Editorial by Dr. Don Treffinger
Editor of Creative Learning Today, Newsletter of the Center for Creative Learning.
E-mail: don@creativelearning.com or website: www.creativelearning.com
For several years now, I have watched the effects of the “No Child Left Behind” legislation on opportunities for creative learning and talent development in the schools, and quietly said, “This, too, shall pass; the pendulum will swing again, as eventually it always does.” As I continue to see its impact, in both direct and subtle ways, however, I believe the time has come to speak out. A quotation, usually attributed to Edmund Burke (an 18th Century British statesman), expresses the importance of not remaining silent. It seems to take various forms, but this version is common: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Some argue that NCLB has, at least, served as a catalyst for attention to be given to the needs of struggling students and to the need to recognize indifference or lack of insistence on quality education in too many schools. But the effects of the cure may turn out to be even more troublesome than the ailment it is intended to address. NCLB may be pressing us to look at inadequate answers to the wrong questions. Others argue that the flaw in NCLB is simply that it has been seriously underfunded. Based on my own professional experience and judgment, and the reading I have done of work by a number of colleagues whose thinking on these issues I respect, I believe the problems with NCLB are far deeper than insufficient funding. Simply put, my concern is that it is a bad law, representing bad educational policy and procedure.
What’s wrong with that? Here are 14 key concerns. Given Creative Learning Today’s scope and format, these will be rather starkly stated. Readers who are interested in elaborations or any of the points can refer to the recommended resources or contact me. (In addition, if any reader is motivated to prepare a response or different point of view, we’ll consider it for publication in a future issue.)
- First, and arguably foremost, is its numbing preoccupation with standardized test scores, creating a thin veneer of “rigor” and high expectations that generally boils down to what some colleagues describe as “drill and kill” teaching. A student’s effectiveness is more than the aggregate of his or her students’ test scores. A school’s quality is reflected in much more that the total set of test scores or an arbitrary “grade” based on those scores.
- It is significantly out of alignment with real-world competencies for success. Take a look at the Microsoft Competencies (See page 7) and then ask, “How many of these competencies are represented and assessed by typical high-stakes tests?” That will give you a richer picture of what NCLB misses.
NCLB contributes systematically to stifling creative inquiry and active problem solving; it turns the focus of educational goals (and instruction) away from helping students learn to manage change, question what they’re told (or read, or find on the Internet), challenge assumptions – or from stimulating them to engage in creative and critical inquiry. [Alas, this may fit in too well with an often anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, anti-thoughtfulness and reflection bias that seems to be creeping more and more into prominence at every level of society.]
- It “stacks the deck” against equal opportunity and educational challenge for high-ability learners and for students with specific talents in many domains. As more and more effort and time goes to pounding away at basic, low-level content, high-ability learners and talented students get pushed more and more to the background (see www.nagc.org for more on this.) It leaves application of knowledge to real-life situations –and the strengths and talents of kids and their teachers – behind in huge numbers.
- NCLB relies inappropriately on a single measure or a single source of data to assess students (and schools). It leads us to accept the false assumption that what is easiest to measure is most important. Einstein once said, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.” NCLB leads people to confuse what they can easily measure with what is most important and valuable. It makes “knowing about” a value in itself, rather than knowing how to apply, use, or extend what you have learned.
- NCLB is concerned with punishment and sanctions more than with diagnostic information and support (for students as well as for schools,) or instructional improvement.
- It assumes a uniform set of curricular goals and outcomes and equal instructional opportunity and support for students to attain them. It sets expectations for rapid and expansive growth that are unrealistic (and in some cases, statistically ill-founded). Every school cannot continue to improve every year. As performance rises above the mean, and starts to approach the ceiling of the measure, or sinks below the mean and starts to approach the “floor,” the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean becomes an issue, for example.
- It can be used as a vehicle to divert assistance (and students, and, perhaps, qualified teachers) away from struggling schools rather than providing them the assistance they need to improve. In this way, the use of high-stakes tests, “school grades,” and other such “results” can become a thinly veiled rationale (especially when combined with efforts to use vouchers at non-public schools) for diverting public support to sectarian schools.
- NCLB’s reliance on traditional standardized testing formats and procedures immerses us in assessments that can be significantly biased – indicators largely of family background and socio-economic status – putting children from economically disadvantaged settings, geographically isolated settings, or culturally diverse backgrounds at peril of being “left behind.” Public policy can ignore decades of scientific controversy over fair and unbiased assessments only at the greatest of risks. Every student does not learn at the same rate, or in the same way, and is not prepared to demonstrate his or her competency in the same format, under the same time demands or even in the same language.
- NCLB appears to be driving curriculum and instruction to their lowest levels (recognition and recall) and deflecting teaching time and energy away from innovative, engaging, and challenging coursework. It can actually distract instructional improvement by redirecting teachers to short term test preparation and drill. We see teachers, for example, “drilling” test prep early in the school year, because “the test” is driving the entire instructional agenda. [We have forgotten (or ignored) Carol Ann Tomlinson's warning that "proficiency is not enough!]. The mindset, and the practices it engenders, appears to be turning “minimum competencies” into “maximum expectancies.”
- There are no clear and consistent standards and procedures for determining accountability and progress (consider, for example, the discrepancies among states and between state and federal demands in many states). There is no “level playing field” about what the playing field should be.
- Some writers have argued that NCLB may inadvertently promote falsification of data, “cheating,” or efforts to sidestep the rules – by educational administrators who are driven by stress created by arbitrary and punitive policies and procedures.
- Others have argued that NCLB may actually encourage, rather than contribute to reversing, the drop-out problem (if schools become too eager to get rid of students whose presence in school may “hurt” their school’s scores.
- It promotes an uncritical acceptance of traditional (and badly outdated) definitions of “basics.” The traditional “3 Rs” don’t tell the story of the “basic skills” that today’s students will need in order to be employable and competitive in the world of work and life in which they will need to survive.
- NCLB is divisive rather that unifying politically and educationally. Its proponents may well be deceiving the public and the business community as well (the appearance of rigor and high expectations may be creating a “smokescreen” that sounds appealing to business and community leaders who do not take the time, or invest the effort, to examine it carefully and critically. Who would be opposed to “rigor” or “high standards” of quality? They are not likely to have probed those claims beyond the superficial rhetoric.) NCLB does nothing to help focus or direct the local, state, or national levels of conversation or constructive debate on core educational goals or lofty aspirations. It gives us a quick and appealing buzz word to which we can latch on and “bandwagon.”
Some Recommended Resources
ASCD Position Statements on High–Stakes Testing and the Achievement Gap. Locate this 2004 statement in the “Positions” area of the ASCD website: www.ascd.org. .
Good Intentions, Bad Results: A Dozen Reasons Why the No Child Left Behind Act Is Failing Our Schools, By Dr. Robert J. Sternberg available at: http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=aera-1&D=1&T=0&P=964.
Proficiency Is Not Enough, By Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson, Education Week, November 6, 2002, Volume 22, Number 10, Pages 36,38. It is also reprinted on the National Association for Gifted Children website; see: http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=997 ###
MICROSOFT’S COMPETENCIES FOR EDUCATION
The Microsoft Corporation defined a set of competencies (“functional and behavioral qualities” that one must possess in order to contribute to organizational success).
They have subsequently worked with an external consulting group to develop a parallel set of competencies that they propose are essential to help school districts to be successful in the 21st Century. They created a “Competency Wheel,” describing 37 competencies in six broad areas (individual excellence, organizational skills, courage, results, strategic skills, and operating skills). You may agree or disagree with the specific competencies they developed, or with their definitions of those competencies. We believe, however, that you will find them stimulating for your thinking about what effective educational leaders should believe, know, or be able to do to contribute to their school’s success and effectiveness. Many of the competencies relate directly to our primary areas of professional involvement: creative learning and problem solving, talent development, and style. You can find the “Competency Wheel” and download it as a PDF file, and you can also find quite a bit of additional descriptive material available relating to the Microsoft project at:
http://www.microsoft.com/education/competencies/default.mspx
###
Published in the newsletter of the Center for Creative Learning, Vol. 14, No. 7, Aug/Sept. 2006.
Published in the newsletter of the Orange County Learning Disabilities Association,
Vol. 45, No.3, May/June, 2007.
Dr. Don Treffinger, Editor of Creative Learning Today
