Cover Story
Put To the Test

New federal mandates on testing are in place. What will happen now? These schools may offer a preview.

In Texas...

At test time each year, Ginny Evans knows the stakes tied to her students' scores: If they don't pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), they don't graduate. For Evans' students at Hebron High School, that threat looms large, because as students still learning English they lack the language skills needed to understand and pass the test.

"We're always concerned about our ESL population," Evans says. "Language is a barrier."

Evans isn't the only one concerned about students with limited English skills. Under the No Child Left Behind Act passed in January (also known as the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act), schools are now accountable for the performance of students in defined subgroups, including students with limited English skills, economically disadvantaged students, migrant students, and minority students. "Performance" is determined by annual tests.

States must establish performance goals and report test scores for these subgroups, and they face sanctions if individual groups do not improve.

The goal: Close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their affluent and/or nonminority peers.

Texas schools have already had to account for their African-American, Hispanic, Caucasian, economically disadvantaged, and special education students. Low performances by these groups impact a school's overall rating, which determines whether the school receives sanctions. (The state does not require separate reports for other minority groups and English-language learners.)

When schools use test scores for diagnostic purposes the system works fine, says Kristin Malone, an English teacher at Memorial High School in Spring Branch. The tests show whether students are learning and how teachers can better serve them, she says.

"I think it gives a teacher a fair chance at trying to do an academic intervention," Malone says. "It provides a focus so we are not just guessing at the problems."

Separating student scores also helps educators monitor the needs of each student population, Evans says.

"If we see a higher percentage of students who are not successful, we will regroup and see what is working or what isn't working," Evans says. "The breakdown of scores helps us see if there is a breakdown in instruction."

But the system breaks down when scores become ammunition to judge schools.

"The assessment is just a snapshot," Malone says. "It's a day when the kids take a test and that day is the only day being measured. It does not include everything else those kids do not do on paper."

While it's reasonable to analyze student scores by subgroups, the new ESEA does not look at the meaning behind those scores, says Walt Haney, a Boston College education professor. The ESEA simply ties school accountability to the progress of low-performing students.

Consequently, schools may find ways to exclude their low performers from the testing cycle, instead of meeting their educational needs, Haney says. Schools could manipulate test scores by reclassifying students into exempt groups, retaining them in grades, or encouraging them to leave school, he says.

Malone at Memorial High School believes schools remain accountable for all students.

"We're not shoving the undesirables under the carpet," she says. "If anything, we have created centers where we can help them succeed."

Overall, Malone and Evans believe the Texas system serves their students. And they expect the new ESEA will meet the needs of students in other states.

"It's a good system," Malone says. "Even though we have a diverse population, we approach the TAAS with unified goals. So even if you are in an affluent community or one of the Title I communities, you have the same expectations."

--Kristen Loschert

In California...

Roosevelt High School in Los Angeles has just a few months to show test score improvement-- even though everyone knows changes like this will take years.

"The train is rolling--and we're trying to fix the wheel," says English teacher Kristin Botello.

The story of Roosevelt High is a cautionary tale of what could happen at thousands of other low-income schools if the new federal education law is carried out in a way that delivers more punishment than help.

The No Child Left Behind Act mandates that schools will be judged by test scores. Those that don't make "adequate progress" toward the goal of 100 percent proficient students will suffer escalating sanctions that could end in wholesale staff changes.

But the new law also promises help, and many crucial details have yet to be worked out. That means educators will have to be visible, making the case for real reform.

At Roosevelt, promises of help have been made, broken, and made again. And it's a school in need of promises kept.

It's the biggest school in Los Angeles and one of the largest in the nation, with more than 5,000 students in a 1923 building surrounded by more than 40 "temporary" classrooms erected to house its bulging population. The students are overwhelmingly low-income and Latino. About 35 percent don't speak English fluently. And the average student at Roosevelt reads at a fourth grade level.

So this overstuffed train begins its race for higher scores already far, far behind.

Botello says teachers have been coping with their students' weak reading skills by devising ways to reach the substance of their lessons without relying on independent reading. The ninth grade curriculum includes Shakespeare, but most of her students can't read and comprehend Romeo and Juliet on their own. So she reads passages with them, and the class takes off from there.

This approach allows her to have good, thoughtful discussions about the play. But it doesn't work when students sit down in front of a test to answer questions that nobody can read or explain to them.

So now, says Botello, the faculty is focusing more on teaching reading.

Roosevelt will be divided into nine mini-schools of about 550 students, so adolescents and adults can get to know each other.

"This will work in the long term," says Botello, "but not in a just few months." After a highly critical state audit, Roosevelt has been ordered to show higher scores on tests given this spring or face possible state takeover.

In an attempt to comply with these demands, the school has hired Princeton Review to help its students score higher right away, even if they don't actually know more.

The new federal law gives low-scoring schools two years to reach its initial targets, not much longer than Roosevelt was given.

Roosevelt actually embarked on a journey of reform five years ago.

"A lot of teachers put in a lot of time to try to turn it around," says Will Adams, who teaches Japanese. The program's centerpiece was a ninth grade house system, very similar to the mini-schools now planned. "We had it for three years and we started to see results. Student attendance was great," he says.

But then, funding for reform dried up.

New state rules on student-teacher ratios made scheduling a nightmare. Also, Adams notes, "We had three changes in super-intendents. We had district reorganization. And we made mistakes, too. We're new at reform. It takes five years of sustained effort. We stalled."

Now, with faculty frustration running high, "we're hemorrhaging teachers," says Adams. He reports 28 percent of the school's teachers are not fully certified. Still, Botello, Adams, and many others at the school are not giving up. Despite the losses, Roosevelt still has a large core of talented teacher leaders, including 10 who are National Board Certified, including Botello.

"We have accomplished teachers, and our new teachers are high energy, committed and compassionate," says Botello. "My priority is to keep the young teachers here and help them get to where they feel they can make a difference." She says all the pressure on Roosevelt has focused and unified the faculty: Everybody understands that things must change.

The reform effort five years ago, says Botello, "was like a practice run. We ran into all the barriers. Then they took the money back. We didn't get to finish. But now we're better at it."

Roosevelt has again been promised help, including money. The new federal law also pledges support for struggling schools.

Much will depend on whether the promises are kept.

--Alain Jehlen

Testing Timeline

Now
Under the old law, each state was to define "proficient" in reading and math, and test students in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. Most state testing programs are not yet federally approved.

September 2002
Using a federal formula applied to 2001-02 test results, each state calculates a target percentage of "proficient" students. Schools must aim to meet this target for all students and for each subgroup of students. More than a fifth of schools will start out below the target.

2002-03
All schools and all major groups of students within each school are to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) to reach target in two years.

2004-05
States raise the target percentage of "proficient" students. Schools that have not made the AYP for two years get extra help. Also, they must offer students a choice of other public schools.*

2005-06
Annual testing in reading and math begins in each of grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12. Schools that have not made AYP for three years must offer private tutoring.*

2006-07
Schools that have not made AYP for four years must take "corrective action," raging from hiring an outside expert to replacing some staff members.

2007-08
Annual testing in science begins. States again raise the target percentage of students who are "proficient." The target rises in equal increments to 100 percent in 2014.

June 30, 2008
The law expires or (more likely) is reauthorized by Congress with changes.

2008-09
Schools that have not achieved AYP for six years must reopen as charter schools, replace staff, hire private managers, or give control to the state.

2010-11
States again raise the target percentage of students who are "proficient."

June 2014
Every student in America is "proficient."

* Under the old law, 9,500 schools have received needs improvement ratings for two or more years. For these schools, sanctions start next September.

Q&A
The Tests We Need, and Why We Need Them

UCLA Professor Emeritus James Popham heads a commission of test experts convened by NEA and four other education organizations to develop a set of requirements for good state tests.

How did you get involved with the field of testing?
I was at UCLA for more than 30 years working in curriculum and instruction, and at first I was not particularly interested in testing. But I found that assessment determines a lot of what goes on in the classroom.

Will the new federal law's emphasis on tests help kids learn?
It can be an incredible opportunity for instructional improvement. Or it can be an incredible opportunity for making educators fail. Instead of being called "The No Child Left Behind Act," the new law could be called "The No Teacher Considered Competent Act." That's because almost every state now uses tests that measure what kids come to school with, not what they get in school. A lot of people in a lot of states are judging the quality of schooling by the scores on those tests, and that's dead wrong.

Is there a way out?
Yes, if states install the right kind of tests. Our commission said each state should prioritize its standards--rate them as absolutely essential, very important, and so on, and then pick a small number of absolutely essential standards to assess--maybe five or six in each subject.

The standards have to be described clearly so teachers know what to do--for example, finding the main idea in a reading passage. That's a very powerful skill. We can describe it so the teacher knows what he or she is aiming at and doesn't have to look at test items to figure it out.

The federal law says the tests have to be aligned with the state standards, but it doesn't say they have to cover everything.

Then, the teacher should get reports, standard by standard, on how the students are doing, so he or she can make adjustments in teaching.

The writing samples used in many states are an example of a good test. They not only measure skills, but they give cues to teachers as to what to teach. As a result, the quality of writing is getting dramatically better.

Won't picking a small number of standards to test make teachers focus too narrowly, and leave out everything that's not assessed?
That could happen, and that's why our commission also said the state should create optional classroom assessments that teachers can use for standards that aren't measured on the state test.

Also, we said there should be a formal mechanism for judging the breadth of the curriculum in each school. Can we eliminate this problem? No. But we can reduce it.

What we have today is assessment hypocrisy--the claim that we can teach and measure all the standards. We can't. What our commission is proposing is assessment honesty.

Nine Requirements For Useful State Tests

These nine principles of useful testing were developed by the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment, convened by NEA and four other national education organizations:

• A state's content standards must be prioritized to support effective instruction and assessment.

• A state's high-priority content standards must be clearly and thoroughly described so that the knowledge and skills students need to demonstrate competence are evident.

• The result of a state's assessment of high-priority content standards should be reported standard by standard for each student, school, and district.

• The state must provide educators with optional classroom assessment procedures that can measure students' progress in attaining content standards not assessed by state tests.

• A state must monitor the breadth of the curriculum to ensure that instructional attention is given to all content standards and subject areas, including those that are not assessed by state tests.

• A state must ensure that all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of state standards; consequently it must provide well-designed assessments appropriate for a broad range of students, with alternate methods of assessment available for students who need them.

• A state must generally allow test developers a minimum of three years to produce statewide tests that satisfy Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and similar test-quality guidelines.

• A state must ensure that educators receive professional development focused on how to optimize children's learning based on the results of instructional supportive assessments.

• A state should secure evidence that supports the ongoing improvement of its state assessments to ensure that those assessments are (a) appropriate for the accountability purposes for which they are used, (b) appropriate for determining whether students have attained state standards, (c) appropriate for enhancing instruction, and (d) not the cause of negative consequences.

Resources on ESEA and Testing

• NEA has set up a toll-free hotline for members who want more information about the complex and far-reaching "No Child Left Behind Act," the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Call 866/373-ESEA (3732).

• Education Week has published an excellent summary of the new law, online at www.edweek.com/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=16eseabox.h21&keywords=ESEA. You can find other useful articles on ESEA by searching for ESEA in the Education Week archives at www.edweek.com/edsearch.cfm.

• The full text of the new law can be read, searched, and downloaded at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:h.r.1.enr:

• For more on the requirements for making state testing programs help education, read Building Tests To Support Instruction and Accountability by the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment, chaired by James Popham. The commission was convened by NEA and four other national education organizations. The report is at www.nea.org/issues/high-stakes/buildingtests.html.

• Read excerpts from Popham's book, The Truth About Testing, on the Web site of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development at www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/popham2001_toc.html. You can also order the book in ASCD's online store.