President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are getting ready to release on Friday new waivers for states to bypass some of the stipulations set forth in No Child Left Behind Act. The administration contends that these stipulations would ease the burden on states trying to achieve under the strict laws of NCLB. In return for these waivers, the administration mandates that the states change rules that would lead to expansion of charter schools and linking teacher evaluation to student performance.
Let us put aside that this would seem to be overstepping the bounds of the separation of powers since there is no congressional input into the changes. Let us put aside that NCLB is not effective at increasing student performance. Let us put aside that the basic premise of NCLB is to make everyone average, thereby destroying the concept of average. Let us instead examine the role of the teacher, as implicated by NCLB and as implicated in the revamped proposal.
Under NCLB, the teacher needs to meet specific goals in order for students to score well on standardized testing and the district to meet its goals. What this often amounts to is not teaching students, but rather teaching students to the test. For example Texas mandates the TAKS test, a set of state-based achievement exams. The teacher often teaches a curriculum that is specifically designed to cover the material on the TAKS exam, to merely regurgitate the information in order to pass the test. This is no way an indictment of the Texas system, but is an indictment of the system in general.
We know the educational system is in trouble. We know there are no easy answers. We also know that there does need to be accountability in the system. However, often the accountability falls solely on the teacher. Teachers who are deemed to be under-performing based on standardized scores face the brunt of the attack. But this is a poor metric to measure a teacher’s worth. If a teacher takes someone who performs at a 4th grade level in 6th grade but raises them to the 5th grade level within a year is underperforming. There are very few truly bad teachers just as there are very few truly bad students. The problem is in the metrics.
In what has been hinted at for the revamp, the metrics won’t be changed per se but there will now be direct correlation for student performance and teacher evaluation. I believe this will mean even more pressure for teachers to teach to the test. The students must perform or the teacher is in trouble. So how do they evaluate the student performance?
I think one main issue that is not being taken to task is that ultimately student performance is student-centric. The teacher is not taking the exam; the student must perform on their own. The accountability needs not be solely the teachers but must include the student as well. If a student fails to perform up to standards, there needs to be consequences. There must be an impetus for the student to perform.
Another main issue is the administration of the standardized test. A standardized test is by definition based on standards and all students must meet standards. Standardized tests are often given as multiple choice exams for the ease of grading. If there are portions that are not multiple choice, the cost to states to have them graded is enormous.
Speaking of standards, we expect students to conform to a standard of knowledge, yet teachers are told that not all children learn the same way, and we must accommodate different learning modalities. Yet the standards and standardized testing may not accurately assess a student’s abilities. For example, a kinesthetic learner may not be able to describe how to do something, but could certainly show you how it is done. Asking all students to comply to one standard test is ludicrous. If teachers need to accommodate different learning styles, then testing needs to do the same.
A revamp of NCLB is not what is needed. What is needed is difficult to quantify, and that is why it is hard to put in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment