustian bargain. Choosing the right tools for the right purposes is a common sense starting point.

The danger doesn’t doesn’t come from the agreement but from the fact that corporate owned politicians are meddling in affairs they know not of.
LikeLike
Follow the money…
LikeLike
Nope. Makes too much sense. The pols in Congress and the Senate would never understand it. They are already ordering 3 million screwdrivers to hammer in nails.
LikeLike
I think it was a done deal when the Obama Administration announced their one and only priority was testing.
It’s a fake debate. Democrats will “win!” on testing and Republicans will “win!” on privatization and funding and each will tell their respective base they won. It’s a fake debate because both Republicans and Democrats support privatization and testing. They’ve narrowed the debate to “how much can we possibly test without wide public opposition?” and “how quickly and completely should we privatize?”
LikeLike
It’s a $$$$$ and power GRAB, pure and simple. Both the RESs and DEMS are up to their eyeballs in slime re: education.
LikeLike
Exactly. Not only is it a fake debate but the committees are stacked with “moderates” who agree on all but a few details. The Republicans will give their southern base the choice to resegregate schools and teach religion at taxpayer’s expense and the Democrats will win poor children their civil rights through accountability.
LikeLike
It’s not just that current ESEA reauthorization proposals are the wrong way to improve education, there are better ways that Congress is ignoring: http://huff.to/1KLCRv2
LikeLike
You should send this to President Obama. The democratic value of public education seems to be missing from the president’s education. It seems like he appointed Arne Duncan, and then he went to sleep.
LikeLike
“Provide funds to locales to increase educator expertise in the use formative assessment strategies to improve daily learning.”
I understand the emphasis on assessment since that is the crux of his essay, but I see no need for ESEA to highlight providing funds to improve local educator expertize in formative assessment. While I agree that it is possible that teachers in general need more training in formative assessment strategies, I have seen no research to suggest that we need to address this suggested lack nationally. In what world does the government need to be dictating the formative assessment procedures used in a classroom? With the current worship of numbers you can put in a spreadsheet and manipulate, what makes us believe that some number cruncher with the ear of the USDOE will not declare that everyone needs to be using his/her “Top Ten Assessment Strategies for Tracking Your Students’ Progress!”? The tool analogy Arthur Camins uses in his essay is pertinent here as well if we think of the USDOE as a tool that has a specific role that is much to imprecise to consider the needs of individual classrooms. I do not believe Camins would suggest such power be invested at the national level.
LikeLike
I also found the tool analogy very useful in pointing out that we already have an appropriate tool, the NAEP, to collect the comparison data for a snapshot on school performance. There is really no need for the far more invasive process ordained by CCSS and its related tests.
LikeLike
Congress is about to ignore 14 years of test-and-punish failure and double down on all that we are against. The elimination of de-facto federal standards (Common Core) will probably fall by the wayside, but CC is dead in the water anyway. In the long run, this is a fight we cannot win. We best get on a new bandwagon – and demand much, much, better tests. The NCLB/ESEA re-write must be Obama-proof. Congress knows this and will send him a bill that is the worst of all possible worlds for children.
LikeLike
This is why we need a third progressive party which isn’t owned by the corporations and which isn’t bipartisan and which can build on the opt out movement and workers’ movement for livable wages to set this country back on the road to democracy. It takes time but there is no time like the present. In my state, Pennsylvania, a progressive governor, Tom Wolf, is already making a difference, even with a tea party dominated legislature, and it can happen in other states too if we call out the bipartisan democrats for what they are, sell outs.
LikeLike
Thanks to Obama/Duncan and the power of lobbies, the resources from Title I that should flow to high poverty schools have too many federal strings attached, not only testing, but requirements in the “waivers” to NCLB that Obama/Duncan have made–contingent on state compliance with ill-considered and heavy-handed rules. Examples include changing state laws to be more charter friendly, having test scores for “college and career readiness” be key measures for documenting improved statewide performance, using scores and increments in those scores for teacher evaluation (erroneously called “growth” measures) with incentives for pay-for-performance.
Federalism is “dead” in spite of slogans from the White House and Department of Education. States have cut budgets. They are more likely to rely on federal funds but also want relief from some of the federal requirements imposed on them for ESEA and other funding. There is a huge difference between getting money into programs that serve low income students–many of these also the new majority comprised of “minorities”– and the capacity of schools, teachers, and students, and parents to make use of the resources.
Example: “Free” after school programs for children of working low-income parents are known to be important in the ability of those parents to hold day jobs. Children and teens who can attend these programs are removed from well-documented “latch-key” loneliness or home-alone possibilities for mischief between the time school closes and the time parents arrive at home. The plot thickens with siblings who have different schedules at school and responsibilities for the care of each other. That is to say nothing of unstable work for parents, their issues with transportantion, and so on.
A recent study by the Wallace Foundation shows that after school programs (and summer programs as well) are not as available in communities with a high proportion of low income parents. Some programs have fees or have complicated transportation arrangements that limit enrollment. Some parents who participated in the Wallace survey sqaid they did not take advantage of these programs for fear that the child might be harmed en-route to or from the venue. Resources, even if avaiable, need to be augmented and allocated to take advantage of local capabilities.
The supposition that schools alone can “close the achievement gap” was a fantasy in federal policy from the get-go in 2002. NCLB’s initial and fictional “target” of 100% proficiency in reading and math by this year (2015) has been tweaked. The waivers USDE offered from that absurd target were contingent on new and equally absurd targets–setting 2017 as the year for reducing the achievement gap by half, or by looking at 2020 as the (new) authorized target year for 100% proficiency.
And those fantasies are tied to the expectation that PARCC and SBAC tests will be used for state-wide accountability, or comparable high school exit tests. The “comparables” would be approved by a college/university panel within a state.
Although I appreciate Arthur’s short menu of “do’s and don’ts” for a reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB, I think that investing funds to “increase educator expertise in the use formative assessment strategies to improve daily learning” is also an invitation for the culture of testing to be preserved, but wrapped in the softer language of “assessment.” I see that view of micromanagement endless checklists and dashboards, and color-coded results mapped on grids that have a pre-loaded set of curriculum specifications, skills x content for the day…and so on.
We do not need more policies based on the assumption that all teachers lack expertise of a particular kind.
We do not need to start by thinking that daily assessment of learning will actually improve learning…Please: No more of those needless postings of “objective(s) for today” or Marzano/Danielson checklists that will drop your score ot raise it according to such postings.
We do not need more policies based on the false assumption that all teachers see their students every day, for a fixed period of time, and all day every day…. such that an algorithm from an economist can conclude that you have–or have not– produced “one year plus three months of learning” and are therefore “highly qualified.”
Start with a different vision: That policy makers need to be held accountable to teachers, students, parents, and citizens, and not to presume they have wisdom expertise in education based on no or meager experience.
Start with a vision that puts educators at the center of policy formation, and with the principle that policies cannot be enacted without the informed consent of the persons who will be responsible for acting on those policies.
Start anywhere other than with another version of the carrots and sticks and iron fists that have defined federal policies since 2002.
LikeLike
Well stated! Our leaders should start with an understanding of the value of free public education in a democratic society. They should reverse laws that have monetized public schools. The government should stop promoting privatization, which if they bothered to analyze the results, they would see is not improving outcomes for most students.
LikeLike