Archive for the ‘High Stakes Assessments’ category

NCLB: Change is Past Due

March 6th, 2011

“What we can do — what America does better than anyone else — is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. “

State of the Union 2011

President Barack Obama

Where’s the nation’s educational learning plan for this?

Where in all the nooks and crannies of schools spread across America can we find what America does better than anyone else?

Is it in:

  • the increasing standardization of curricula, assessment and instruction?
  • the hundreds of millions of multiple choice test items that young people take classroom by classroom, grade by grade, school by school, district by district, state by state?
  • state standards that prescribe info-trivia at the most rote levels of recall making for school work that’s easy to measure and cheap to test?
  • the textbooks, worksheets, and practice tests that constitute the nation’s test prep curricula?
  • the accountability 1.0  measures and sanctions designed in the last decade of the 20th century and implemented in the hallmark year of NCLB,  2001?

The Elementary Art of Science

I don’t hear many educators talking about sparking creativity and imagination anymore. I fear budget reductions in school districts all over the nation have left creativity and imagination on the cutting room floor.  The one thing not in short supply happens to be over-the-top multiple-choice tests that have sapped sparks of innovative teaching out of classrooms everywhere.

Despite the pressure to raise scores as a result of mostly sanctions, the last ten years of current accountability sanctions have done little to change student performance against international benchmarks or longitudinally against our own NAEP data. Student data’s about as good or bad as it’s ever been, depending upon IRS Effect at work in a school.

Now the mantra’s pretty much the same everywhere, “Raise test scores or else.” Or else what? Will the educational beatings continue until America’s teachers and kids improve?

Secretary Duncan spoke to the nation’s superintendents recently and said if we don’t “do” something about NCLB,  “In two years, 98% of the schools in America will be labeled failing.”  Really? I think every educator I know said that about ten years ago.This administration’s at almost three years and counting to accomplish the transformation of NCLB ala ESEA reauthorization that was a campaign promise. Congress has sat on changes to NCLB across two administrations. Educators continue the march towards a label of failure even if 99% of the children in their school meet AYP benchmarks.

Change is past due.  It’s time for a spark of innovation and creativity in Washington.  Get rid of NCLB. Make the National Educational Technology Plan the core of ESEA. If the USDOE staff actually was to implement the NETP, its best work, rather than leave the plan gathering dust on a virtual shelf,  America’s learners would get access to what President Obama says our nation needs.

And, our learners and those who serve them might start to design, create, build, experiment, invent, and innovate our way back to what America does better than anyone else.

Engineering and Design

Dualities, Schmualities

September 14th, 2009


By Jason Flom, Ecology of Education

Our public forums teem with dueling dualities:

  • Luke vs. Vader
  • Booker vs. du Bois
  • Optimus vs. Megatron
  • Homework vs. None
  • Fraiser vs. Ali
  • Whole language vs. Phonics
  • Nixon vs. Truth
  • Skills vs. Content
  • Cylons vs. Humans

However, the latest iteration hits a bit too close to home to be anything besides unnerving for educators:

Judging teachers using only students’ scores on high stakes test vs. Not

While I’m not a huge fan of standardized tests as primary markers for achievement, I understand (and even appreciate) their utility and functionality. For assessing benchmarks and basic skills, they serve a purpose. However, we must temper our enthusiasm for relying on basic skills attainment as the sole measure for determining if teachers are teaching.

If this dichotomy is really the best we can do, then we really do need to retool our education system. Badly. Quickly. Immediately.

Clearly the basic skills approach isn’t leading to critical thinking in basic deliberation/mitigation/compromise skills. Additionally, such “dualities only” debates illuminate a graphic lack of creativity, imagination, and, ultimately, innovation.

Basic civics lessons teach us that “either/or” ultimatums often lead to “neither/none” outcomes.

Aren’t there other options?!

Of course there are. But they cost money and take time. Two things of critical shortage in our school system. And are more difficult to standardize and analyze than, well, standardized scores.

The problem with a sole reliance on standardized test is well stated in Campbell’s Law:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

David T. Campbell, in 1976, goes on to write:

Achievement tests may well be valuable indicators of general school achievement under conditions of normal teaching aimed at general competence. But when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways. (Similar biases of course surround the use of objective tests in courses or as entrance examinations.)

Perhaps it is time for us to take a page out of Carol Ann Tomlinson’s differentiation schtick. Perhaps it is time for us to begin with the idea that all students and teachers are different — and therefore perform differently in different situations, and have different needs in terms of growth and development.

I am personally a big fan of working on a local level to improve the quality of life and quality of instruction provided in our institutions. I also believe that once a year evaluations by principals are too few and too thin to provide any sort of reliable and effective professional development for teachers. Additionally, in terms of cultivating a professional atmosphere for teachers and principals necessitates that both take a larger role in steering areas of growth.

Enter rubrics. Kid tested, teacher approved.

I am a big fan of the teacher and principal rubrics developed by Kim Marshall:

Moving beyond this or that, one or the other, mine or yours, them or us, and with us or against us mentality should be a chief objective for cultivating civil school systems. To that end, lets empower districts and principals to weigh in on who deserves pay incentive. A new teacher working hard to improve in identified areas of needed growth should be rewarded for doing so, even if it can’t be measured on a multiple choice test.

In this way, we may just find teachers more willing to look their shortcomings in the eye and work to overcome them.

As the old adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. Let’s fill the assessment tool box, or at least put another option in it.

Image: How Stuff Works, but obviously a Lucas Films Image

Switch to our mobile site