Missouri Association of School Psychologists

MASP is affiliated with the
National Association of School Psychologists.

The following is a letter sent to the Missouri School Board Association regarding No Child Left Behind

June 30, 2004
Dr. Carter Ward, Executive Director
Missouri School Boards Association
2100 I-70 Drive Southwest
Columbia, MO 65203

Dear Dr. Ward,
This next school year, School Board members will engage in difficult discussions regarding Missouri’s perspective of proficiency and the impact of NCLB on its school districts in preparation for decisions for the 2006-07 school year. As you begin these conversations, the Missouri Association of School Psychologists, as a stakeholder in the education of Missouri’s children, would like to have a voice and have its viewpoint taken into consideration.

The recent enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has created new challenges for school districts across the State of Missouri. It has resulted in districts with “Accreditation for Distinction in Performance” finding themselves in the “not met” category of the Annual Yearly Progress report. Their frustration is generally targeted on a sub-group that is either in special education or English as a second language. This federal law has raised public education expectations to an all time high with few resources to back it up.

School psychologists, not only in Missouri but also across the nation, recognize the validity of the normal curve of distribution. A majority of individuals will fall in the middle range of average. Flanking this is the 14% in the above average range and the 14% in the below average or borderline range. The Missouri School Boards’ Association has adopted the definition of “proficiency” to be “above grade level.” Two categories of students will not be able to achieve this goal due to innate cognitive characteristics. These are those students who fall in the range of below average or borderline on the normative curve, and many students who have been identified with an educational disability. Yes, these students can make academic progress within their capabilities, but the majority will not be able to attain above grade level proficiency.

Missouri Association of School Psychologists, in accordance with our parent organization, National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), believes all children can learn. Federal legislation (NCLB; IDEA) has shaped standards-based reform, which has resulted in states developing large-scale assessments for the purpose of measuring the attainment of equal, high academic standards. Both MASP and NASP support the positive outcomes of this legislation: improved teaching and instruction, higher achievement for all children, and increased access to the general education curriculum. However, MASP and NASP strongly oppose “the use of large-scale testing as the sole determinant for making critical, high stakes decisions about individual students and education systems, including access to educational opportunity, retention or promotion, graduation or receipt of a diploma.” It appears to undermine the public educational system in the State of Missouri.

The Missouri Association of School Psychologists is in concert with the National Association of School Psychologists in regard to our concerns of recent federal legislation’s impact on Missouri’s school children and school districts. The following is taken from NASP’s position paper on large-scale assessment.

Concerns and Cautions Regarding Large Scale Assessment

Recognizing multiple purposes of large-scale assessment. All states are required to establish large-scale assessment programs to measure student progress toward standards. However, different stakeholders want assessments to meet a variety of needs – educators want test results to inform instruction; taxpayers want to know that the money they spend translates into student learning; and governors want assurances that their students are achieving at a level similar to, or better than, students in other states.

Yet, NASP and other experts acknowledge that tests should be designed for the specific purpose that they are intended to serve and for the population that they will measure (National Research Council, 1999). While some states have tried to meet the demands for accountability by modifying existing large-scale assessments or developing new tests, many other states continue to use single tests for multiple purposes of system accountability, school improvement, and measurement of individual student or group performance, regardless of their intended use and inherent limitations.

High stakes and negative consequences for systems and individuals. Tests are considered high stakes for students when the results are used to make critical decisions about the individual’s access to educational opportunity, grade-level retention or promotion, graduation from high school, or receipt of a standard or alternative diploma. These kinds of decisions all have immediate as well as long-range impact on the student. In some states, high stakes also are attached to test results for school systems – teachers, administrators, and schools are rewarded or sanctioned based on student performance. NASP recognizes that, when high stakes are attached to test scores, there is greater potential for misuse of data and negative consequences:

1) Use of a single test score in making promotion/retention decisions. NASP and test development experts agree that it is not appropriate to use performance on a single test (or composite test battery) for making high-stakes decisions for individuals. Yet, increasingly, states are requiring schools and school districts to use state test scores to determine whether students should be promoted to the next grade, resulting in higher numbers of retained students each year. Extensive research over many years indicates that student achievement rarely improves when repeating a grade and, further, demonstrates a strong relationship between retention and increased dropout rates.

2) Use of single test score in graduation decisions. Many states have adopted exit exams for high school graduation, in some cases resulting in the denial of a diploma to thousands of students based on a single test, without regard to their classroom performance, teachers’ recommendations, or access to adequate classroom resources, quality instruction, or pupil services support. Although states may allow students to take these tests several times, multiple administrations of the same type of measure do not improve the reliability of the scores or reduce the general limitations of such testing.

3) Use of test performance as a basis for systems level rewards and sanctions. There is strong political support for the use of assessment results for system accountability, as reflected in the new provisions of NCLB. Administrators and teachers are rewarded or sanctioned based on student test performance, despite having little or no influence on some factors that significantly impact student achievement, such as student mobility and parent involvement. In some schools, these consequences could negatively affect instruction for all students, including students with disabilities, by dramatically narrowing the curriculum to emphasize test content and encouraging the use of generally inappropriate “quick fix” approaches to student learning.

4) Impact on mainstream education. High stakes testing programs can also have unintended but negative effects on the education provided to all students by narrowing the curriculum and unduly emphasizing basic skills to the exclusion of the arts, technology, sciences, and humanities; creating a culture of “teach-to-the-test”; increasing the psychological stress on children and families; and decreasing teacher job satisfaction. Further, schools may focus limited resources on efforts to directly improve test scores, rather than on strategies to improve school climate and student learning. Tests should inform instruction, not dictate what is taught.

5) Impact on referrals to special education. Some schools respond to increased pressure from accountability associated with high stakes testing by increasing the number of children they identify as needing special education supports. Systematic methods of collecting data on special education referrals and placement are critical in order to accurately monitor this trend across time and make comparisons within and among schools from year to year.

6) Impact on student mental health. When “failing” the test means failing the grade, failing to graduate, or even lesser consequences such as attending summer school or loss of certain privileges, students may experience long-term anxiety, low self esteem, depression, etc. At a more systemic level, class-wide and building-wide testing can put students, teachers and administrators at risk for anxiety and other forms of emotional distress. These consequences can impact not only test-taking but also learning and motivation.

Interpreting Results From Large Scale Assessments: Cautions and Considerations

NASP strongly urges districts and states to take great care when applying test results from large-scale assessments to high stakes decisions such as graduation, retention, merit pay, etc. School psychologists have expertise in assessment, and can play a key role in helping others to appropriately interpret and use results from large-scale assessments. Factors that influence the accurate interpretation of standardized test results include the following:

Who is assessed? There may be inconsistency in the groups of students included in the state assessment reports over time. For example, when students are retained or drop out, the group of students included in testing changes. Further, some states and districts continue to exclude some students with disabilities and/or limited English proficiency from their assessment systems, in violation of Civil Rights statutes. New mandates and funding incentives may further pressure states to exclude groups of students who might tend to score below standards or require extensive accommodations. Additionally, due to high student mobility in some areas, many students tested in one school in a given year may have received much of their instruction elsewhere. Measuring effectiveness of instruction across schools or over time is severely compromised with highly mobile populations.

What tests are used and what do they measure? Assessment programs vary in many ways across states, as some states compare individual student performance to a national group, while others compare individual student performance to established performance standards. Further, states differ in the content measured and how proficiency is defined and demonstrated. For example, some states may use “minimum standards” while others use “high standards.” Although trends within states are more reliable for comparison than cross-state trends, even comparisons within a given state must be reported carefully to assure similar data and standards are used.

What accommodations were provided? States have different rules about the kinds of accommodations that can and cannot be used for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. It is important to know not only that students were given appropriate accommodations, but also the kinds of accommodations given, how reliably theses accommodations were implemented, and if accommodations were provided across all testing situations. The interpretation of test data may be unreliable when accommodation practices are inconsistent.

How are test results used? While following recognized standards for test development and standardization will help to assure reliable and valid results, administrators and other school personnel should exercise extreme caution when applying results of large-scale assessment to decision making about individual students. Myriad factors can impact the performance of any one student at a single point in time, significantly reducing the reliability of test scores. Therefore, decisions regarding the promotion, graduation, placement, or referral of individual students should be based on multiple sources of individually obtained data rather than the results of a single large-scale assessment.

It is the position of the National Association of School Psychologists, as well as the Missouri Association of School Psychologists, that standards-based tests be used as global indicators of student and program progress, and to highlight the need for additional resources, not to determine educational placement or graduation eligibility for an individual child, or to establish rewards or sanctions for any personnel, school or district. Policymakers are urged to carefully monitor and evaluate the actual consequences of large-scale assessment programs and to implement essential guidelines for the development and application of these accountability systems.

The Missouri Association of School Psychologists would suggest other areas of education reform in order to support efforts of improved teaching and instruction, and higher achievement for all students. New teachers entering the field often have little understanding of how students learn and think, or how to manage behavior. More classes at the undergraduate level in the psychology of learning, cognitive development of children, and behavior management would lead to better prepared teachers. Additionally, with increased awareness of cultural groups, our new teachers need to learn more about the wide array of diversity: cultural, visual versus auditory learners, and urban versus suburban versus rural learners. Funding for extensive training for experienced personnel in these same areas is crucial to meet the challenges of school improvement.

Finally, the mental health needs of Missouri’s students must be addressed by appropriate school personnel. Each day children face many stressors, such as divorce, substance abuse, mood disorders, violence, and domestic abuse, which impact their ability to focus in school. State level recognition of the need for and encouragement of employing qualified related services personnel (e.g., school psychologists, school social workers) would further assist Missouri’s efforts to improve our educational system. Missouri is in a pivotal position to move education forward for the betterment of our students without sacrificing our public education system as a whole.

On behalf of the MASP Executive Board,

Carol D. Daniels, Ph.D.
President

Questions or comments? Contact the web manager.