Dear Representative Shea-Porter,
I am writing to ask you to consider lending your voice and your vote to the change of some of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, which I believe will be up for reauthorization very soon.
I am a teacher of grade one students in Deerfield, New Hampshire. While, as a grade one teacher, I do not administer the standardized test that is central to the current Act, I see the impact of high stakes testing on my school, both on students and on teachers. I am concerned that setting a bar that all students should be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 will cause most school systems in states that have high curricular expectations and tests reflecting these to fall into the failed schools/districts category. New Hampshire is one of these states. We did not take the easy way out by creating easily achievable standards. Schools in New Hampshire will be stigmatized for their integrity. That is a shame.
Why are we unable to jump over this 2014 bar? NCLB has its roots in earlier legislation. I understand that one goal, certainly the goal of progressives and liberals, is that all children have equal access to a quality education. In fact, creating subcategories based on income and race seeks to address this goal. I strongly believe that we should not limit our expectations for a child based on income or race. That is the ideal. If written and administered correctly, NCLB could eventually bring us toward making the goal of that ideal a reality. I think that 2014 is too soon to expect this, given the complexities and varieties of our interwoven local/state (and federally influenced) school systems. Also, a single testing measure is inadequate for gauging student achievement and likelihood for life long academic success. The single testing measure can give schools valuable information, but is only one piece of a much larger picture. What I am asserting is that the current single test measure is unrealistic and skews what we value into a single “way of seeing.” This can be damaging.
Even more damaging is the concept that “one test fits all,” as applied to the subcategory of special needs students. Though modifications are allowed, all but the most severely handicapped students must take this test. I am suggesting that this kind of test does not provide helpful assessment information for most of these students. A much more individualized and finely tooled measure is needed for that purpose. Further, I find it questionable that this kind of measure helps determine school success in meeting a child’s need for success in life when that success will probably not be and should not have to be ability to perform at a high level on standardized tests. Is this the basket into which we should be putting all of our eggs, even those most vulnerable to breaking? This test is breaking some special needs students and their teachers. It is a poor fit.
I am not an athlete. I have some problems with coordination and balance. However, as an adult, I maintain an exercise regimen. I walk, hike and I used to run. I love to jump and play right along with my first graders (when appropriate). If, as a child in school, I had been repeatedly forced to try to perform in basketball to a level equal to that of my average peers, I would have felt terrible failure. That sense of failure might have closed me off to more doable athletic ventures in my future. I might have given up.
Please, Congresswoman Shea-Porter, help us to not give up on being our best because the wrong thing is being asked of us. Please help us to achieve the best from within our selves. In that way, we will each have the opportunity to contribute positively to our communities.
Sincerely,
Bruce Turnquist
