Almost every teacher in the country will put his hands over his face at the mention of the assessments required by No Child Left Behind.  And he can come up with the reasons.

Written by a publishing company?  The summative test is made to cover the curriculum taught anywhere in the country, so the company can sell as many as possible.  No matter that the standards in one state aren’t the same as those in another.  (Another controversy to resolve.)

Tests written to satisfy the standards in one state?  Criterion referenced tests, as they are called, may test minor standards with large numbers of test items, built in to separate the proficient from the advanced, the ‘basic’ students from the proficient.  What does that tell anyone?  Perhaps which students have increased their understanding of the standards for a grade level, or maybe that they’ve mastered the tricks to test taking?

And what about the thousands of students with limited understanding of English?  They still have to pass the same test with the same required increase in points to reach the No Child Left Behind benchmarks each year as students who have been in the United States since birth.

Or students whose parents are working two jobs and don’t or can’t find the time to spend on take-home practice or reading or math or writing essays?  Or students with parents who had limited education themselves?  Many parents do manage and their children do well, but the achievement gap wouldn’t be like it is, if that kind of relentless, selfless support were achievable in all cases.

What about the often mentioned issue that the class spends so much time on preparation for the state test in reading and math that, except in schools with strong numbers of high-achievers, there is little time to spend on science and social studies, art and music?  There is a reason for all the emphasis on the 3 R’s.  Research has shown, on the SAT for example, constant practice can pull up performance scores, if that’s what is being asked for.

Well, why don’t they practice reading with the science text?  Great idea, except the test is focused on specific reading and language skills, not the science content which those texts, fabulous as they may be, cover for a grade level.

And what does the school find out from the API (California’s Academic Performance Index), a number that ranks a school among all 6000 elementary schools in the state?  Or from the AYP (United States Annual Yearly Progress), percentages that tell how far along a school is on the grid to become 100% proficient in reading and math by 2014?

It’s an indicator, but those numbers don’t help analyze the needs of the students who are not yet proficient reading and math learners.  So far in California, for example, only 40% of the elementary schools scored at least 800 (considered excellent) on the index, San Francisco Chronicle, “School Making Big Strides…”, May 22, 2009.

How does the teacher and school analyze the data and plan the reforms to improve learning for all students during a school year, not just for students almost ready to make the next leap?  That’s the important question to answer.