As students across the nation gear up for another year of testing, one additional discrepancy in the federal assessment program needs immediate attention. Not only do the individual states’ tests not represent the same degree of rigor (March 7. 2007 Education Week “Making the Case for National Standards in American Education”) the tests are not assessing the same skills when they purport to assess reading and math (February 28, 2007 Education Week “Writing: An Unexamined Gatekeeper”). One clear example is whether a state’s test incorporates only multiple-choice responses, which are solely responsive in nature, or whether the test includes written responses which are usually generative in nature. Yet these varied test formats and levels of difficulty are deemed equal under NCLB.
Thus when one compares the results of New York or Washington to California or Oregon, one is comparing prime rib to hamburg. That is assuming that the reading selections and multiple-choice options across the tests in those states represent an equal degree of rigor. Both New York and Washington require written constructed responses as part of a student’s score; in fact New York students construct responses on all assessments grades 3-12. Therefore, the students from Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and other written response states are evaluated by a different measure than the students in “multiple-guess” assessment states. One would also assume that the educational experiences to ensure student achievement on those assessments are quite dissimilar.
“The Case for National Standards in American Education” claims that expectations state to state and community to community are vastly different and those discrepancies perpetuate the inequalities in our educational system. For that reason NAEP results represent a clearer comparison of student achievement across states than do separate state assessments. So although 89% of the fourth graders in Mississippi achieved “proficiency” on the state reading test, only 18% scored “proficiency” on the NAEP reading test. Meanwhile in Massachusetts 50% of the fourth graders were “proficient” on the state test and 44% were “proficient” on the NAEP test. Couple those results with an individual state’s results for urban versus suburban districts or affluent suburban versus “free-and-reduced” neighborhoods and you have a frightening picture of public education in America.
NCLB pretends that the playing field is equal and all students have equal access to be a champion. National standards and national summative assessments would help educators define a common goal. These standards and assessments need to be as rigorous as those of our international competitors. The paths a district or state uses to achieve these goals can be open to local control as long as the goals and measures of accountability remain consistent.
Comments