Sponsored in part by NCCREST (NCCRESt, the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems) and the Forum for Education and Democracy, three high-level educational administrators energized an attentive audience who broke into applause several times as they offered perspectives in opposition to high-stakes testing arising from NCLB. Invited speakers included Doug Christensen, Nebraska Commissioner of Education; James Lytle, Trenton, New Jersey School Superintendent; and Peter McWalters, Rhode Island Commissioner of Education.

Commissioner Doug Christensen was first at the microphone, and his corn-fed good humor stood in contrast to the dead-level message that he offered regarding high-stakes testing in his state: “There will be no state tests in Nebraska as long as I am State Superintendent.” Christensen went on to offer a summary explanation of Nebraska’s assessment system, STARS (Student-based, Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System), a mixed-model assessment plan that includes some standardized tests and some locally-produced performance assessments.

Christensen explained that one of the five national standardized tests may be selected by local systems, but none of these tests is used for ranking, grade promotion, or other high stakes decisions. Instead, Nebraska is one of two states (the other being Maine) that offers a hybrid assessment system that includes writing assessments in grades 4, 8,and 11, and may include norm-referenced tests, criterion referenced assessments, and locally-developed classroom assessments.

In Nebraska, these assessments are assembled into portfolios that must include samples of the instruments used, and then they are submitted to the State for rating. Exemplary assessment practices by local districts are offered as models that may be replicated by other local systems.

“Which would you rather use to get to know a child,” asked Christensen, “a snapshot or a videotape?” Comparing Nebraska’s assessment system with a long-running videotape, Christensen explained that all Nebraska teachers are closely involved in determining, first, “what students are to know and be able to do” and, and secondly, “how to determine if students know and understand.” In order for teachers to focus on this kind of grassroots assessment, the State foregoes any form of rank ordering or single measures in their assessment system. Christensen argues that the low stakes environment allows and encourages teachers to be constantly engaged in formative assessments that can improve learning, rather than simply trying to measure it. In Christensen’s view, “it is better to be good than to look good.”

Peter McWalters, Commission of Education in Rhode Island since 1992, followed on Christensen’s emphasis on low-stakes assessments. Rhode Island does, indeed, use a more conventional testing regime, but the state tests are not used for ranking or other high-stakes purposes. McWalters, who noted his own struggle with tests as a child with dyslexia, emphasized that Rhode Island’s history of focusing on achievement by all students is backed up by the fact that the state assessments have been disaggregated since 1971. McWalters castigated assessment systems that “set the bar where few get over,” and he noted the importance of acknowledging the regular gains that are sustained over time by all students.

Making sure that all students are moving toward high standards, McWalters continued, can only be assured by teachers of high quality. “It is all about teacher quality,” he emphasized, noting that Rhode Island has in place a peer-review system of teacher evaluation that aims to balance autonomy and responsibility. McWalters emphasized that a significant part of his ideological commitment is toward “making the classroom public.” In doing so, teachers reach out to parents to establish communication. McWalters made the case that teachers, in fact, hold the key to initiating much-needed changes in NCLB. “If every teacher contacted parents with their concerns, the rhetoric would change,” he emphasized. Concerned parents in touch with their legislators, McWalters contends, will ultimately have the necessary political effect of bringing about change.

In Trenton, New Jersey, however, Superintendent James Lytle noted that parents’ concerns go well beyond questions of how their children are assessed. “Parents in Trenton,” he said, “are concerned if their children are going to be shot on the way home from school.” Bringing into focus the larger issues of crime and poverty that are not addressed by NCLB, Lytle noted that Trenton schools cannot be expected to achieve at equal levels to those of stable, economically-privileged communities. This reality remains an unavoidable fact, despite improvements in achievement that have resulted since the State increased funding in recent years for Trenton, Camden and other urban districts as a result of lawsuits going back to the late 1980s. What is missing and what we seem incapable of, Lytle noted, are the “difficult, productive conversations about why kids are not learning.” Lytle contends that these public conversations must go beyond technical solutions, funding formulae, or accountability schemes.

Summing up the commonalities of the three presenters, respondent Gerry House, President of the Institute for Student Achievement, noted that all three presenters were in agreement that a single test administered once a year is not going to seriously affect the achievement gap. From her own experience in North Carolina schools, House noted that the high stakes exit exams there were, in fact, contributing to higher dropout rates, and that students who were previously making slow but steady practice are now giving up as they repeatedly fail the high-school exit exams.

Respondent, Deborah Meier, former teacher, principal, and current Board member of Coalition of Essential Schools, began her summation by pointing out that NCLB has, indeed, placed the burden of closing the achievement gap entirely on teachers. A public policy to equalize opportunity in schools is ironic, she noted, since “the notion of equality in America has disappeared.”

“The schools are expected to close the achievement gap,” she said, “at the same time that the inheritance tax is being repealed — and while this is going on, we incarcerate students in these testing schools for 13 or 14 years.” Meier agreed with the presenters that reliability of assessments should be gauged by how well we are preparing children to make sound judgments and good decisions as future citizens. “The validity of a jury decision cannot be technically mapped,” she said, “and testing, which really measures family wealth, does not teach good decision making, sound judgment, or appreciation for democracy.”

During the question and answer session, the audience shared their frustrations with the consequences taking shape on the reform landscape. Asked to speculate on what future reforms might mean for educators and students, Commissioner Christensen, reflecting the direction that Nebraska has taken, said, “It is what people do to not do NCLB that will decide the fate of NCLB — and regardless of what the situation looks like today, it is sure to change.” He added: “Be ready to lead when it happens.”