Frame 1: Setting the Stage for NCLB. The first frame covered the time period from 1996 to 2002, which are the six years leading up to the passage of NCLB. This frame contained the highest number of salient frame elements (11 frame elements) and also lasted for the longest period of time, making it a particularly salient, persistent, and resonant (and therefore powerful) frame. This frame included a higher proportion of frame elements that are associated with positive characteristics of testing or topics associated with arguments made by proponents of testing. For example, proponents of testing have noted that test scores provide important data for calculating school performance ratings, which helps parents and students make informed
decisions about schooling and provides comparable information across schools. An article from
Education Week published in 2000 about the unveiling of California’s ranking system, which
was based on standardized test scores, for example, stated, “Schools' ability to compare themselves with similar schools is one of the most important features of the state [ranking system]” (Sandham, 2000). Similarly, high coverage of NAEP during the pre-NCLB years suggests a focus on tests as a way to measure schools, districts, and states and as a tool to provide meaningful, comparable data on performance. For example, an article in the New York
Times from 1997 stated, “In a generally encouraging sign of progress in American education, the
latest report from the only national assessment of educational achievement [NAEP] shows steady and significant progress in mathematics test results by the nation's fourth-, eighth-, and 12th-
grade students” (Applebome, 1997). Implicit in this statement is the idea that test scores are valid measures of educational progress for the nation. Frame 1 included six positive frame elements, one negative element, and four neutral elements. The relatively high level of attention to positive aspects of testing during this first framing may have helped set the stage for the subsequent passage of NCLB, with its focus on annual testing as a core component of the law.
The first (and second) frame included a high proportion of coverage of high school exit exams and Regents exams (Regent exams are required in New York State for high school
graduation), which suggests a focus during the first ten years of coverage on the use of these tests to increase rigor in schools or as a kind of credentialing function to demonstrate that students have learned appropriate content. Proponents of these types of exit exams have proposed them as a solution to the problem of social promotion. During the Clinton administration, in
particular, social promotion was a controversial topic and more testing was frequently proposed as a solution to the problem of students being promoted to subsequent grades without mastering content (Wachen, 2014). High school exit exams have existed for decades but became
particularly popular among state policymakers in the late 1990s to early 2000s (Education Commission of the States, n.d.). However, some states started to move away from requiring students to take these tests in later years—nine states have recently ended exit exams as a
graduation requirement and several other states have reduced the number or weight of these tests (“Graduation test update,” 2017).
Frame 2: The NCLB Testing Era. Frame 2 consisted of 10 frame elements and
contained four positive elements, two negative elements, and four neutral elements, suggesting a less positive, more mixed framing of testing. Seven of the frame elements stayed consistent across Frames 1 and 2: School Performance Ratings, Teacher Merit Pay, High School Exit
Exams, Issues with Tests, Federal Involvement, Trends in Test Scores, and Education Finance. However, there were also three new frame elements and four elements that were no longer salient. During the period of time covered by this second framing of testing (2002—2009), coverage of NCLB and tensions between the federal government and states became two highly salient issues. The NCLB frame element was coded as neutral because coverage of this topic was neither overly positive nor negative in relation to testing. The Federal/State Conflict frame element was coded as negative due to its emphasis on disagreements between the states and the federal government, particularly regarding state pushback to the testing mandate. These two frame elements appear to be connected. Figure 4.12 illustrates that these two elements are moving together across time. The increased federal involvement in education that accompanied NCLB (or at least the perception that NCLB was a substantial and unprecedented push by the federal government) created tension between the U.S. Department of Education and state-level policymakers. Connecticut’s legal challenge to NCLB is one example of that tension playing out in the states. The patterns in the proportional coverage suggest that an increasingly dissonant relationship between the federal government and the states with regard to education policy and testing (and media coverage of this development) was occurring prior to the passage of NCLB and that coverage of the relationship continued to increase through the years following passage until peaking in 2006. As coverage of NCLB began to drop in 2007 so too did coverage of the conflict between the federal government and the states.
Figure 4.12. Coverage of NCLB and Federal/State Conflict
Moreover, the rise of coverage of NCLB coincided with a rise in coverage of research utilizing test score data. NCLB’s annual testing requirements in grade 3-8 and once in high school resulted in an increase in available data on student and school performance. Researchers were able to access this newly available data for studies of student performance. Because annual testing was part of the law and required in all states (states could, in fact, choose not to comply with the law, but they risked losing substantial federal funding), these new data were also more extensive and allowed for more fine-grained analyses. An article published in Education Week
in 2008 that was associated with the Research topic, for example, noted how NCLB data was an improvement over previously available federal data:
The amount and quality of data available today represent a dramatic improvement over what was available in the so-called “wall chart,” a state-by-state compilation of resource inputs, performance outcomes, and population characteristics that the Education
Department published for six years, starting in 1984 under Secretary Terrel H. Bell (Hoff, 2008).