Why reports of progress on No Child Left Behind rewrite may not be a good sign
There are reports on Capitol Hill that some progress is being made on the rewrite of No Child Left Behind, at least between the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate education committee. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the Republican committee chairman, and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, recently issued a statement saying:
“During the last several weeks we have been working together to build the base for legislation to fix the problems with No Child Left Behind. We are making significant progress in our negotiations. We are aiming to consider and mark up legislation to fix the law during the week of April 13th.”
Is this good news? Arthur H. Camins, director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., isn’t so sure, as he explains in the following post. Camins has taught and been an administrator in New York City, Massachusetts and Louisville, Kentucky. The ideas expressed in this article are his alone and do not represent Stevens Institute. His other writing can be found here.
By Arthur Camins
Reports of progress on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) may not be a good sign as both parties ignore better ways to improve education.
Bipartisan agreement makes for strange bellows 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.
In education, assessment is essential for real answers to former New York City Mayor Ed Koch’s question, “How’m I doin’?” While Koch’s question was a rhetorical crowd pleaser, in education we need honest, precise answers.
The key questions for selecting appropriate assessment tools are, “Assessment for what, when and whom?” The modern homebuilder has a set of design specifications with particular occupants in mind and a team of workers with diverse expertise in various aspects of home construction. Multiple tasks require different tools for different workers with different purposes and, of course, cooperation.
The same is true in education. When it comes to assessment, choosing the right tool depends on purpose, values and precision.
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 Why reports of progress on No Child Left Behind rewrite may not be a good sign - The Washington Post: