The pros and cons of testing mandates in No Child Left Behind
Few will argue that classrooms should be inhabited by quality teachers. Unfortunately, this is typically where consensus ends, because people disagree as to what constitutes an effective educator. Ultimately, philosophical concepts will give way to quantitative measures, so that individuals and groups can have a relatively objective measure of quality. Of course, even quantitative instruments have critics, and educators and other constituencies will raise concerns about bias, economic shortcomings and general aptitude for test taking. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was intended to provide an educational standard that could create accountability for schools that weren't performing up to expectations. In an ideal world, the legislation would cause all schools to meet competencies within a reasonable amount of time. However, there have been various hurdles, including legal challenges, and educators continue to debate the effectiveness of this legislation. With that in mind, here are a few of the pros and cons of testing mandates in No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
A clear benchmark
The positive aspects of NCLB center on creating a set of expectations for schools and school employees. The public knows that many schools aren't performing well, but oftentimes individuals don't know how to turn their laments into actions. No Child Left Behind provides, at least in theory, a system for letting teachers and schools know what is expected of them, so that people and institutions cannot hide behind shortcomings and external pressures that may have led to years of poor performance.
No more excuses
Essentially, No Child Left Behind allows the government to hold schools accountable. People talk conveniently about how individuals and groups "need to be held accountable." Unfortunately, those statements truly mean nothing unless there is some sort of consequence to certain actions. The No Child Left Behind Act was designed to stop the excuses and make people perform up to a certain standard, so that the collective educational level of the whole country could be raised.
Lack of resources
The challenge with NCLB is that some schools lack the resources, quality teachers and facilities to meet the standards in a short period of time. There are good teachers in many schools who are simply overwhelmed by class sizes, budget cuts, and district or union restrictions. Therefore, there may be schools that have good intentions about improving their performance, but struggle to change many factors at the same time. In some cases, schools have literally taken decades to erode down to their current state.
Different sets of rules
The No Child Left Behind Act was written to provide a national standard, but there are still differences when it is applied to the states. For example, each state is required to show that a certain percentage of students pass the state exam. Of course, each state has an individual exam, which means that the state can change the exam in order to produce a different performance result. This allows for the possibility that states could manipulate the system by simply changing the rigor of their instrument.
Teaching to the test
The other risk with NCLB is that teachers can be tempted, or even encouraged, to engage in what is called "teaching to the test." In essence, teachers spend their time preparing students to take state exams. Theoretically, the exam tests standard competencies. The problem is that teachers may simply be giving students the methodologies to navigate through the test questions, rather than teaching curricular outcomes.
Uncharted territory
Overall, the No Child Left Behind Act seems to have some flaws that must be overcome. In essence, it is a piece of legislation that will likely have some ongoing adjustments, as lawmakers and educators work to come up with a solution that meets the needs of an increasingly diverse student body. The legislation will be a challenge, but a bigger hurdle may be complex school district hierarchies and entrenched teacher unions. Both of those parties seem to have difficulty with compromise, which is why the federal government will likely continue down a path of national standards.
