Feature 5, Spring 2007

spring 2007

Unintended consequences

Raising the bar on achievement may narrow the scope of learning.

Jennifer Snow-Gerono
Cheryl Franklin
Boise State University



	FEATURES

All Idaho citizens should be aware of No Child Left Behind education policy. First implemented in January 2002, the federal No Child Left Behind policy gained bipartisan support in its call to educate every child in United States public schools. All students must be recognized for their performance—or lack thereof—and meet certain levels of achievement before passing through American public schools. Although the goals behind this legislation could be called honorable and just for a democratic society, implementation realities and effects of complying with mandates at state and local levels have become problematic.
An important aspect of this article is to share some potential, if unintended, consequences of NCLB implementation in Idaho elementary schools. Although the stakes may be higher in secondary schools, particularly with qualifying graduation exam mandates looming, the effects of NCLB implementation in elementary schools is also far-reaching.
In an effort to better understand how NCLB implementation is affecting curriculum and instruction in Idaho elementary schools, we studied the influences of testing on elementary students, teachers, and classroom curriculum. We also surveyed and interviewed mentor teachers (veteran educators who share their classrooms with undergraduate students) in elementary schools and prospective teachers (undergraduate elementary education majors). Some findings from this larger study help clarify the consequences of NCLB implementation that all citizens should be aware of and potentially concerned about.

State testing requirements

Our inquiries led us to first explore the effects of standardized testing as it has evolved with NCLB implementation. Throughout the past five years, Idaho elementary teachers have been required to administer, on average, seven different local, state and national standardized tests per year. These include the Direct Writing Assessment, Direct Math Assessment, Idaho Reading Indicator and ISAT (Idaho Standards Achievement Test) on math and language skills. Additionally, most school districts require monthly, quarterly or semester tests corresponding to reading and mathematics textbook curriculum.
Numerous studies have examined the effects of state-mandated testing programs (especially those with “high stakes” attached) on schools, teachers, and students. Research on these effects has yielded both positive and negative results for teaching, learning, and curriculum (see for further reading for examples). This should not be surprising considering the variations in state testing programs, actual tests, and accountability.

Investigation background

To determine the influence of testing on curriculum and instruction, teachers and interns were asked to respond to survey questions and participate in focus group interviews looking at how teaching in elementary classrooms has changed as a result of new testing requirements. Participants included 106 mentor teachers and 55 prospective teachers. Nearly all respondents included narrative comments in some form. Data focused on multiple issues, but the major focus of this article is the impact of increased testing on curriculum.

Curricular narrowing

Although a majority of data focused on the increased stress and pressure felt by mentor teachers, not to mention an increase in job dissatisfaction, another finding connected to curricular narrowing, or in other words, subject areas no longer being taught or being taught less often. Mentor teachers acknowledged that they were strongly encouraged to teach to test objectives. Although this is not necessarily disturbing depending on the validity of test objectives, the study also found that elementary teachers were spending more time on test preparation (teaching students how to take tests, tips for success on taking timed computer tests, practice tests, etc.) than on subject matter curriculum. This increased emphasis on test preparation is not in itself alarming until we consider what is left behind. What happens to the curriculum and instruction that may have been occurring prior to this new emphasis?

          One teacher shared, “I am saddened at how ‘driving hard’ for test results has caused other activities such as art to virtually disappear. I rarely have time to discuss the Weekly Reader or current events… Social Studies and Science have been lowered in priority.” On the subject of narrowing curriculum, another responded: “We feel so much pressure that we spend most of the day teaching reading and math…We drill and drill…I don't teach science or social studies in a hands-on way. We learn science and social studies through our reading.” Another teacher used an efficiency metaphor to describe how classrooms were changing: “We are forced to train these little bodies into a line of ‘factory workers’ where they must learn to be drilled and skilled.”
          Prospective teachers also noted the narrowing of curriculum due to testing requirements. One student shared, “With [various test] results, my second-grade mentor teacher and the rest of the second-grade teachers were asked by the principal to remove such non-tested material... from the curriculum. Instead, teachers are to focus more on ‘upping’ the test scores ... There was such an emphasis on tested readings that many of the students were beginning to hate reading. Unfortunately, the testing emphasis does not take into account each individual’s needs … Too many kids will be left behind, because they won’t be encouraged to develop their own interests… or learn critical thinking skills. They’ll rely on rote memorization.”
          An underlying theme in these comments is the lack of joy in learning and an increased boredom among students. Although delight in teaching and learning is undoubtedly an important motivation for new teachers pursuing the profession, and a compelling reason for elementary students to come to school, may educators and policymakers also emphasize the hard work and dedication involved in both teaching and learning. What areas of curriculum should be more emphasized in elementary education and how could all educators and policymakers best structure curricular opportunities?
          Another finding related to curriculum includes not only a robust focus on teaching only what will be tested, but also an increase in national textbook programs taking the place of previously taught curricula. For example, scripted textbook programs are being used to teach reading and mathematics. These programs are geared toward increasing standardized test performance. Often teachers are encouraged never to deviate from the text. Most of these programs include large-group whole class instruction that deters from the differentiated instruction teachers may otherwise implement to meet the multiple learning needs in their classrooms. One prospective teacher shared, “My mentor teacher said she used to do enrichment activities and units of discovery ... She no longer teaches anything like this. If it is not on a standardized test – there is not time in a classroom for ‘that’ kind of learning.”
          It is important to note that several participants said that they were not anti-assessment. They appreciated testing for its ability to show growth in their students or as a means to identify important issues and concepts to revisit in their teaching. Problems arose was when the standardized testing appeared to replace student learning. One particularly despondent prospective teacher noted she would not teach after graduation. She stated, “The focus on standardized testing and the resulting pressure, along with the de-emphasis of higher thought processes among students are main reasons I am getting out of this industry. I do not feel an emphasis on standardized testing improves schools; I think it demands a focus on information regurgitation, especially when important subjects like social studies, art, and music are being removed from schools to accommodate the desires of our government. In addition, class time is being taken so that kids from a variety of backgrounds and experiences can be forced to be the same as each other.” These comments demonstrate disillusion with public schools.
          Another prospective teacher who worked in a charter school that focused on experiential learning was pleased with her placement but apprehensive about entering the work force. She shared, “I have been fortunate to be placed at a school where test results are looked at as one indicator of a student’s knowledge and/or learning. The teachers spend a great deal of time teaching students in authentic (real world) type situations and develop their higher level thinking skills… I am very uneasy about getting a job in a school that pushes ‘teaching to the test’ when I can see that there are other ways that work just as effectively to get test results and develop a student’s deeper understanding.” How can education policy best address these tensions so that assessment is an integral component of “good” teaching and learning practice while at the same time not stifling a broad curricular scope that includes all content areas?
          A decrease in time spent on certain areas of curriculum silently states that other areas of curriculum are more important. Rather than calling for standardized tests in every content area, which would be a plausible argument in this case, we instead call for an analysis of how the absence of social studies and science curriculum on standardized tests reduces the importance of their meaning and worth in the minds of elementary students, their families, and perhaps even their teachers.

What counts as social studies?

          These results led us to further investigate social studies in particular, as it is not a currently tested content area. Mentor teachers indicated that time spent teaching social studies significantly decreased as a result of standardized testing. Our findings indicated that social studies lessons in these classrooms focused on “community” and “family” curriculum in primary grades. Holidays were referenced as social studies curriculum, as were character education programs. Focusing on “kindness,” for example, was identified as social studies curriculum. Geography, Idaho history, and American history/government were often referred to in the intermediate grades as social studies curriculum. Yet this curriculum was not offered through “social studies” as much as it was integrated into reading and stories required in other parts of the curriculum.
          A definite theme among prospective teachers was that social studies meant, “Reading about a historical figure in Open Court reading text.” One teacher mentioned that social studies was “covered through the reading block.” Another counted mathematics curriculum as social studies curriculum because in Everyday Math students learned about presidents pictured on coins. One prospective teacher described social studies this way: “Every grade level does social studies differently and uses different things. From the third grade up, each class is given a social studies textbook to use, but the teachers use them very little, and mostly for supplemental information. In my class, my teacher usually teaches social studies in her reading blocks. They read books with social studies content in them. They also use nonfiction stories in language to learn subjects.” A few comments stated clearly, “It is not part of the curriculum at my school” or “No time allotted until third grade.”
          Large-scale curricular initiatives, like character education and civic education, often take the place of a broader scope of social studies curriculum in elementary classrooms. These programs, focusing on character attributes such as kindness or honesty for example, are being implemented in local elementary schools and included as social studies on the daily schedule. However, mandating implementation of character or civic education programs as the sole social studies curriculum undermines learning social studies in meaningful ways. It often trumps history, community-building, authentic inquiry and analysis, geography and economics. An over-reliance of such programs does not allow teachers to thoroughly address the Idaho Content Standards for Social Studies.
          Most of the teachers surveyed indicated that they spend one to two hours per week on social studies, although some said they spend as much as three hours per week on the subject. Most teachers emphasized that social studies was integrated throughout the day. This lack of time and attention to social studies curriculum weakens educating for a democracy. Although other curricula can be integrated into social studies during the school day, social studies has become marginalized as a “non-tested” (standardized) curriculum and as an add-on or something “fun” teachers would like to do if they didn’t have to focus on other areas instead. How could social studies become less marginalized throughout the elementary school day? Although the K-8 Idaho Content Standards for Social Studies address history, geography, economics, civics and government, and global perspectives, in practice the taught curriculum focuses on history, emphasizing political leaders and holidays rather than disciplined inquiry, historical interpretations, multiple perspectives and essential questions that are vitally important to the citizens of Idaho.

Achievement versus learning

An important aspect of our analysis includes the belief that narrowing of curriculum due to NCLB implementation is largely (and wrongly) focused more on student test scores than on student learning. When teachers work in environments that put increased pressure on standardized test performance, the climate of schools becomes about performing well on tests. However, even those who create standardized testing systems would agree these tests should not be a singular target to determine student learning. Students as individuals bring any number of emotional, psychological, or academic capabilities and concerns to a standardized test. A standardized test is a competent way of determining which students may be left behind; it can serve as an important indicator of achievement and be used as information for teachers to determine how and where to begin work with underachieving students. However, it does not detail a student’s learning profile or capability for performance.
Learning can be measured in multiple ways. Learning is and should be different for different students; this differentiated instruction is an important key to learning. Once learning becomes a focus in classrooms and education policy, the desired achievement rates should also become more attainable for all students. This would be a more complicated and complex policy, and would likely engender some ambiguity due to its potential need for differentiated implementation. However, in consideration of the merits of NCLB policy, isn’t this what educators and policymakers owe their democratic citizenry and public school students? It is time to attend to unintended consequences of education policy implementation, like curricular narrowing, so that public schools serve not only standardized testing companies but also the American public and its future. Policymakers must consider the questions raised here for more democratic education policy.

About the authors: Jennifer Snow-Gerono and Cheryl Franklin work in a teacher preparation program emphasizing partnerships with school districts and an integration of theory and practice as it relates to teaching and learning. They hold educating for a democratic citizenry in high regard both as educators and in their students’ subsequent roles as teachers. They hope their students view educating elementary students about citizenship, roles, and responsibilities of participation in a democracy as essential purposes of the elementary classroom. The pair’s understandings of educating in and for democracy frames their inquiries into how standardized testing in elementary schools influences curriculum and instruction, and what counts as social studies in local elementary schools.