Moving Beyond Test-Focused Policies

• In Event: 52.053 - Learning From the Federal Market-Based Reforms: Lessons for the Every Student Succeeds Act

Abstract

This paper examines the research on the effectiveness of standardized tests as the linchpin of accountability policies (Smith & O’Day, 1990) and as drivers of school reform (Welner, 2013). The debates in Washington over the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act largely accepted the idea of continued high-stakes testing, although the resulting Every Student Succeeds Act devolves many details to the states (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2016). Research on test-based accountability shows mixed results, but a basic consensus has emerged that the policies have driven several negative, unintended consequences (Nichols & Berliner, 2007) while also not appreciably changing NAEP trend lines or closing the achievement gap (Brown, 2016; Lee & Reeves, 2012). To be specific, our singular focus on those test scores had the following negative consequences:
• making schooling less engaging and creative (Zhao, 2009);
• deprofessionalizing teachers and teaching (Milner, 2013);
• abandoning our past pursuit of learning that fully encompasses arts, music, social studies, and science (Cawelti, 2006); and
• marginalizing values and skills that help students develop the ability to cooperate, solve problems, reason, make sound judgments (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008), and function effectively as democratic citizens (Howe & Meens, 2012).

ESEA’s reauthorization, then, simply gilds a demonstrably ineffective strategy, while crowding out policies with proven effectiveness. Deep-rooted patterns of ever-increasing social and educational needs, as well as fewer or stagnant resources, will inevitably lead to larger opportunity gaps and achievement gaps (Carter & Welner, 2013). Testing, the paper concludes, will document this; but it will do nothing to change it. Instead, the gaps will only close as a result of sustained investment and improvement based on proven strategies that directly increase children’s opportunities to learn.

The purpose of ESEA has long been to ensure equal opportunities for all children, particularly those living in poverty, and its reauthorization offers us an opportunity to remember that purpose and to re-think our national directions in education. This must begin with a sober and honest look at the effects of NCLB and its progeny. The broad consensus among researchers is that this system is at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive.

The ultimate question we should be asking isn’t whether test scores are good measures of learning, whether growth modeling captures what we want it to, or even whether test scores are increasing; it is whether the overall impact of the reform approach can improve or is improving education (Welner, 2013). Boosting test scores can be accomplished in lots of different ways, some of which focus on real learning but many of which do not.

The way forward is not through further tinkering with failed test-based accountability mechanisms; it is to learn from the best of our knowledge. This calls for a fundamental rebalancing—which requires a sustained, fair, adequate and equitable investment in all our children sufficient to provide them their educational birthright, and an evaluation system that focuses on the quality of the educational opportunities we provide to all of our children.

Authors

• Kevin G. Welner, University of Colorado Boulder

• William J. Mathis, University of Colorado - Boulder