Why Won't Arne Duncan and other True-Believers in High Stakes Testing Face Reality?
Democrats who support test-driven reform are showcasing a kinder, gentler soundbite to defend the indefensible. No longer do they take the "Sister Soldja" position, showing how macho they are by beating up on two of their most loyal constituencies - teachers and unions. Now, the rationale for attaching stakes to standardized tests isn't teachers being so all-fired awful; now, the voters supposedly demand it.
The current argument is that high-stakes testing may have caused severe damage to students - especially poor children of color - but we can't spend federal dollars without attaching test-driven accountability. Parents are thus being told that their kids are subject to the educational malpractice of test, sort, and punish because school reformers believe that they wouldn't invest in schools unless somebody has to give up a pound of flesh.
If this spin works, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will soon hold his nose as he promotes the worst of No Child Left Behind, explaining to teachers, students, and parents that imposing his agenda hurts him more than it hurts us.
As high-stakes testing becomes even more unpopular, we can also anticipate more of his efforts to pretend that it isn't punitive. But, the use of test scores to punish is, by definition, the use of tests to punish.
Let's engage in a "thought experiment" about what Arne Duncan would have proposed for renewing NCLB if he was focused on improving schools, not defeating adult opponents. Surely he knows that NCLB-type testing failed dramatically. Curriculum was narrowed and poor children of color were disproportionately subjected to drill and kill. Student performance growth on the reliable NAEP tests slowed as the punitive portions of NCLB tests took effect and it declined further after Duncan put bubble-in accountability on steroids.
So, what would Duncan have proposed for accountability purposes if he was willing to grapple with the sad lessons of the last 15 years?
Let's start by facing the real world significance of the seemingly miraculous increase in NCLB test scores at a time when NAEP test score growth mostly decreased or remained pretty stable. The "bubble" was not a victimless scam. At minimum, it meant that the energies of educators were diverted from school improvement to "juking the stats." Whether we refer to the process that jacked up primitive standardized test outcomes as massaging the data or flat-out fabricating it, the integrity of our public education system was compromised. Neither should we ignore the hard work of students and educators that was largely wasted in order to jack up test scores.
If Duncan and company were focused on honest data to highlight and rectify inequities, would they be doubling down on discredited bubble-in testing, or would they pattern their metrics on the highly-respected NAEP methodology? If Duncan really believed testing is a civil rights issue, would he still be stressing the quantity of Why Won't Arne Duncan and other True-Believers in High Stakes Testing Face Reality? | John Thompson:
