To Teach, Or Not To Teach
RQ: Was the practice of “teaching to the test” a problem in education before the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and to what extent did the law make it more prevalent?
The drive to make teachers more accountable for their students is a trend spreading across the nation like wildfire. While there are positives to accountability and standardized testing there are also many negative aspects to go alongside. I believe that teachers should be accountable, but to what degree? At what point is teaching to the test more important than development and learning. Although the phrase and the concern are hardly new, many observers blame the No Child Left Behind act for escalating teaching to the test from a problem into an epidemic. President Bush created the No Child Left Behind act in 2001 immediately after taking office. NCLB supports standards based educational reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. Over the past decade we have seen the entire idea of education change due to the No Child Left Behind program. The question that I wish to explore is whether or not NCLB created teaching to the test or just shed light on the problem. I believe that teaching to the test was a consistent problem decades before NCLB was a law, however the implementation of NCLB has made teaching to the test much more prevalent in the media as well as in teaching methods. It has always been around but it never got the attention it deserved until 2001-2002 when NCLB was created. Test scores are one way to evaluate students, teachers, and schools, but cannot be the only way. It is important to remember that tests are more than just numbers and scores. One of the biggest problems with teaching to the test is the pressure placed on teachers. Their superiors on the school board apply pressure, but the media places the most pressure upon them. Test scores are rising, but for the absolute wrong reasons.
NCLB was a provision instituted by George Bush in 2001. NCLB is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the government’s flagship aid program for disadvantaged students. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. I wanted to show the how NCLB has changed teaching and its methods. I began to compile a few articles about post NCLB teaching. For the next step in the process I used the New York Times Database as well as, Google Ngram Viewer to compare the relevance of Teaching to the Test in the news and in books. I broke down the search topics relevance before 2001 when NCLB was started, and after 2001 in the new test based era. The problem is not the fact that NCLB has caused testing to be taken so seriously, the problem is that after its implementation in 2001 schools will do anything to achieve their goal. NCLB has skyrocketed accountability and the prevalence of testing which is not something to be overlooked.
While conducting further research I began to drift towards the argument that, NCLB did not create the method of teaching to the test, but it did have a serious effect on its prevalence in the American school system, especially throughout time. While reviewing the New York Times historical database, I noticed that my assumptions towards the topic were very similar to the reality of Teaching to the Test.
The graph above shows the number of articles about Teaching to the Test from the years 1965-2012. The table shows a serious jump in between the years of 1999 & 2000. Due to this, I decided that more in depth measures must be shown when observing the data on the graph. I constructed a data table using excel in order to fully demonstrate how Teaching to the Test altered education in the beginning of the 21rst century.
After making this table and looking into different articles I concluded that Teaching to the Test has been around in the news since 1965, but was not an issue in the publics eyes until testing became synonymous with accountability. While conducting this research I began to drift towards the argument that, NCLB may not have created the method of teaching to the test, but it most certainly did have an effect on its prevalence in the American school system as well as in the news. The concept has been around in the news for decades, but it wasn’t anywhere near as prevalent until the years 2000 – 2012. From the years 1965-2012 many things may have changed but teaching to the test is a practice that has stayed consistent throughout.
The year 1965 was very crucial for education, especially in regards to testing. On April 11 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson created the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act. The ESEA was a bill created in response to the war on poverty. More importantly, it also emphasizes equal access to education and establishes high standards and accountability. In addition, the bill aims to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing each child with fair and equal opportunities to achieve an exceptional education. Another milestone came in the year 1965 when the New York Times ran its first and only article of the year in which the term “Teaching to the Test” was used. The article, titled Confetti, was run initially on Wednesday April 25 in Chicago’s Daily Defender. The writer, Lillian S. Calhoun discusses the problems with testing in Chicago. Her main problem is with the teachers and their lack of proper teaching methods. She discusses a situation that is very similar to what our teacher’s today face in education, teaching for testing. She goes on to say, “There is no way to tell if teachers hoke up the scores here by allowing children too much time on time based tests, or if teachers are teaching to the test” (4). At this point in education there is no teacher accountability, there are no bonuses for higher scores, and there is most certainly no NCLB law. It is apparent at this point that teaching to the test has been around way before NCLB was enacted, just at a much less severe level.
In the 1970’s, teaching to the test was beginning to make its way into the papers. Throughout the decade we saw only 10 total articles in regards to teaching to the test. This is undoubtedly an increase from the prior decade but averaging 1 article per year can’t be very worrisome for educators as well as parents at the time. In an article titled What the Kids Scores Mean by the Kiplinger Washington Editors we see an evolution in the severity of teaching to the test as well as in reactions to it. The article stresses the importance, as a parent; of understanding the tests ones children are taking. It discusses the many positives that come with testing, but also discusses the “uses, abuses, and criticisms” that accompany standardized testing. Although standardized testing is widely used, its merits are not universal. In fact, at the time, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the institution of standardized testing. At the time of this article the National Education Association, the Association for Childhood Education International, and the NAACP all have called for an end to standardized tests until the test methods could be revised and universalized. While there are problems engulfed in the institution of standardized test there are also serious pressures that teachers are beginning to feel towards their students performance. At this point in time teachers are beginning to realize and voice how unfair standardized testing is to them. The article states, “As parents and school administrators insist on higher and higher test scores from schools, pressure increases on teachers to “teach to the test”. This, teachers say, dictates what they can do in the classroom and substitutes outside judgments for what should be local educational decisions.” (5). It is at this time in U.S history where we see the birth of teacher accountability. At this time in history, teachers who refuse to teach to the test or those whose students aren’t equipped to do well on standardized tests stand in danger of having their performance evaluations downgraded. Due to this teachers began to be especially opposed to having standardized test results appear in their teacher performance assessments. It is apparent at this point that NCLB did not create teaching to the test. Teaching to the test has been around with pretty much the same problems for 40 years, NCLB only created a frenzy of media coverage on the topic.
Over the years there is a clear rise in articles related to teaching to the test. In the decade from 1980-1989 the amount of articles more than doubles from 10 in the 1970’s to 25 in the 80’s. In an article titled: An Update on School Performance Reforms Could Promote Real Change in Public Education, by John Tagg of the LA Times, educational reform is discussed. One of the topics under scrutiny is teaching to the test in the state of California. The state of California is evaluated by the California Assessment Program, or CAP. The CAP tests are not used to evaluate individual students but to evaluate the performance of schools. They form the basis of grades for schools and influence the amount of revenue a given district receives from the state. This brings about a great deal of pressure on schools and teachers to teach to the test and to let the test determine the goals and set the priorities for teaching. This may be all to the good when the test is an honest evaluator of the skills that should be taught. But when the test is based off of illogical standards the results for both the teachers and students are negative. Beth Breneman, a CAP consultant, had this to say about teaching to the test: “Multiple-choice testing leads to multiple-choice teaching.”(6). Multiple choice testing is not really testing at all to many educational reformers. Problems arise when individuals are generalized in order to perform well on standardized tests. Individual education requires reflection and instruction, not memorization. Instructional time is hindered when teachers teach to the test and to hinder a child’s education is to be an ineffective teacher. These problems would continue to be persistent within educational reform during the 90’s and lead to teaching to the test to become much more relevant.
1990 is the last decade before NCLB was made into law. Teaching to the test was beginning to gain more relevance especially in the media. Between 1990 and 1999 there were 112 articles, which referred to teaching to the test, a severe increase from last decades 25. As the years have continued to pass there has been no change with the problem, only increased attention. Education is one of the most widely disputed topics of the decade, especially because teaching to the test has become a norm within classrooms. Education has become a serious issue and the only real point of unanimity is that everybody wants teachers to do it better. Ironically, the first president to propose universal education was President Bush. President Bush’s campaign to strengthen American education would begin by defining education and focus a national consensus on what children should know and what they should be able to accomplish. The study in response to this was called Standardized Test Scores: Voodoo Statistics? by Edward B. Fisk. Its focus is on a town called Lake Wobegon where Chester E. Finn Jr., the assistant United States Secretary of Education was in charge of research. What Mr. Finn found was entitled the “Lake Wobegon effect”. Finn described the “Lake Wobegon effect” as a correlation between grades as well as scores. He noticed a trend of teenagers becoming depressed as well as having low self-esteem depending on their recent grades. He formed a non-profit organization called Friends for Education Inc in hopes of changing the obsession with test based teaching. In their search for answers they noticed the major steps that teachers take in order to keep up with the norms of achievement. First, definitions of average are no longer what they used to be. Major tests are based on norms that have been changed multiple times throughout the years. Schools have gotten much better at teaching to the test in order take the below average testers into the above average category. The article states, “Testers say that schools have gotten better and the average has been rising. Consequently, many students who might otherwise now be scored “below average” are still “above average” compared with the early 1980’s sample groups. “ (1). Testing has become the basis for achievement especially in the year 1999. 31 of the 112 articles contesting teaching to the test were based in 1999 most likely because the news of reform has become much more relevant. The choice between good instructional teaching and good test scores is really no choice at all, teaching to the test has become the norm within education and NCLB has not even been placed into law.
2001 was a year where many changes occurred. In the beginning of the year George W. Bush was elected as the 43rd president of the United States. With his election came one of the most controversial educational reforms ever enacted into law. President Bush put the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 into motion immediately after taking office. NCLB supports standards based educational reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. It has become an academic dog eat dog type scenario for teachers today. In an article by Marc Fisher titled, Test or Teach? The Answer Is Obvious, we see the frustration teachers and students endure. “Parents want accountability, but it’s gone too far, my child has to spend time every day learning how to take a test. Teachers now are being told to teach in a certain way instead of having the freedom to teach how they teach best.”(7) said Kelly Eskin, a middle school parent who was interviewed. Although the phrase and the concern are hardly new, many observers blame the No Child Left Behind act for escalating teaching to the test from a problem into an epidemic. Throughout the decade there were 533 articles that referred to teaching to the test, the highest number there has ever been. NCLB was the sparkplug that was needed to make the common practice a universal trend. Test based accountability and fear based teaching have taken the place of facilitating development. NCLB seems to be saying, teach to the test or else. If students didn’t perform, schools lost funding. If schools lost funding, than teachers responsible would lose pay or possibly lose their jobs. Due to NCLB teaching has forever been changed and in my opinion, not for the better.
It is undeniable that NCLB has increased the prevalence of teaching to the test. Prior to 2001 the amount of articles combined regarding the practice do not come close to how many there are today. Test scores are one way to evaluate students, teachers, and schools, but cannot be the only way. It is important to remember that education is much more than just numbers and scores. One of the biggest problems with teaching to the test is the pressure placed on teachers. Their superiors on the school board apply pressure, but the media places the most pressure upon them especially in an era post NCLB. Test scores have risen, but for the absolute wrong reasons. The problem is not the fact that NCLB has caused testing to be taken so seriously, the problem is that after its implementation in 2001 schools will do anything to achieve their goal. NCLB has skyrocketed accountability and the prevalence of teaching to the test. Teaching to the test has been a problem within education practice for decades, but now that it is practically the norm within schooling those who wish to educate are forced to teach to the test, or else.
1. Hamilton, R. A. (1996, Jan 12). Schools analyzing state test scores. New York Times (1923-Current File), pp. CN22-CN22. http://search.proquest.com/docview/110916131?accountid=14405
2. HARTOCOLLIS, A. (2000, Nov 21). Study links rises in school financing and test scores. New York Times (1923-Current File), pp. B4-B4. http://search.proquest.com/docview/91626986?accountid=14405
3. By, E. B. (1988, Feb 17). Standardized test scores: Voodoo statistics? New York Times (1923-Current File), pp. B9. http://search.proquest.com/docview/110596120?accountid=14405
4. Calhoun, L. S. (1965, Apr 28). CONFETTi. Chicago Daily Defender (Daily Edition) (1960-1973), pp. 4-4. http://search.proquest.com/docview/494151762?accountid=14405
5. What the kids test scores mean. (1978). Changing Times (Pre-1986), 32(1), 13-13. http://search.proquest.com/docview/199196377?accountid=14405
6. Tagg, J. (1986, Oct 10). An update on school performance reforms could promote real change in public education. Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext), pp. 10-10. http://search.proquest.com/docview/292473864?accountid=14405
7. Fisher, M. (2000, Jun 03). Test or teach? the answer is obvious. The Washington Post, pp. B.01-B.1. http://search.proquest.com/docview/408648143?accountid=14405
8. “Search “Teach to the test”- ProQuest.” Search “Teach to the test”- ProQuest. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2012.