Pros and cons of NCLB: What the research says
The pros and cons of NCLB often seem to cancel each other out in the debate
over this controversial law and its mandates for standardized assessment and school accountability. In a recent issue of
Applied Measurement in Education, Lihshing Wang and a team of researchers
from the University of Cincinnati bring a third evidence-based perspective to the pros and cons of NCLB by
examining the research on the four following issues:
1.
assessment-driven reform;
2. standards-based assessment;
3.
assessment-centered accountability; and
4. high-stakes consequences.
"Only a handful of scholars and practitioners have argued in defense of
standardized tests," write Wang and fellow researchers Gulbahar H. Beckette and
Lionel Brown. However, there is emerging evidence that high-stakes assessment is
a potent force for bringing about improvements in student learning.
The researchers present the pros and cons of NCLB for each of the four
interrelated issues and then offer a critical synthesis based on their review of
the research.
1. Assessment-driven reform
Pro
arguments
Assessment-driven reform is needed to counter declining
trends in SAT and ACT scores and the mediocre performance of U.S. students in
international rankings such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS), proponents argue. Assessment-driven reform can have a powerful
influence on school curriculum and reform, if tests are carefully designed to be
consistent with the kinds of learning desired in the classroom and if there is a
tight connection between cognitive learning theory, the curriculum, classroom
activities and assessment items.
Con arguments
SAT scores declined during the 1970s and
1980s because more students aspired to go to college and took the tests, not
because of performance factors. There has been an upward trend in the 1990s and
into the 2000s. The Department of Education statistics show improvement in areas
such as a decrease in dropout rates and an increase in high school students
taking advanced courses and Advanced Placement examinations. Standardized tests
undervalue the "sensitive interaction between teachers and their students in the
complex, social system of the classroom." The real problem with the education
system is the fundamental misdesign of schools, lack of qualified teachers and
the instability of families and communities.
Synthesis view
While there are encouraging statistics on
domestic educational performance, American school children do not seem to
perform well in international rankings. "It seems clear that in the world of
increasing globalization, the U.S. educational system can and should do better,"
the researchers conclude. The goal of using tests is not just to measure
performance but also to drive changes in alternative instructional materials,
learning models and staff development that can make the shifts in the desired
teaching and learning.
2. Standards-based assessment
Pro
arguments
It is desirable to agree on a common core of
knowledge that teachers should teach and students should learn. Without common
standards, it is difficult to compare grades across teachers and schools because
of local norms. All students, regardless of socioeconomic status, race or
disability, should be expected to meet common standards that challenge them to
acquire content and skills that are more than just minimum requirements.
Neuroplasticity research in the past decade has shown that "the critical period
for learning is now considered regulatable through environmental enrichment and
mental force throughout life." In a nationwide survey by the National Board
on Educational Testing and Public Policy, a majority of teachers supported their
state content standards and more than one half reported that their
state-mandated test is based on a curriculum that all teachers should follow. In
public polls, there is wide support for assessment.
Sign up to receive free research
updates
Con arguments
By imposing standards on students' minds we
are, in effect, depriving them of their fundamental intellectual freedom by
applying one standard set of knowledge. Standardized tests oversimplify
knowledge and do not test higher-order thinking skills. State standards are
externally imposed on local teachers.
These mandatory assessments cannot
work unless teachers understand and accept the philosophical underpinnings of
standards. One-size-fits-all standards either dumb down instruction to the
lowest common denominator or condemn low-ability students to frequent
failure
Synthesis view
Few would argue against the
noble goal of helping all children meet the same set of high standards.
Neurocognitive research provides strong evidence that the human brain is
adaptable well into adulthood. However, genetic signals play a large role in the
initial structuring of the brain and there is a a limit to how much and how
quickly cells enlarge and add synapses. This suggests that the human mind may
lose its plasticity in learning after reaching a certain age. There is a
learning cap determined by genetic as well as socioeconomic factors that
determines how far and fast a student can develop during their school years. The
NCLB's requirement that all children must reach the same set of standards at the
same time fails to acknowledge this.
3. Assessment-centered accountability
Pro
arguments
Standardized testing is the best alternative for comparing
student performance across different education systems because human judgment is
error-prone. Decades of evidence show that the quality of teachers' tests pales
compared with more rigorously developed large-scale tests. When used for
purposes of accountability, standardized tests can provide more objective and
less ambiguous evidence. In one international study that looked at the effects
of dropping and reintroducing standardized tests in 29 industrialized countries,
academic standards declined, students studied less, curricula became incoherent
and selection and promotion became arbitrary after standardized tests were
dropped.
Con arguments
Important learning outcomes are not
measured by standards testing. Only self-generated professional responsibility
can sustain fundamental school and student improvement. To guide instruction,
teachers should constantly look for evidence from a variety of sources to make
sense of what is happening in their classrooms.
Standardized tests
measure little more than socioeconomic status, and teachers and administrators
should not be held responsible for that or should a fourth-grade teacher be held
accountable for her students' test scores when those scores reflect all that has
happened to the children before. Standardized tests fail to differentiate
instruction for different kinds of kids without condemning low-achieving
students to boring and unproductive schooling. Synthesis view
Educators have the duty to help students
break hereditary and environmental barriers. A well-established accountability
system must make sure that the process of accountability is legal. Without
adequate funding for test development and personnel training, the accountability
mandate is likely to be challenged on legal grounds. There needs to be an
evaluation mechanism that captures the individual contribution of a teacher and
recognizes the preexisting differences in students. The current NCLB goal of
bringing all children to a level of proficiency by 2014 has been projected to be
unattainable. Holding students, teachers and administrators accountable for
reaching an unattainable goal will lead to unintended negative consequences.
4. High-stakes consequences
Pro
arguments
Assessment-based accountability is possible only when high
stakes are associated with the results. Educators must inform themselves about
their content, construction and consequences. There is a "trickle-down effect"
on teachers in that they must become more reflective and critical of their
classroom instruction. One reason the American educational system has failed is
because there have not been high stakes for failure. Realistically, students
will only read a play by Shakespeare if they will be tested on it in a final
exam. High-stakes testing has the unintended consequences of improving
professional development. A number of studies have found a strong positive
relation between high-stakes consequences and performance on assessments.
Con arguments
The behaviorist theory underlying
high-stakes accountability oversimplifies how human behavior is conditioned by
rewards and punishments. Decades of research has shown that extrinsic sources of
motivation such as stars, stickers and grades actually undermine natural
curiosity and a student's enjoyment of learning. Punitive consequences achieve
temporary compliance at the cost of demoralizing teachers and students.
The fundamental criticism of high-stakes accountability systems is that
they rely excessively on extrinsic motivation at the expense of intrinsic
motivation. Some of the negative consequences of high-stakes accountability
systems include higher dropout and retention rates, lower motivation, teaching
to the test, unethical test preparation, etc. Some reports of gains have been
discredited as test-polluting practices such as excluding students or higher
dropout rates. Synthesis view
There is emerging evidence that
high-stakes state assessment is a potent policy for bringing about positive
changes in student learning. In a re-analysis of the gain comparison between
state assessment and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), average
NAEP increases were much higher in high-stakes schools compared with no-stakes
schools.
In response to criticism that gains in those school could be
due to high dropout and exclusion rates, the authors cite a study (Phelps 2003)
that reanalyzed the dropout rates and found that they were below the national
average and that the exclusion rates were the same as the rest of the nation.
"Whether such extrinsically motivated score improvement can sustain life-long
learning and whether such positive effects offset the negative consequences,
however, remain to be seen," the researchers conclude.
See recent issues of Educational Research
Newsletter
Recommended research
agenda
The debate about standardized testing will continue and the
pendulum will continue to swing. The researchers recommend the following action
research agenda:
• Develop classroom-level diagnostic tests for evaluation
aligned with state-level standardized tests.
• Include classroom teachers
and cognitive-developmental and social psychologists in state assessment panels
to achieve meaningful alignment of content standards and classroom curriculum.
• Offer computerized adaptive testing so that students of diverse ability
levels can meet learning goals that are tailored to their current ability level.
• Conduct research in accountability with value-added methodology which
measures residual gain or loss between a student's achievement score and his or
her projected score to better isolate school and teacher effects.
"Controversies of Standardized Assessment in School
Accountability Reform: A Critical Synthesis of Multidisciplinary Research
Evidence," Lishing Wang, Gulbahar Beckett and Lionel Brown,
Applied Measurement in Education Volume 19 Number 4 2006 pps.
305-328.
Published in ERN November 2006 Volume 19 Number 8
| 
