Education in America: Are We Helping or Hurting Our Youth?

The youth of a nation determines its future. Therefore, it is in a country’s best interest to properly educate its children from an early age. This makes education one of the most critical public policy issues that face governments, and the United States is obviously no exception. A country as prominent as the U.S. should guarantee a quality education for all of its citizens. Unfortunately, a right to education is not listed in the Bill of Rights, although local, state, and federal governments have tried, with varying levels of success, to ensure at least some education for its people. What changes, if any, should be made to existing U.S. education policy in order to better provide for our children’s (and the nation’s) future?

I. History of Education in the U.S.

When Lyndon Johnson ascended to the Presidency in November of 1963, he made civil rights and education two of his top priorities in his War on Poverty campaign.1 Demonstrating his commitment, President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law in 1965, which was the first and largest comprehensive federal education law. It provided substantial monetary funds for kindergarten through twelfth grade education.2 According to Johnson, “[n]o law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America.”3

President Johnson hoped that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would narrow the inequality in education that was caused by both economic and social factors. This new law mandated desegregation, adding teeth to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown a decade earlier. Enforcement of this law meant that it would only be a matter of time until schools were fully integrated. On April 11, 1965, without attaching a single amendment, the Senate approved the ESEA.

The goal of the ESEA was to. “bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived children.”4 The law and its authors were determined to transcend racial prejudices and provide high quality education to all, with targeted assistance to those students most in need.

The ESEA has undergone many changes throughout the decades, most recently with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The education debate has been dominated by the desire of policymakers to, “see evidence that federal investments in education programs yield tangible, measurable results in terms of student achievement and success.”5 The ESEA, which, again, is now the NCLB, had a lengthy revision and was passed in the Senate by a vote of 87-10, and in the House of Representatives with a vote of 381- 41. President Bush finally signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

II. Programs of NCLB

The No Child Left Behind Act has redefined the role of the federal government in K-12 education, which encompasses 45 programs that accounted for a federal investment of $20.5 billion dollars in the 2005-2006 school year. In compliance with the law, each state must report its baseline achievement for the 2002-2003 school year as well as its plans to achieve the final goal of 100 percent proficiency in math and reading by the 2013-2014 academic year. Each state is left to determine its own definition of proficiency. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports, which details by how much test scores must improve each year, are also required by NCLB. There are annual tests in the third through eighth grades in reading and math, while at the high school level, only one year of testing is required. Every year that a school does not meet their AYP target, sanctions are placed upon it. This means that there are effective restrictions as to where and how money is spent.

To ensure that students receive a first-rate education, NCLB requires teachers to be “highly qualified”. According to the Education Department’s website, “highly qualified” means that teachers have obtained a bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and can prove their knowledge of each subject they teach. It is up to each individual state to develop a test that measures teachers’ proficiency in their chosen subjects.

Report cards are required from all schools, districts and states to show the progress that is made by these institutions. These report cards must list the results of state assessments and how these results compare with the state’s goals. The report cards must also show the graduation rate, the professional qualifications of the teachers, the percentage of teachers with emergency or provisional credentials and the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers.6

School choice, also mandated by No Child Left Behind, is a program for children who attend a school that fails to meet its AYP. In some circumstances, children are not able to escape a failing school because they either can not afford to attend a private school, or there are no acceptable alternatives within their school district. Children who attend a school that has failed to meet the adequate yearly progress target for two or more years must be offered the option of transferring to another public school that has met the adequate yearly progress goals. The policy gives priority to the lowest achieving students from low-income families.

In addition to school choice, supplemental education services are required from schools that have failed to meet AYP for three consecutive years. These services are academic programs that are to, “provide additional instruction to students in reading and math to help them meet the AYP expectations required by the state.”7 The services, which include tutoring and after school programs, may be run by privately or publicly funded organizations but must be approved by the state. According to the Education Department’s website, “States must maintain a list of approved providers across the state organized by the school district or districts they serve, from which parents may select.”8

A highly discussed aspect of NCLB is the Reading First program. Reading First is the, “largest and most focused early reading initiative ever undertaken in this country.”9 The goal of this initiative is to ensure that all children learn to read at a high level by the end of third grade. Districts receive funding for Reading First through an application process in which they demonstrate how they will effectively add the program to their curriculum.

One of the most controversial components of NCLB is its standardized testing requirement. Instead of traditional, instructor-created tests, standardized tests are made by educational testing experts.10 The tests serve two purposes. First, the results show both teachers and parents how their student/child is progressing. Second, the tests provide information about how well schools are improving a child’s level of education. Reports are made available to the public and parents through the aforementioned report cards.

NCLB policy-makers believe that schools and their teachers should be held accountable for their students’ level of education, and believe these tests are the way to make sure that educational progress is made. Due to the fact that all students within a state take the exact same test under similar conditions, it is believed that students’ results should show which schools are in need of improvement and which schools are teaching effectively. The results of the standardized tests determine if the goal of 100% proficiency in reading and math is achieved by the 2013-2014 school year.

One of the benefits of standardized testing is that the results can be “empirically documented” and therefore trusted with a certain degree of reliability and validity.11 To understand what is meant by reliability and validity, turn to the analogy that Deborah Meier used in her book In Schools We Trust that compares standardized testing with a driver’s exam. When one goes to take a driver’s exam, a consistent test, independent of an instructor’s prejudices, is desired. Test reliability means controlling as many variables, such as test giver and test location, as possible. Similarly, test validity means that the test does a good job of measuring the mastery of particular skills.12

There is a certain lack of reliability and validity in many high school transcripts. When evaluating transcripts (such as for college admissions), one must consider that grades may not be equivalent between different schools, due to factors such as professors, workload, or the environment. Standardized testing mitigates the effect of these variables because all students are tested under similar conditions and take the exact same test (at least at a statewide level.) This is useful for admission into colleges and universities because an individual student’s level of achievement can be more accurately measured against those of his or her peers.

Standardized tests can be useful tools, but their overuse and misuse can cause problems. A major problem is that of “teaching to the test.” According to Louis Volante of Concordia University, “the job of any teacher is first and foremost to promote learning in their students.”13 Teachers should encourage their students to think critically and apply what they have learned outside the classroom, not only focus on rote memorization and improving test scores. However, due to the importance given to standardized tests, teachers are forced to spend most of their time teaching the material that will be on those tests. Teachers rarely deviate from teaching to the test because otherwise they may risk lower scores by their students. Unfortunately, the pressure to produce high scores is so great that teachers may not teach important curricular content simply because it is not on the test.14

Andy Matteson, a third grade teacher in the Hannibal Central School District, attests to being virtually forced to “teach to the test” in his daily work. The average day for his students begins at 9 A.M., with 20 minutes set aside for announcements, and ends at 3:15 P.M., when the students are dismissed. As mandated by Reading First, each day he must set aside two hours for reading in order to be eligible to receive Reading First funds. Math must be taught for one hour each day as well. School regulations mean he must set aside 30 minutes for lunch each day and 45 minutes for a special program, such as Physical Education, Art, or Music. Each day he also has two half-hour blocks in which he must teach Social Studies, Science and Cursive Writing. Andy was candid as he shared his feelings on the subject: “I feel like math and reading needs to be emphasized, but I feel sometimes we’re focusing so much on them that other things get pushed to the periphery, and they’re not focused on or taught like they could be.” He also stated that, “while we may be improving our scores in those two subjects, we’re not generating very well rounded students.”15

III. What comes next?

What ought to be done about the current education policy in the United States? How can there be accountability for education without unduly burdening both teachers and students?

One alternative to standardized tests, used in many countries around the world, is portfolio-based assessment. This method requires students and their teachers to compile work the student has completed over the course of the school year. This time-line approach shows the progress the student has (or has not) made. The advantage of this approach is that a wide range of work is sampled under a normal working environment, as opposed to the stress imposed by a single exam. One criticism of this approach is a lack of uniformity, as each student portfolio is still evaluated by different (and potentially subjective) teachers.

The student portfolio cannot hold schools accountable because it does not consider differences in teacher quality and school environment. Schools must be held accountable, but the methods of accomplishing this are hotly contested. One solution involves carefully considering the role of each level of government in school and student evaluations.

The key to improvement in U.S. education is consistency and communication between the levels of government. If each state creates its own definition of “proficiency” and own exams, how can 50 different exams and their results be accurately compared? Instead of completely dismantling the idea of standardized testing, the U.S. needs to change its approach to it. Instead of testing every year from the third through eighth grades, test only twice. For example, choose fourth and eighth grade as the designated testing years. Instead of state created tests, there should be one federally created exam; this would allow for true comparisons between schools and students, and would maximize test reliability and validity.

Federal and state governments need to communicate in order for this plan to be effective. Each state should set annual goals for their own schools, and these goals should work in accordance with the federal government’s expectations so that all students are prepared for the federal exam. This allows teachers greater freedom in their curriculum, while still holding them accountable by ensuring that their students succeed on the federal exam.

The next problem is paying for this program. Due to education’s importance to the future health of our nation, the federal budget’s priorities need to be reshuffled. In addition, the savings gained by eliminating 50 individual tests can be put towards the single federal exam.

While the No Child Left Behind Act has some promising characteristics, major restructuring is in order. Liberals and conservatives may have differences as to the nation’s particular course for educational reform, but both should agree that it is vital to the future of our nation. A country as prominent as the United States should provide its youth with a first-class education so that they will be adequately prepared to rise to the next challenges, such as climate change or energy issues, facing our nation. Anything less would be unacceptable. paJ

About the Author: Kevin Matteson is in the class of 2011 at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Kevin is a member of the Hobart College football team. He is originally from Hannibal, N.Y.

(Notes)

1. Hanna, Julia. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act.” Harvard Graduate School of Education. 22 June 2007. Harvard. 09 Nov. 2007 <http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819.html>.
2. Schugurensky, Daniel. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.” 24 Apr. 2007. National Education Association. 09 Nov. 2007 <http://si.unm.edu/si2002/SUSAN_A/TIMELINE/TIM_0015.HTM>.
3. Lips, Dan. “Name the Department of Education Building After LBJ.” The Heritage Foundation. 08 Dec. 2006. 09 Nov. 2007 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/EdNotes53.cfm>.
4. Zipkin, Ariel. “Special Education Legislation: a Synopsis of Federal and State Policies.” UMich. 2006. University of Michigan. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.zipkin/pre_1967_special_education_policies_in_america>.
5. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: From the War on Poverty to No Child Left Behind.” OHEA. 10 Aug. 2007. Ohio Educators Association. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://www.ohea.org/GD/Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=170&Content=8038>.
6. Bracey, Gerald W. No Child Left Behind: Where Does the Money Go? Arizona State University. Tempe, 2005. 1-55. 12 Nov. 2007 <http://epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0506-114-EPRU.pdf>.
7. “Supplemental Educational Services.” NCPIE. 22 Aug. 2003. National Coalition for Parental Involvement in Education. 16 Nov. 2007 <http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/supp_edu_services.html>.
8. United States. Department of Education. Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Frequently Asked Questions. 14 Sept. 2004. 12 Nov. 2007 <http://www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/choice.html>.
9. Zipkin, Ariel. “Special Education Legislation: a Synopsis of Federal and State Policies.” UMich. 2006. University of Michigan. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.zipkin/pre_1967_special_education_policies_in_america>.
10. Laughlin, Lori. “Standardized Tests.” HSSD. 14 Dec. 2005. South Dakota Parent Resource Network. 16 Nov. 2007 <http://www.hssd.k12.sd.us/NCLB/tests.htm>.
11. Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Science, 315, 1080-81
12. Meier, Deborah. In Schools We Trust. Boston: Beacon P, 2002. 272-274.
13. Volante, Louis. “Teaching to the Test: What Every Educator and Public Policy-Maker Should Know.” Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy os 35 (2004). 12 Nov. 2007 <http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante.html>.
14. Popham, W. J. (2000). The mismeasurement of educational quality. School Administrator, 57(11), 12-15.
15. Matteson, Andrew J. Online interview. 19 Nov. 1007.

References

Bracey, Gerald W. No Child Left Behind: Where Does the Money Go? Arizona State University. Tempe, 2005. 1-55. 12 Nov. 2007 <http://epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0506-114-EPRU.pdf>.

Hanna, Julia. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act.” Harvard Graduate School of Education. 22 June 2007. Harvard. 09 Nov. 2007 <http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819.html>.

Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Science, 315, 1080-81

Laughlin, Lori. “Standardized Tests.” HSSD. 14 Dec. 2005. South Dakota Parent Resource Network. 16 Nov. 2007 <http://www.hssd.k12.sd.us/NCLB/tests.htm>.

Lips, Dan. “Name the Department of Education Building After LBJ.” The Heritage Foundation. 08 Dec. 2006. 09 Nov. 2007 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/EdNotes53.cfm>.

Meier, Deborah. In Schools We Trust. Boston: Beacon P, 2002. 272-274.

Popham, W. J. (2000). The mismeasurement of educational quality. School Administrator, 57(11), 12-15.

Schugurensky, Daniel. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.” 24 Apr. 2007. National Education Association. 09 Nov. 2007 <http://si.unm.edu/si2002/SUSAN_A/TIMELINE/TIM_0015.HTM>.

Volante, Louis. “Teaching to the Test: What Every Educator and Public Policy-Maker Should Know.” Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy os 35 (2004). 12 Nov. 2007

Zipkin, Ariel. “Special Education Legislation: a Synopsis of Federal and State Policies.” UMich. 2006. University of Michigan. 11 Nov. 2007 <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.zipkin/pre_1967_special_education_policies_in_america>.