Get rid of 'test, blame, punish': Opposing view
Educators across the nation are encouraged by the big steps forward Congress is taking to create a new national education law that could reverse many of the damaging policies of No Child Left Behind .
So it is both disheartening and perplexing that the lynchpin of NCLB's "label and punish" regime — annual testing — still has support on Capitol Hill.
OUR VIEW: Mend it, don't end it
Of course teachers understand the value of tests, but proponents of annual testing like to position themselves as the defenders of all-things testing and accountability. What they are actually defending is a one-size-fits-all model — one with a long and abysmal record.
The consequences of high-stakes testing have been devastating for struggling schools in high-poverty areas, where teachers and students spent a scandalous amount of time preparing for and taking bubble tests, where teaching and learning were reduced to skills that can only be measured with these multiple-choice questions and which faced crushing consequences if they failed.
Our schools should not be a system of test, blame and punish. We need flexible, carefully constructed assessments that help teachers evaluate individual student needs and tailor lessons accordingly. But surely, say high-stakes devotees, we need annual testing because we need accountability.
But accountability shouldn't be a one-way street. If we hold students, educators and schools accountable for student test scores, students must also get necessary supports and resources to help them learn. Moving forward, states should be held accountable for "opportunity" data — access to advanced coursework, fully qualified teachers, a richer curriculum, specialized support personnel — and be obligated to develop plans to fill any gaps.
We have a real opportunity with this NCLB rewrite to break the testing fever and build an accountability system grounded in delivering support and intervention to students who need it most. Clinging to the status quo of annual testing won't help get us there. We can and should assess student learning — but only if we give kids a chance to learn first.
