Hmm, trying to find an article that talks about the dumbing down of test in reference to the information I learned in class. I'm having a hard time finding one.
This is an article that shows how widely state standards vary. They did not study all states so Missouri is not on there, but it does a very good job of explaining the issue.
I can't seem to find an article that specifically addresses Missouri at the moment (the ones I'm finding speak in generalities) so I will see what I can do. I know at our faculty meeting yesterday it was stated to us that Missouri has the "third most rigorous test" in the country and that we are the only state not to change the test due to NCLB. I have heard this often in classes, so I'm hoping it's not jsut rhetoric.
I think perhaps you are talking about a 2004 Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) study that looked at 12 states and found that their state test scores were much higher than national proficiency test scores. That study, however, by education professors at the University of California-Berkeley, was highly criticized both for its methodology and for its conclusions as it was done by a university research facility that has been consistently critical of the NCLB law. Since I've never met a professor of education (and I've known many) who was in any way favorable toward NCLB, I'm inclined to be suspicious of the study as well, but that's just me.
Here's one rebuttal to the study.
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/10/10082004.html
And here's an article discussing a study of the improved math and reading scores since NCLB came along:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401322.html
I would add, too, that even if the study is accurate, it reflects corruption and incompetence at the state level, not within the NCLB law. I think it would be reasonable to assume that those corrupt state education leaders and the university education school professors who help them prepare the state tests would be lying about their test scores no matter why they were giving the tests. Quite frankly, it is just that kind of behavior that gave us NCLB in the first place.
here's an idea, lets get rid of all federal laws and control of schools and send it back to the states where it belongs.
Well, if states are in fact dumbing down their tests, wouldn't a nationwide test make sense? Yes, it wrestles control of the school curriculum from the local level, and many people (myself included) don't like that, but haven't enough states shown that the corruption in their state education departments has made them unfit to evaluate the educational effectiveness of their state schools? What's wrong with at least a national reading and math test given perhaps in grades 5 and 11? I'm talking about testing for basic grade level proficiency, with an eye toward it being a "report card" of the school district and the state, not the individual kid. If the schools are doing their jobs, there should be no test preparation for such a test necessary at all, and therefore no "teaching to the test." If the schools aren't doing their job, then by all means please teach to the test because at least those students will be gaining a basic level of reading and math proficiency.
I am wondering if you have had any hands-on experience with NCLB-era schools, perhaps as a teacher/administrator, a parent or as a student. If a vote were held today on "Is the NCLB a success?" I think that the vast majority of voters would vote a resounding "NO."
And while I'm not a big fan of any of the teachers' unions, I don't really think that their perceived abuse of power is a good-enough reason to have enacted the NCLB. NCLB is not the best use of our time, effort or funds and in my opinion it does not achieve a sufficient level of outside accountability.
If the NCLB were held to its own standards it would be given a failing-grade.
agnes!
I am a teacher in a large public high school, and have been for 8 years, and I teach in a subject and at a grade level that does mandatory state testing each year. I guess that counts as some sort of hands-on experience. I realize that the majority of my colleagues hate the NCLB and the tests. I don't. I do my job every day, and worry not one bit how my students will perform on the test. I don't think NCLB is perfect, but I do believe passionately in accountability. If I am handing out passing grades in 11th grade English, my students should be able to perform on a state reading test. If they can't, shame on me for passing them to the next level. I honestly don't see what the problem is with proficiency tests. We are talking about really basic skills here. Basic skill acquisition is the least the taxpayers of my state have the right to expect. And if tests of basic skill proficiency drive the curriculum until all (or nearly all) students meet those proficiencies, then so be it. What other kind of curriculum would any parent want in the face of their children being unable to read at grade level or do basic mathematics computations than one that focuses upon those basic measures of learning until they are acquired?
Now, I realize there are issues with testing special education students and so on, and those issues need to be dealt with, but the education establishment's full-scale resistance to accountability is counter-productive and does not serve the needs of students. Our students SHOULD be performing better in our subject areas after a year with us than they were before enrolling in our classes. As teachers, that is our job, and I am more than happy to have my students evaluated in such a manner.
Some of them brag about purposely messing up on it. 
Thank you
