[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 29930-29932]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONSEQUENCES OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT FOCUS ON STUDENT TESTING

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this month public school students around 
Wisconsin are sharpening their No. 2 pencils and settling in to take a 
series of annual tests called the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts 
Examinations. These exams, given to students in grades four, eight, and 
ten, test students' knowledge of reading, language arts, math, science, 
and social studies.
  These tests--and their results--have taken on new meaning for schools 
around my State as students and teachers in Wisconsin settle into their 
second school year under the No Child Left Behind Act. This law, the 
centerpiece of the President's domestic agenda, requires that students 
in grades three through eight and in one high school grade be tested 
annually in reading and math beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, 
with annual science tests to be added 2 years later. Thus, Wisconsin 
will be required to expand the WKCEs, and the already-existing annual 
third grade Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test, to include new 
reading tests for students in grades five, six and seven; and new math 
tests for students in grades three, five, six, and seven.
  As I travel around Wisconsin, I hear time and again from frustrated 
parents, teachers, administrators, and school board members about their 
concerns with the ongoing implementation of the NCLB. I began to hear 
such comments more than 2 years ago when the President first proposed 
his education initiative, and this drumbeat of concern has increased as 
my constituents continue to learn first-hand what this new law means 
for them and for their students and children. While Wisconsinites 
support holding schools accountable for results, they are concerned 
about the focus on standardized testing included in the President's 
approach.
  I opposed the President's education bill in large part because of 
this new annual testing mandate. The comments I have heard from people 
across Wisconsin about this new program have been almost universally 
negative. Parents, teachers, administrators, and others in the 
education community have told me that they are concerned about the 
effect that over-testing will have on Wisconsin's public school 
students. They oppose another layer of federally mandated testing for 
many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing the 
additional tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for 
and take the tests, and the unnecessary pressure that these additional 
tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts.
  The pressure to do well on annual tests is already weighing on the 
teachers and schools in Wisconsin, even with 2 years to go before the 
additional tests are required. The stakes are very high for schools and 
school districts. The results on these annual tests are a central part 
of the complicated formula that determines whether a school is meeting 
or exceeding its ``adequate yearly progress'' goals. Failure to meet 
AYP goals in two or more consecutive years will lead to sanctions for 
the schools and districts in question. I have heard from many 
constituents about the complex AYP system, and what being determined to 
be a ``school in need of improvement'' or a school that ``has not met 
AYP'' will mean for--and how these designations will be interpreted 
by--parents, students, school personnel, and the general public.
  In order to measure AYP, Wisconsin and other States are required 
under NCLB to look at four indicators for each school and district: 
test participation, graduation and attendance criteria, reading 
achievement, and math achievement. Three of these four criteria are 
based on the annual standardized tests. This is troubling because the 
future of individual schools and school districts is riding on student 
participation in and success on just two exams--reading and math. These 
core subjects are important, to be sure, but I am concerned that this 
exclusive focus on testing--which is a top-down mandate from the 
Federal Government--may be detrimental to the successful education of 
our children, who could benefit from a more flexible approach.
  As a recent editorial in the La Crosse Tribune points out, ``the 
stakes on the schools are high. Buy what about students? The test 
result doesn't appear on their transcript and it doesn't count toward a 
grade or graduation.'' And what if a student had a bad day? Or what if 
the required amount of students don't take the tests, and the school 
fails to meet the 95 percent participation rate required by the NCLB? A 
missed participation rate 2 years in a row would mean that the school 
is ``in need of improvement,'' even if the students who took the tests 
did well on them.
  In addition, some of my constituents are concerned about the value of 
these tests to students, parents, and teachers. According to one 
teacher, the existing tests don't have any meaning to students and have 
little meaning to classroom teachers. And the Federal Government has 
mandated that students take even more tests without developing a system 
that makes these new tests, or the existing ones for that matter, 
meaningful to students.
  The impact of these standardized tests on students varies. Some 
students already have test anxiety and that anxiety may well increase 
unnecessarily. As the stakes increase for schools, the increased stress 
level is sure to filter down from administrators to teachers to 
students. For example, members of the Wisconsin School Counselors 
Association told me that they have been handing out apple-shaped 
``stress balls'' for anxious third graders to squeeze while taking 
their reading tests.
  While some students experience stress out about tests, others simply 
do not care about the tests at all, and fill in random answers or turn 
in blank test sheets--after all, there's no penalty if they do so. For 
students who are struggling, however, a low test score on a 
standardized test can be demoralizing. According to one Wisconsin 
teacher, ``Students are being evaluated on one single test. What if the 
student has a bad day? . . . [T]he truly scary part is that 
standardized tests ensure that half of our students will always be 
'below average.' How can we meet the benchmark that everyone will score 
proficient and advanced when the tests are designed to never let that 
happen? . . . Taking more tests is not going to improve learning.''
  Most students, of course, try their best. But they are confused about 
why they are taking tests that do not count toward their grades, and 
many students and parents are confused by the results of these tests.
  With the stakes rising for schools and districts, some schools in 
Wisconsin have resorted to offering what amounts to bribes to encourage 
the students to participate in the WKCEs and to do well on them. Since 
the tests have little consequences for individual students, but very 
serious consequences for schools and districts, some schools are 
pulling out all of the stops to get students to take these tests 
seriously.
  According to a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, some 
schools are offering prizes to students who show up and complete their 
exams. These prizes range from movie tickets to gift certificates for a 
local mall to big ticket items such as a television

[[Page 29931]]

and a DVD player. Some schools are offering exemptions from end-of-
semester exams for students who do well on the WKCEs. One elementary 
school is promising students additional recess periods, snacks, and 
movies. One teacher told my staff that her school is allowing students 
to engage in one of the ultimate school no-nos chewing gum in the 
classroom in order to help to relieve the stress of taking the tests.
  I will ask that the complete text of the two articles that I have 
referenced be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, schools in my State are already feeling the pressure 
to compel students to participate in and succeed on annual tests 2 
years before the additional, federally mandated tests are added to the 
mix. I am concerned about the implications that this pressure, and the 
resulting scramble to get students to take these tests seriously, will 
have on public education in my State. I am not saying that schools 
should not be required to be successful or to show improvement in 
student performance. Of course, all schools should strive to ensure 
that they are successful and that their students show improvement.
  But these examples from my State are clear evidence of one of the 
basic problems with the NCLB--its exclusive focus on test scores as the 
main measure of student achievement. When schools feel compelled to 
hand out goodies to get students to take tests seriously, those tests 
are not serving their intended purpose. Certainly, tests have their 
place in education. But tests should be used as one of multiple 
measures of student achievement, not as the sole means of determining 
the success or failure of a school.
  I am extremely concerned that the new Federal testing mandate will 
not achieve the desired result of better schools with qualified 
teachers and successful students. I fear that this new mandate will 
curtail actual teaching time and real learning in favor of an 
environment where teaching to the test becomes the norm. The 
unfortunate result of this would be to show our children that education 
is not about preparing for their futures, but rather about preparing 
for tests--that education is really about sharp No. 2 pencils and test 
sheets, about making sure that little round bubbles are filled in 
completely, and, if their school districts and States have enough 
money, maybe about exam booklets for short answer and essay questions. 
I am also deeply concerned that this focus on testing will rob teachers 
of valuable teaching time and will squelch efforts to be innovative and 
creative, both with lesson plans and with ways of measuring student 
performance.
  For these reasons, earlier this year I introduced the Student Testing 
Flexibility Act, a bill that would return a measure of the local 
control that was taken from States and local school districts with the 
enactment of the NCLB. This bill would allow States and school 
districts that have demonstrated academic success for 2 consecutive 
years the flexibility to apply to waive the new annual testing 
requirements in the NCLB. States and school districts with waivers 
would still be required to administer high-quality tests to students 
in, at a minimum, reading or language arts and mathematics at least 
once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 as required under the law.
  This bill is cosponsored by Senators Jeffords, Dayton, and Leahy. I 
am pleased that this legislation is supported by the American 
Association of School Administrators; the National Education 
Association; National PTA; the National Association of Elementary 
School Principals; the National Association of Secondary School 
Principals; the School Social Work Association of America; the National 
Council of Teachers of English; the Wisconsin Department of Public 
Instruction; the Wisconsin Education Association Council; the Wisconsin 
Association of School Boards; the Milwaukee Teachers' Education 
Association; the Wisconsin School Social Workers Association; and the 
Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, which includes the 
Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin 
Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin 
Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council for 
Administrators of Special Services.
  I would also like to take a moment to discuss the recently released 
National Assessment on Educational Progress scores. In addition to a 
massive new annual testing requirement, the NCLB also requires States 
to participate in the previously voluntary NAEP tests for fourth grade 
reading and math, which are given every 2 years. Proponents of high-
stakes testing argue that NAEP participation will help to ensure that 
the results of State-administered tests are valid, and that States are 
not ``dumbing down'' their tests in order to avoid Federal sanctions.
  The NAEP scores that were released last week are the results of the 
first round of required testing under the NCLB, and, for the first 
time, include scores from all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
2 schools run by the Department of Defense. While the nation-wide test 
results are an improvement over the NAEP administered 2 years ago, I am 
deeply concerned about the lingering racial disparities in the test 
results.
  I am particularly concerned that the test scores for the 
approximately 25,000 Wisconsin eighth graders who took this test lead 
the Nation in the gap between White and African-American students on 
both the reading and the math tests. While the NAEP was taken by only a 
small percentage of students in my State and around the country, we 
cannot ignore the racial disparities in the test scores and the need to 
do more to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity for a 
quality education.
  The Secretary of Education heralded the NAEP results, saying, ``These 
results show that the education revolution that No Child Left Behind 
promised has begun.'' If these test scores prove anything, it is that 
too many children are being left behind. Study after study has shown 
that disadvantaged students lag behind their peers on standardized 
tests.
  I regret that the President and the Congress have not done more to 
ensure that schools have the resources to help these students catch up 
with their peers before students are required to take additional annual 
tests that will have serious consequences for their schools. If we fail 
to provide adequate resources to these schools and these students, we 
run the risk of setting disadvantaged children up for failure on these 
tests--failure which could damage the self-esteem of our most 
vulnerable students.
  Instead of focusing resources on those students and schools needing 
the most help, I am afraid that the testing provisions in the 
President's bill will punish those very schools with sanctions that 
will actually take badly needed funding away from them.
  I would like to note that my constituents have raised a number of 
other concerns about the NCLB that I hope will be addressed by 
Congress. I continue to hear about complex guidelines and a lack of 
flexibility from the Department of Education. I hear about the unique 
challenges that the new tutoring, public school transfer, and other 
requirements pose for rural districts. My constituents often ask when 
the Federal Government is going to provide the funding it promised for 
education programs. I share my constituents' concern about imposing new 
sanctions on schools that do not meet yearly goals even though the 
programs that would help students and schools to meet those goals are 
not fully funded.
  I will continue to monitor closely the implementation of the NCLB and 
its effect on public school students in Wisconsin.
  I ask unanimous consent the articles to which I referred be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 9, 2003]

                        Take a Test, Get a Prize

                            (By Amy Hetzner)

       Some day soon, teams of Case High School sophomores could 
     be sitting in a Racine movie theater and thanking President 
     Bush.
       In an attempt to boost the number of students taking the 
     State's standardized test

[[Page 29932]]

     this week, Case High School will be handing out movie passes 
     to every 10th-grader who completes the battery of exams.
       It's just one of many efforts, which include a TV giveaway 
     at another school, to improve student performance and 
     participation on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts 
     Examinations, or WKCEs.
       In many Wisconsin schools, the testing began for fourth-, 
     eighth- and 10th-graders last week and will continue until 
     Nov. 21. The tests cover reading, language arts, mathematics, 
     science and social studies.
       If nothing else, the new incentives show the growing 
     importance that President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act has 
     placed on annual state testing.
       If students slip up, they could cause their school to be 
     labeled as needing improvement and sent on a path to 
     escalating sanctions imposed by the Federal law. If, for 
     example, less than 95% of students take the tests two years 
     in a row, a school may have to allow students to transfer 
     elsewhere.
       But the students themselves have little incentive to put 
     forward an effort. The exam doesn't count toward a grade or 
     graduation and won't appear on any transcript.
       As Larry Black, principal of Big Foot High School in 
     Walworth, puts it: ``For schools, they're high-stakes tests. 
     For students, they're low stakes. .  .  . And that's a bad 
     match.''


                        Rolling out the rewards

       To help surmount that obstacle and hopefully avoid being 
     labeled for improvement, two Racine high schools are rolling 
     out the rewards just to get students to take the tests.
       In addition to free movie passes, Case students can qualify 
     for $10 cash awards, Regency Mall gift certificates, school-
     spirit wear and other prizes--simply by showing up this week 
     and answering the exam's questions.
       At Racine's Horlick High School, the goodies are even 
     bigger. The school is planning several raffles for each of 
     the two days of testing this week, at which students can win 
     a television set, DVD player and CDs, Principal Nola 
     Starling-Ratliff said.
       The incentives are geared to increase both schools' test 
     participation rates, which last year fell below the required 
     95% of students.
       Miss that goal for a second year and both schools would 
     have to allow students to transfer to other district schools 
     under the federal law. A third year of missing their target 
     would force the schools to offer extra tutoring in math and 
     reading.
       The high schools facing the threat of sanctions aren't the 
     only ones proffering perks this year, however.
       Gifford Elementary School in Racine also dangled the 
     prospect of an extra recess, movie privileges and anonymous 
     treats before any fourth-grade class that had perfect 
     attendance during the week of testing.
       ``It's made a huge difference,'' Gifford Principal Steve 
     Russo said. ``Every morning we talk about testing with the 
     kids. We encourage them to do the best job, to take pride in 
     their work.''


                       critic pans reward system

       But Alfie Kohn, a national opponent of high-stakes testing, 
     called such rewards ``coercive'' and ``disrespectful'' toward 
     students. ``Even if higher test scores were a good idea, you 
     don't treat children like pets by dangling the equivalent of 
     doggie biscuits before them when they perform to your 
     liking,'' said Kohn, a Massachusetts-based author of the 
     book, ``Punished by Rewards.''
       School officials, however, say there's nothing wrong with 
     giving students a little push.
       Five years ago at Arrowhead High School in Waukesha County, 
     test scores took a serious dip when about 80 sophomores 
     refused to complete the exams, instead turning in blank forms 
     in protest of a test they felt was meaningless. If a school's 
     students were to do the same today, their action could have 
     more serious consequences for their school in addition to 
     giving it a public black eye.
       ``We never want to fall into the category where the 
     school's `in need of improvement' just because students 
     didn't take the test seriously,'' said Arrowhead 
     Superintendent David Lodes.


                            a reason to try

       So this year, Arrowhead will give its students a reason not 
     only to take the test but also to try.
       The school is offering its students a chance to skip final 
     semester examinations in their regular classes if they do 
     well on their WKCEs--scoring at least at the proficient or 
     advanced level in the subject area that corresponds with the 
     class exam they want to avoid.
       It's the first year Arrowhead High School has made such an 
     offer, which has been announced to students but is still 
     waiting for formal approval from the School Board.
       Arrowhead students who do exceptionally well on the WKCE--
     scoring at the advanced level on all the tests--also will be 
     allowed to spend their junior-year study hall classes in the 
     senior commons in the pilot effort.
       Other schools in the state offering exam exemptions include 
     Big Foot High School, Hartford Union High School and Pulaski 
     High School near Green Bay. Bay Port High School in the 
     Howard-Suamico School District gives students a chance to 
     drop a low-scoring test with a proficient score in the 
     subject area.
       ``I think we should be able to come up with a way where we 
     can get our students to give their best effort,'' Lodes said. 
     ``Everybody needs to do as best as they possibly can. Yet 
     everybody wants to be rewarded.''
       Arrowhead students say they can see a difference.
       ``I'm actually trying a little harder now,'' said Zack 
     Olson, a 15-year-old sophomore at Arrowhead, where testing 
     began last week.
       Previously, Olson said he might not have studied for the 
     test at all. But with the lure of getting out of final exams 
     and a nicer study hall environment, he said he's been doing 
     the practice work that teachers have offered.
       Another Arrowhead sophomore, Adam Moir, said he was even a 
     little nervous the night before testing began because he 
     wasn't sure what to expect.
       He said a lot of students will be motivated to try to get 
     out of their final exams. ``But, in the same way, there are 
     some students that could care less about school,'' Moir said. 
     ``I'm not one of them.''

                      [From the La Crosse Tribune]

           Our View: Make Federal Testing Fit With Curriculum

                      (By Tribune editorial staff)

       Why are some school districts offering movie tickets and 
     other prizes as an inducement to take the tests required 
     under President Bush's ``No Child Left Behind'' law?
       They are doing it because students have little incentive to 
     participate in the testing, even though a bad result can 
     result in a Federal Government listing as a failed school.
       Under the Federal legislation, schools are required to 
     subject students to testing once a year. If students do not 
     participate, the school could face sanctions. For instance, 
     if less than 95 percent of the students show up for testing 
     two years in a row, the school could have to allow students 
     to transfer elsewhere.
       So, the stakes on the schools are high. But what about 
     students? The test result doesn't appear on their transcript 
     and it doesn't count toward a grade or graduation.
       A story in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said that 
     the Racine, Wis., School District gives away movie tickets to 
     get kids to show up. Another, unnamed, district is giving 
     away a television set. Still another district--Arrowhead 
     schools in Hartland, Wis., is letting students who take the 
     test opt out of some final exams.
       None of this sounds like it is educationally sound, but 
     school administrators say they have little other incentive to 
     get students to take the test. Isn't there a better way to 
     judge school performance than using a test that has no other 
     meaning than providing a potential for Federal punishment? 
     Are there no other valid measurements of student performance?
       Giving prizes as an inducement to take a test seems of 
     dubious value. But maybe we ought to be looking for ways to 
     reconcile the federal government's need for performance data 
     with schools' existing curriculum and practices.

                          ____________________