Power, Politics, and High-Stakes Testing: Part 1

Note: This is a two-part post. References can be found at the conclusion of Part 2.

Part 1: Evolving Standards and Curriculum Development

Standards movements have cycled through schools and statehouses regularly, the latest in the succession often repudiating its predecessor. In 1894, to pick an arbitrary starting point, the Committee of Ten, a group of well-known scholars, called for a rigorous academic curriculum for all high school students, regardless of whether the students were college bound. This overturned a prior focus, namely that high schools were specifically for the college bound (Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum 2004). The Progressives came along twenty years later in the form of a commission appointed by the National Education Association, which largely repudiated the Committee of Ten’s work and issued its own “Cardinal Principles” (Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education 1918). And so it has gone across the decades.

U.S. reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, for instance, triggered a new look at the school curriculum and flipped the prevailing focus on low-achieving students to concentrate on the needs of above-average students in order to win the space race. But something new happened this time: The fix came not from educators but from politicos—an amalgam of legislators and bureaucrats at federal and state levels. This was an era when an already slightly expanding role of the federal government in education was further enlarged. An example is the hurriedly passed National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958, which funneled unprecedented funds into public education (SIFEPP 2009). In the 1960s Johnson’s Great Society initiative turned the focus back toward the underserved and gave us the first incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Some standards movements have been helpful, others harmful to schools and students. But virtually all such movements in the last seventy years or so have begun from a premise that schools and educators are on the wrong track and so politicians, policy makers, and pundits need to step in and set things right. A stunningly ill-considered product of this thinking was the 1983 publication, A Nation at Risk, with its infamous declaration that the nation was facing a “rising tide of mediocrity” (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983). Although debunked repeatedly in the years since its publication, the Reagan administration-appointed National Commission on Excellence in Education’s condemnatory report not only spurred a new round of school improvement initiatives but also ramped up various legislatures’ interest in directing the course of public education, in large measure through increased oversight that could be achieved indirectly by increased testing. At the federal level one result was NCLB and its iterations in the states.

Thirty-plus years after A Nation at Risk the momentum to control schools through testing has increased, and local control by parents and teachers has markedly decreased. A recent uptick has been the promulgation in most states of new high-stakes tests, led by those mandated by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a wolf-like curriculum and sheep-like standards clothing.

Part 2: Rhetoric and Political Power