I had the utter joy of being in the first junior class to be subject to the new Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) testing standards. I'll never forget my high school's struggle to test 800 students for two days, while abiding by the regulation classroom setups. Needless to say, the freshmen and sophomores got two field trips and the seniors got two days off of school. It took more than half the classrooms in my high school to seat my junior class. That was only the beginning of it, too. In addition to the ISBE assessments in reading, writing, math, science and social science, every student, including the handicapped and disabled, had to take the ACT. It was the longest two days of my life.
Worse than taking the tests, though were the preparations for them. In English and math, we had to take practice tests. Always with the practice tests. The started three weeks before the test, and I know I would have much preferred reading "Crime and Punishment" or graphing logarithms than endlessly filling in tiny test bubbles.
Now, I understand the necessity of testing. Tests remain the only modern tool we have for assessing learning, and "standardized" tests are more easily distributed and graded than oral or written examinations. What I dislike about widespread mandatory state testing, though, is that it makes parts of education less personal. Rather than experiencing knowledge and learning to apply it to life, students increasingly seem to be trained rather than taught. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that by next year every child in third through eighth grade be tested annually on reading and mathematics, and by 2007-08, science must be tested once in elementary, middle and high school. Last year only 20 states were able to muster the resources to test in math and reading, and it is unclear if all 50 will meet the 2005-06 deadline, let alone the deadline for science.
If testing must take place, the scope of these tests illustrates the limits placed on the creative learning of students. Illinois has been forced to end all its assessments of writing, social science, physical development/health and fine arts. The cut funding for arts programs also emphasizes the apparent lack of importance placed on pursuits outside of reading and mathematics.
Students aren't the only ones being tested though. Teachers are also required to be "highly qualified." Certainly there's nothing wrong with that, except that once again it eliminates the personal factors that may or may not predispose a teacher to be successful in the classroom. An individual might have all the right qualifications on paper, but being proficient in a subject does not automatically make a teacher capable of imparting knowledge on a roomful of 10 to 40 students of varying academic abilities.
And while teachers and students are being tested, it is schools that are getting the grades. Once again, there is nothing wrong with NCLB's goal of bringing all children to grade-level proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-14, except that it ignores other valuable subjects. What is wrong is that progress must be adequate according not just to the student population as a whole, but according to demographics as well. Two years of inability to make "adequate progress" would require a school to provide alternate schooling; three years would require supplemental education in the form of private tutoring; and more than three years would incur "corrective measures" and "possible governance changes." Each state must report its progress in the form of a federal report card. There is fear that, due to assessment being cataloged by demographics, schools with large numbers of underprivileged minorities will be disproportionately penalized.
Last, but certainly not least, is the cost issue. The scale of NCLB has not been met with analogous funding. Some sources, such as the Democratic Party's official platform, cite the underfunding of education to be nearly $27 billion. The Governor's Association, among other public officials, has also labeled the act as an unfunded mandate; the dollar amounts certainly support such a criticism.
The issue of education in any nation, particularly one as vast and heterogeneous as the United States, presents many complexities. An essential step is to fund education. A nation's value is largely based on the intellect of its citizens (in addition to the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens). How can a country that prizes entrepreneurs pigeonhole the creative education of its progeny? What does it say about the value we place on education if teachers and schools are economically penalized for "failing to perform?" And what does it say about America, the richest country in the world, if we have a billion-dollar, non-working missile defense system and a $27 billion underfunded education system? I think it says nothing good.
Numbers and specifics utilized from: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=59 and http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/index.html.
