Koomler 1
Paige Nicole Koomler
2 April 2008
Professor Eastman
Article Review #2
Assessment under No Child Left Behind
Only 6 short years ago, President Bush, as part of his election campaign, created “No Child Left Behind”, an increasingly controversial law that uses standardized testing in an attempt to keep students up to their grade level in important subjects such as math, science, reading, writing and other basic skills. Theoni Smyth, author of the critical article, “Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?”, believes that this legislation is only hurting our students, as well as a slew of others involved, including teachers, families, communities and school administrations. Throughout her article, Smyth accomplishes three main points; including explaining the history, analyzing unfortunate effects, and finally listing solutions to a better way of student assessment. This article was very informative and well-written, and I will review the author’s main points throughout this paper.
First, Smyth found it necessary to provide readers with a brief history of assessment itself, and also the ways that this past activity affects the present situation. The author notes that the beginning of standardized testing took place during World War I as the army was being tested for grouping and placement. A Nation At Risk, written in 1983 first brought attention to the poor educational system in America, as new standards and provisions were laid out, with more testing and ranking, Smyth notes. These new test scores were now used as the “main vehicle for measuring student and teacher performance” (Smyth 133). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) just added new regulations on this testing, making it more important and influential on student activity and teachers’ lessons.
Smyth goes on to mention several ways that this new law is hurting our students. She notes that this “high-stakes testing” causes teachers to teach for temporary memorization, which is depriving our students of real learning. Standardized testing is taking our curriculum and making a “change from exploratory, lifelong learning to teaching to the test through drill and kill” (134). Higher thinking skills can no longer be taught, Smyth mentions. These new teaching methods reduce many crucial activities in our classrooms, including “creativity, innovative instruction, the use of varied teaching strategies” (134). Smyth then lists a large number of negative side effects of high-stakes testing. They create test anxiety. They greatly hinder teacher decision-making and lesson planning. Standardized testing lowers teaching morale and desire to learn in students. Also, the author notes, this testing, required by the NCLB, but still allowing for advancement in grades, raises levels of “anxiety, concern, and angst” (134) in elementary students especially. Standardized testing also creates an unclear racism as groups are treated differently. Clearly, the number of bad effects is great.
Then, Smyth lays out a plan for improving the current educational plan of NCLB. She claims that the current motivation behind so much testing is money, as the testing companies run a “multibillion-dollar industry”. Smyth suggests that a better financial idea is to create a multifaceted accountability plan, which many teachers have to begin with (136). This way, all learning styles and learning types can be adequately included. She notes also, that improving schools with better teachers and environment changes is a much better use of the money, and I agree.
Overall, Smyth constructed a well-written, varied article that was extremely informative with information about the new laws implemented and the flaws that affect so many people involved. This article effects me personally and as a teacher, because I want to make sure that my students will be well-educated in so many ways other than being able to take and pass a standardized test. I will try my best to find better ways to assess my students and let them develop skills that will guide their learning and accomplishments for the rest of their lives. I agree with Smyth as she sums up her findings in saying that NCLB is “flawed, developmentally inappropriate, ill funded, and leaving more students, teachers, and schools behind than ever before” (133)
Works Cited
Smyth, T. S. (Jan./Feb. 2008). Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind? Academic Search Premier Clearing House, 81 Issue 3, pp. 133-137. Retrieved March 31, 2008, from 7c88-4614-a84f-a743b547ce79%40sessionmgr10