“Rather than shouldering the risk of change, too many of our political and educational leaders rest behind the traditional system masking their lack of imagination with tough talk dodging their duty. Doing right by our children will require courage to think in new ways….” Ted Sizer
N.C.L.B. (No Child Left Behind) policies infer that the success or failure of an educational institution is based solely on the students’ performance on a single test. It seems unfathomable that educators would tacitly promote a one-size fits all concept as an accepted measuring standard when analyzing suburban and urban school testing data. To disconnect myriad societal and economic conditions from the discussion of urban students’ performance on national standards based assessments is a recipe for failure. Federal government officials tout the effectiveness of high stakes testing and are quick to use the data as indicators of an urban schools success or failure. It is counter to Dewey’s premise of the purpose of education where he argues that “providing the student with enjoyable learning experiences motivates them to continue learning.” Therefore, to force mandated standards-based assessments on dysfunctional urban public school systems whose pedagogical design is outdated without providing the necessary support mechanisms is thoughtless. Sadly, data-driven decisions that do not examine the student holistically will have dire implication upon students’ social/emotional welfare. The long-term effects of state mandated high stakes testing is that standardization creates inequities, widening the achievement gap between the quality of education for poor and minority youth and that of their suburban counterparts. The negative effects of standardized tests are magnified when the quality of educational content is compromised for students who have historically scored low on standardized assessments. The driving force in urban schools becomes teaching to the test and designing lesson objectives which reinforces drill-down and double-dosing techniques. The antithesis of rigor is the alignment of curricula to state mandated tests which belittles what can be taught. The conflict is most common in urban schools where students have traditionally scored low on standardized tests.
Careful analysis of test data reveals a direct correlation between scores and socio-economic status, yet, economic privilege and all of the benefits of such are not factored into the analysis of the assessment data of urban students. The students who attend such schools are further stigmatized when performance data is made public. Therefore, the results of a single test should not be the sole indicator of academic success or failure of urban schools because such a notion supports the belief that minority students are academically disadvantaged. Thus furthering the premise shared by those who invoke the eugenics theory whenever standardization is thrust to the center of public scrutiny. Inner-city students’ sub par performance on national tests supports unfounded racial biases and it is disingenuous to juxtapose the scores of inner-city students and those of suburban students without analyzing the social/emotional affect this may have on academic achievement. The challenge is that we must design positive learning environments that address the academic needs of all students regardless of the families’ socio-economic status. John Dewey’s apprehension regarding mandated educational reform, developed during the 19th century, is apropos even in the 21st century,” I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform. All reforms which rest simply upon the law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile….” Dewey’s prophetic observation is certainly something the education community should put it into context before we find ourselves in a societal quagmire where those with wealth and privilege deconstruct the, “great equalizer”, a public education.
