Diatribune

Cafferty on All the children left behind

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Days ago the news reports were filled with images and icons. Illusions and delusions were delivered to an expectant public. Paris Hilton appeared on every screen. Cable, network, and local stations covered her body and her burgeoning tensions. She is in jail. She is legally out of prison. The hotel heiress is partying at home or piteous in court. America was fixated. People pondered; wresting with facts and figures all pertaining to Paris.

Most, mired in the misery of this young celebrity missed a discussion relating to another false impression, American students are achieving. Uniform standards are in place in our nation's schools. Pupils are performing. States and Districts accountable. Actually, according to The New York Times, "States Found to Vary Widely on Education."

Like the legendary and impervious Paris Hilton, test scores validating student achievement in America are not as they seem to be. Pretty Paris is flawed; so too are the standards used in evaluating education. The youth in this country are expected to achieve, even if only in appearance.

Today in America, the construct of "accountability" is wrought with rationale and reasoning, contrary as these might be. Parents, pupils, and school Principals are told teaching to the test is best. Federal authorities claim focusing on the "basics" is the "right thing to do." We as a society believe that if students can achieve proficiency on multiple-choice exams then they are genuinely learning. However, it seems mastery is a malleable means for determining success.

Assessments are as varied as the explanation of Paris's guilt or innocence. Is Miss Hilton held to a higher or lower criteria. Are our students evaluated equally? The answer appeared in the New York Times.

Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States Department of Education said yesterday in a report that, for the first time, measured the extent of the differences.

The disparity speaks volumes. The George W. Bush signature program, No Child Left Behind is not as successful as the Administration wants us to believe it is. The facts and figures are not what they seem. This realization threatens the already shaky acceptance of such a stringent and poorly conceived program.

Might we assess this program more thoroughly before we blindly reauthorize No Child Left Behind?

Granted, all Americans want their children to achieve. The basics, reading and math are essential educational building blocks. If our children are to be prepared, grounded, with a solid foundation for learning, they must know how to interpret writing, count, and calculate when presented with a problem. No one disputes the need; nor do they quarrel with the Administration's stated goal, all students, nationwide, must be proficient by 2014. Perchance the real dispute is in defining what it means to be proficient.

Currently mastery is defined differently in every State. Details are scant. Educators reluctantly reveal the methods they use to measure student performance. Each region is trying to secure Federal funding. If they must lower expectations to do so, they will. Indeed, they have. Student standards in one local do not necessarily meet nation norms.

Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales, Research and Development Report, released in June 2007, disclosed the truth of No Child Left Behind Laws. The tactics taken by every State in the Union in an attempt to conform to the rigid standards this program imposes are not as expected. There is ample reason for concern. However, education czar, Margaret Spellings while admitting the findings are troubling, obfuscates any need to change the system. She asserts the States must remain responsible for their students' learning and scores.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a statement, “This report offers sobering news that serious work remains to ensure that our schools are teaching students to the highest possible standards.”

In an attempt to uniformly establish student expertise, American educational institutions throughout the country now focus on delivering findings that meet acceptable standards. Multiple-choice, standardized exams evaluate students' skills in each State. The recent study reveals, these local assessments, when they are compared to a national norm fall far short of expectations and projections. Student achievement and the nation's schools are not as stellar as were led to believe.

The report provides ammunition for critics who say that one national standard is needed. “Parents and communities in too many states are being told not to worry, all is well, when their students are far behind,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation who served in the Education Department during Mr. Bush’s first term.

Never before was there a method for determining consistency within the many tools. Now that there is, the outlook is grim. Much like the fairy tales of our childhood, wolves are dressed in sheep's clothing. Emperors have no wares. Apples that are meant to keep the doctor away are poisonous.

The report for the first time creates a common yardstick to measure the results on state tests against the National Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the gold standard of testing.

The report examines the minimum score a student would have to get on each state’s reading and math tests to be deemed proficient — or at grade level — and then determines what the equivalent score for that level of competency would be on the national test. Results on the national test are not used to judge schools under No Child Left Behind.

The national test divides students’ scores into three achievement levels, basic, proficient, and advanced. Grover J. Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education Sciences at the Education Department, said the achievement level that many states called proficient was closer to what the national test rated as just basic. And the report shows that not a single state sets its reading proficiency levels as high as the national test.

As long as States can chose their own standard for proficiency, there is none. Norms do not exist in a calculation of differences. One must wonder was that ever the intent. In seems that appearances are our national priority. What we do not know will not hurt us; yet it does daily.

[A]n eighth grader in Missouri would need the equivalent of a 311 on the national math test to be judged proficient. That is actually more rigorous than the national test. In Tennessee, however, a student can meet the state’s proficiency standard with a 230, a score well below even the basic level on the national exam.

And while a Massachusetts fourth grader would need the equivalent of a 234, or just below the proficiency mark on the national test, to be judged as proficient by the state, a Mississippi fourth grader can meet the state’s standard with a state score that corresponds to a 161 on the national test.

Such score differences represent a gap of several grade levels. New York ranked 9th in grade 4 reading, in terms of the rigor of its standards. Its proficiency standards corresponded to 207 on the national test. It ranked third in grade 8 reading. But it was toward the bottom, 29th among 33 states in grade 4 math. And it was 13th in grade 8 math.

New York has since approved new math standards. “The results in reading are positive for New York relative to other states, but math is mixed,” State Education Commissioner Richard Mills said. “The comparison reminds us of the need over time to keep raising standards and providing extra help to students.”

Perhaps imposing external standards will do nothing to educate our children. Intrinsic motivation might meld minds in a manner that benefits us all.

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.
~ Albert Einstein

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
~ Albert Einstein

I propose that what is standard for you may not be for me. Do we truly want our offspring to be average or do we accept such a premise for convenience.

Many education experts criticize No Child Left Behind, saying it gives states an incentive to set low standards to avoid sanctions on schools that do not increase the percentage of students demonstrating proficiency each year. Those experts argue that uniform national standards are needed

While I understand the desire to implement national standards, I think the "facts" and figures generated by these might be equally misleading. Too frequently, the goal is to generate numbers that look impressive.

Mr. Petrilli said, “Even if students are making progress on state tests, if tests are incredibly easy, that doesn’t mean much.”

I think that if we are to truly serve our students we must teach them the basics in a way that advances their love of learning. A child, or adult, never fully recalls what they think irrelevant to their personal lives. Perchance the standard testing tools might supplement a program that advances education and critical thinking skills, rather than suppress such methods.

As distressing as this study is, for me, it pales in comparison to what is occurring in our schools. The Arts are no longer offered. Instructors only focus on Social Science matters when those tests are delivered. Since history and political science, civics, and human rights issues are infrequently assessed in mandated examinations these topics are not taught thoroughly. Physical sciences are not a priority in the No Child Left Behind program. Music, although proven to assist students academically is barely a blip on the Federally funded student achievement screens. Many subjects are left behind, as are our young.

I inquire; what are we doing to our students. We say we want them to think outside the box, to be imaginative, innovative, inventive, interested and interesting; yet, we do not give them the tools to think, create, or generate greatness.

As we sit idly by, arguing over forms and formulas our children are left further and further behind. Might we accept that erudition is not completing a competency exam. Learning does not look like bubbles on a Scantron™. Facades are fine. Pretenses are powerful. However, if we wish to further scholarship we must teach to the students, not to the tests.

Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.
~ Albert Einstein

There are also questions concerning the rules and regulations within No Child Left Behind. The law dictates, if reading and math scores are low, schools will be severely sanctioned. Studies and our own life experiences might remind us that punitive measures do little to encourage advancement. People tend to find ways to gratify a demanding authority that does not necessarily advance their own growth, strength, or understanding.

Remember when you were a child. Perhaps, your parents pushed you to partake in a sport you loathed, to enroll in classes you considered boring, or to take out the trash. If threatened with a whip, a slap, or an extremely strong rebuke did you not rebel or wish to. Even the good little boy or girl [in each of us] finds a ways to weave through a tapestry that threatens to tear them apart.

Might you have purposely injured yourself so that you could not "play" with the team. Possibly, you slept through those required courses, skipped school, or had a classmate take notes and tests for you. Cheating on examinations is often an option. Did you bargain with your sister or brother; surely, they could empty the garbage cans. Anything to avoid the wrath of an oppressive authority, anything but doing as you do not desire to do will work.

Perhaps you, as I, did not rebel at home. School was where you struggled to satisfy a person in power. I recall a demanding teacher, not one that was intellectually challenging and expected much of you, but one that was insistent you do as they say is best. I had the auspicious pleasure [sic] of studying under the direction of a few. A Middle School Missus comes to mind. A High School Miss will forever be my favorite example. Then there is the College Professor. I learned much from each of these educators. Mostly, I mastered 'how not to teach.'

I think my experience of the University Lecturer might best illustrate how an over-bearing authority figure can quell learning, cease productivity, and stifle or redirect creative thought. Professor X was a delightful duplicitous dictator. This academic was extremely amicable. I actually enjoyed his classes for the first few weeks of the semester. Mister X was knowledgeable, almost inspirational. Actually, he did arouse creative thoughts. I wondered; how might I survive the term. These musings came later, after I got to know him, and his plan.

After getting acquainted exercises, explaining the syllabus, familiarizing the pupils with his prospectus, Mister X proceeded to divulge his true agenda. The Professor set aside hours of class time to show us his work. He carefully explained how each assignment must be crafted, exactly as his were. For weeks, unhappily I tried to produce as he stipulated. He was specific. Professor X had standards. However, my classmates and I were unable to live up to these. Most of us were children left behind.

Some befriended him. For them, that worked. This is similar to the attitudes some States take in respect to No Child Left Behind. State Boards get along just to get along. Perhaps, Alaska is one of these. However, citizens of this territory might claim their plan preceded the No Child Left Behind Act.

Others begrudgingly produced work that mirrored the instructors. Their heart was not in it. They lowered their own standards for self. These students, admittedly were working only for a grade, much like the States that teach to the test, or lower the standards for proficiency, so that they will receive Federal funding. Delaware gives its students an easier test.

Still, there were students such as I that tried, and ultimately abandoned all hope. I had to drop the course to save my soul. Utah felt a similar need. To preserve the integrity of the State and the quality of its student programs, in 2005, Utah chose to forfeit funding. Fifteen other States were considering the same. In the that year, four years after the initial implementation, Virginia lawmakers concluded they must weigh the benefits. The detriments were obvious and great. Arizona took action to fix what they consider flaws in the program. This Southwest region offers options to opt out. Oh, if only students could choose not to participate in a program that detracts from their learning.

Humans much prefer to choose what is correct for them. Motivation cannot be mandated. Intimidation and coercion often lead to ploys that are less than honest.

Love is a better teacher than duty.
~ Albert Einstein

Nonetheless, the Federal government and those in power continue to use these retaliatory, corrective methods in the hopes of improving education. The Federal government, not wishing to appear autocratic or opting for Socialism, allows States to set their own standards and use their own testing tools. Secretary Margaret Spellings, Department of Education thinks this is apt. She declares . . .

[It]was up to the states, not the federal government, to raise standards.

State School Boards and Districts do as they feel they must to avoid reprisal. Local government officials endeavor to do as dictated by the letter of the law, while still distressed by the lack of leeway and leniency in the No Child Left Behind program. It seems everyone that has the power to educate our students is working to secure funds and forgetting the children. Today, so many students are left further behind. Our young people are falling through the cracks, dropping out of school, or staying in so that they might be handed a diploma. Sadly, a piece of parchment is all they get. The youth of America have not, are not, and will not receive an education as long as No Child Left Behind remains our nation's standard.

Assessing Assessment Tools in Schools . . .