HA's Accreditation

Recently, an article appeared in the Dothan Eagle concerning AdvancED/SACS accreditation. Since then, I have received a profusion of emails, phone calls, and questions about what accreditation means and how Houston Academy approaches the process of accreditation.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am very involved in the Southern Association of Independent Schools (SAIS) accreditation process. In the last two years, I have served as an accreditation visiting team chair for three quality, independent schools in the Southeast. Additionally, I have served as a member of visiting teams for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and SAIS accreditation teams for about 20 years, during which time I have had the privilege to help accredit approximately 20 schools. I’ve also served on a roundtable to discuss and shape our accreditation process for SAIS/AdvancEd/SACS. So, to say I am unbiased towards the process of accreditation, as it has evolved over the last 25 years, would be disingenuous.

That being said, let me start by answering the questions I’ve been asked, explaining what Houston Academy’s memberships are, and addressing why we hold these memberships. In a follow-up blog post, I’ll go into detail on what’s happening with our current accreditation process.

What does it mean to be accredited?
The SAIS website does a good job defining our meaning of accreditation:

• Accreditation (noun): certification that a school meets all formal official requirements of academic excellence, curriculum, facilities, etc.
• SAIS accreditation (noun): verification that a school understands its past, present, and future and is absolutely committed to its mission and its growth mindset.

So, basically, by going through a process of accreditation, we ensure that we have met a set of rigorous standards of educational quality, that we have been visited and reviewed by a team of highly qualified educators from around the Southeast, and we have a plan to improve and grow as a school. That improvement plan must, according to SAIS guidelines, be inextricably tied to our mission.

While attending a school that is not accredited does not prohibit a student from attending college,  SAIS/SACS/AdvancED accreditation allows college admissions officers know that the school from which the applicant has graduated has gone through a thorough quality review.

Of course, there are many other accreditation agencies around the country. Independent schools in Alabama also have the opportunity to obtain AdvancEd/SACS accreditation by being members of the Alabama Independent School Association (AISA) and going through their accreditation process. Houston Academy is also a member of AISA, but we chose to get our AdvancED/SACS accreditation through SAIS. Public schools must ALL be accredited through AdvancED/SACS.

Unabashedly, though, our accreditation (SAIS/SACS AdvancEd) is the “gold standard” for independent schools. First of all, to apply for SAIS/SACS AdvancED accreditation, a school must earn membership in SAIS, which in and of itself, is a rigorous process. Not only do we have to demonstrate quality as a school (proving that we are hiring highly qualified teachers and engaging in a strong educational program), but we also must be “independent.”

What does it means to be “independent”?
Most people do not understand the difference between being a “private” school and an “independent” school. There is an important distinction to be made between the term "private" and the term "independent." The term "private" implies some sort of exclusivity. As such, "private" schools are often affiliated with a particular, narrow religious order, and in that sense, are not entirely free to set their own educational path. Often, in order to work at a private school or attend a private school, you must adhere to a certain worldview or be a member of a particular religious denomination. "Independent," on the other hand, means that we are inclusive and welcoming of all people, regardless of religion, race, creed, national origin, or socio-economic status. As such, we are the only truly independent school in the Wiregrass. That is not to say that we do not embrace faith or religion – we do. However, in independent schools like HA, we embrace the diversity of our community and attempt to learn from our differences and build on our students’ and faculty’s individual strengths.

Likewise, Houston Academy is also the only National Association of Independent Schools [NAIS] member in the Wiregrass. NAIS members must also meet rigorous admissions criteria. Not surprisingly, then, NAIS schools offer their students significant advantages over other private and public institutions. To note but a few examples, NAIS students are three times more likely to attend four-year colleges; they are two to three times more likely to graduate from a four-year college or higher, regardless of socioeconomic status,;13% more likely to do volunteer work; and they are more likely to become involved as citizens. Both the "National Educational Longitudinal Study" and the "Freshman Survey Trends Report" showed that graduates of NAIS schools were more active in civic life as young adults. Whereas 57.4 percent of all the students who participated in the "National Educational Longitudinal Study" voted in a presidential election as young adults, 75.3 percent of participating students from NAIS schools did so. NAIS graduates were also nearly twice as likely to volunteer to work for a political campaign than the group of students as a whole. Data from the 2005 "Freshman Survey Trends Report," produced by the Higher Education Research Institute, revealed that 46 percent of NAIS graduates, but 36 percent of all freshmen survey, felt that "keeping up with political affairs" was essential.

Who else has SAIS accreditation or is a member of SAIS?
As of July 1, 2015, SAIS had 365 member schools, representing over 200,000 students. Our peer schools are schools like Altamont in Birmingham; Baylor and McCallie in Chattanooga; Randolph in Huntsville; Lovett, Westminster, and Pace Academy in Atlanta; St. James and Montgomery Academy in Montgomery; Bolles and Episcopal in Jacksonville; and UMS-Wright and St. Paul’s in Mobile. If you’re interested, you can search for other member schools here. You will find that most schools with high acceptance rates at selective colleges are on this list.

So what? Who cares what memberships and accreditations a school has?
To me, aside from accreditation, our membership in SAIS, NAIS, and AISA affords great benefits for our children, our teachers, and our school. What I value most about our memberships is the collaboration and collegiality it fosters. Our teachers have access to other teachers in rigorous independent schools around the country. We attend conferences, learn about current issues and research in education, and get information on “best practices.” We also engage in list serves, webinars, and leadership training. We have access to all kinds of resource material, including cutting-edge academic research. Moreover, we have the ability to benchmark our own school data against other schools around the country that are like us. Recently, for example, our Board of Trustees revised their bylaws and practices to be more progressive and consistent with what other quality independent schools are doing around the country. Additionally, our students get to compete in academic and artistic competitions and meet with student leaders from around the region.

Importantly, too, because we are an NAIS and SAIS member, we are able to recruit and attract qualified administrative and teaching candidates from all over the country and globe. In the last three years, for example, we have hired candidates who were teaching in or from Rio de Janeiro, Minnesota, and China. Dr. Janney, our new Head of Middle School, comes to us from the independent school world after stops in North Carolina and New Jersey. Personally, I would never have even interviewed for a job at a school that was not a member of NAIS, because I understand that NAIS member schools are commitment to academic excellence and innovation. I also know that an NAIS school is growth-minded and not insular in its attitudes. NAIS schools seek global awareness and to expose their students to a wide variety of ideas. For my own children, I want them to be challenged to look beyond Dothan and understand the competitive, global environment into which they will be graduating high school.  To put it simply, I just know that if I go to an SAIS accredited member of NAIS, it’s a “good school.”

The beautiful thing about SAIS Accreditation, in particular, is that it caters to the needs of independent schools and gives us the flexibility to chart our own educational path, divested from the mandates of the federal or state government. The SAIS/SACS/AdvancED process does not require us to abide by Common Core or engage in high-stakes testing. Similarly, schools are not compared to other schools. On the contrary, the only item against which schools are judged is alignment with their own mission. What we must show is that we are working to constantly improve as a school with the goal of helping students. In short, accreditation is about growth.

In May, our SAIS Visiting Team Chair will visit Dothan and assess our compliance with SAIS standards. Next November, the full, five-member SAIS visiting team will conduct a formal visit and review our school’s strategic plan and self-study. In my next blog post, I’ll explain where we are in this process and what our goals are for the next five years here at HA.

HA's Lower School - A Value Proposition

Every year, as a part of my introduction to our Lower School Holiday Concert, I make a statement about the value of the education provided at Houston Academy. In particular, I have pointed out that, while many schools across the country have cut their arts funding, Houston Academy has actually increased our commitment to the arts. One thoughtful parent, who cared enough to email me, questioned my statement, particularly in response to the value proposition of spending money on a Houston Academy lower school education.  

Before I go into the value proposition of HA, let me make one crucial point: I am a fervent supporter of our public school system. The future of the nation and the future prosperity of Dothan depends largely on the success of our public schools. Moreover, my wife and I are both products of the public school system. In fact, my wife has spent most of her career in Title I schools, including a stint in inner city Memphis, Tennessee. I have a great deal of respect for what our public school teachers and administrators do on a daily basis, especially given how they have been handicapped by inadequate funding, misguided “reform” efforts, and needless bureaucracy and paperwork -- all of which have been imposed upon them by people who are not educators. So, in enumerating the benefits of a Houston Academy education, I, in no way, mean to be critical of the public schools and the people who work in them.

In my 26 years working in independent schools, I have come to understand that independent schools must provide our students and families with some sort of “value added.” That is, we need to offer our families some benefit or advantage that they are unable to get in the public schools or elsewhere. At the core of our value proposition is our mission:

Houston Academy is an independent college preparatory institution. Our mission is to prepare all our students for responsible participation in a global society by providing an excellent learning environment and opportunities to achieve their highest academic, social, and creative potential.

These two sentences capture what makes a Houston Academy lower school education worth the tuition.  We offer a mission that is very different. The goal of the public schools is to graduate kids from high school; the goal of the local Christian schools is to provide a Christian education; the goal of Houston Academy is to graduate kids from college.

In fact, we are the ONLY school in the Wiregrass whose mission is explicitly college preparatory. This means that, in everything we do, from 3P to 12^th grade, we are working towards the goal of giving students the knowledge and skills to be a successful college graduate. Houston Academy also wants to produce global citizens and to push students to achieve their highest creative and social potential. HA has a different mission from other area schools- not better, necessarily -- just different. 

In practical terms, more than anything else, what we offer is rigor. As I have told parents and students who are worried about grades, “We will not apologize for our rigor.” We hold our students and teachers accountable to an unwaveringly high standard of excellence. At the same time, we provide a loving and nurturing environment in which our students receive the support they need to be successful. Still, no one should pay tuition for his children’s school to be easy. College will be hard; life will be hard; and we want our children to have the tools to be successful in both college and life. My own three children work hard at HA, every single day, and to them this is “normal.” They don’t get particularly stressed, they just do their job, because they are used to learning, and they are used to doing what they need to do to be successful.

Holding our teachers to a higher standard is another aspect of that rigor. No, we do not have “high stakes” testing, and our teachers do not have to fill out reams of paperwork; we prefer they spend their time teaching. As I have said in my blog, we have not adopted Common Core because we are teaching children, not standards. Our teachers are evaluated by the degree to which they pursue and achieve goals that they, themselves identify in conjunction with their Head of School.

Houston Academy also hires teachers with strong credentials who are compulsively driven to succeed.  Unlike most other schools in the Wiregrass, every single one of our 3P-6^th grade teachers has a four-year degree and is certified in her field. To me, taking your child to a preschool where teachers are neither qualified nor certified is a little like taking your child to a dentist who has never been to dental school.  Despite some people’s perception, preschool is not free play. Lessons should be planned by certified teachers to meet the developmental needs of the individual students in the class. It’s a purposeful exercise that requires a teacher to have education, training, and practice. It’s as much a science as it is an art.

Nevertheless, having outstanding teachers is not enough to ensure student success. The literature has consistently supported the notion that students thrive in a smaller classroom environment. We believe education is an intimate exercise. Fundamentally, your tuition dollars ensure that your child has a small student to teacher ratio. We have teacher assistants in every classroom through 1^st grade. Moreover, while the student to teacher ratio in the Dothan City elementary schools is 18:1 (20:1 in the magnet schools), the Houston Academy Lower School student to teacher ratio is 8:1.

Make no mistake: class size matters. The research has consistently shown wide-ranging and lasting benefits from smaller class sizes.  Smaller class sizes have a positive and significant relationship to higher standardized test scores, higher “cognitive and non-cognitive skills”[1] (e.g., effort, motivation, and self-esteem), higher academic achievement, higher salaries as an adult, higher college graduation and attendance rates, and lower incidence of poverty.[2] In fact, there have been quantitative studies that have shown that student-teacher ratio is the single most powerful predictor of student improvement in reading and math.[3] The reasons for these positive outcomes are obvious. In smaller classes, teachers are better able to meet the individual educational needs of the students, there are fewer distractions, fewer behavioral problems, and the engagement of students is increased.[4] Plus, with a decreased teaching load, teachers have more time to plan innovative lessons.

In addition to the intimate environment in the regular classroom, we have full-time enrichment teachers in every conceivable area (library, computer, foreign language, art, music, character education, and PE). Other schools may claim that they offer these enrichments, but they don’t have full-time, certified teachers dedicated to these pursuits, and the students do not take part in these disciplines with any consistency. To this end, our financial commitment, in terms of faculty development and faculty resources, is unmatched. We have a:

• Full-time teacher with a Master of Fine Arts teaching 5-6 grade chorus (pursuing a doctorate)
• Full-time band director with a music degree (pursuing a master's degree)
• Full-time lower school music teacher with a bachelor's degree
• Full-time lower school art teacher with a master's degree
• Lower school art assistant, with a bachelor's degree 
• Full-time Spanish teacher, with a bachelor's degree
• Full-time PE teacher, with a master's degree
• Two, full-time PE assistants, with a bachelor's degree
• Full-time computer teacher, with a bachelor's degree
• Full-time library and media specialist, with two master's degrees
• Full-time library assistant, with a bachelor's degree

We also offer:

• Smart boards in every classroom
• A yearly, lower school musical
• Instruments and band instruction to every student in 5^th and 6^th grade
• iPads in every lower school classroom
• 1:1 MacBook Pros in grades 5-12

Perhaps the most meaningful aspect of our “value added” is the support we provide to help our students be successful in our highly rigorous environment. HA now has three, full-time learning specialists who work with students who are struggling or who have special needs. Two of these teachers are trained in the Orton-Gillingham method for dyslexic students, one is a speech therapist, and the third has a special education degree and a master’s degree.

Finally, in my short time in Dothan, I have found that most people will concede that HA offers the finest, college preparatory education in the region, but many people feel that HA is unaffordable. For preschool, we are nowhere near the most expensive option in Dothan. For lower and upper schools, when you compare “apples to apples,” and include fees that other schools charge, our cost is quite competitive. Moreover, we offer substantial financial assistance to those who qualify, making the cost of an HA education well within the reach of most middle-class families.

In short, when you are looking at the value of paying tuition, it’s important to look long-term. In the history of Houston Academy, 100% of our graduates have been admitted to a college of his or her choice. Over the past two years, our senior classes of approximately 50 students have earned $6.4 million in college scholarships. That is remarkable, even if one controls for the educational level of our parent body. We offer smaller classes, more opportunities, more rigor, and more support than any other school in the Wiregrass. The evidence shows that a Houston Academy education gives your child a better chance to be successful in college and in life; this all begins in lower school.

Further Reading

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 3-30.

Angrist, J.D., & Lavy, V. (1999). Using Maimonides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 533-575.

Bain, H., Lintz, N., & Word, E. (1989). A study of fifty effective teachers whose class average gain scores ranked in the top 15% of each of four school types in Project STAR. ERIC Clearinghouse; paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 1989 meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Browning, M., & Heinesen, E. (2007). Class size, teacher hours and educational attainment. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109(2), 415-438.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Schanzenbach, D.W., & Yagan D. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1593-1660.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff J. (2013). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (Working Paper No. 19424). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dynarski, S., Hyman, J., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2013). Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), 692-717.

Finn, J., Gerber, S., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2005). Small classes in the early grades, academic achievement, and graduating from high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 214-223.

Fredriksson, P., Öckert, B., & Oosterbeek, H. (2013). Long-term effects of class size. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 249-285.

Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An Update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-64.

Hanushek, E.A. (1986, September). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-77.

Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1239-1285.

Jepsen, C., & Rivkin, S. (2009). Class size reduction and student achievement: The potential tradeoff between teacher quality and class size. Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 223-250.

Krueger, A.B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 497-532.

Krueger, A.B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. Economic Journal, 113(485), F34-F63.

Krueger, A.B., & Whitmore, D. (2001). The effect of attending a small class in the early grades on college testtaking and middle school test results: Evidence from Project STAR. Economic Journal, 111, 1-28.

Krueger, A.B., & Whitmore, D. (2002). Would smaller classes help close the black-white achievement gap? In J. Chubb & T. Loveless (Eds.), Bridging the Achievement Gap (11-46). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 165-77.

Mosteller, Frederick (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children. 5(2), 113-127.

Unlu, F. (2005). California class size reduction reform: New findings from the NAEP. Princeton, NJ: Department of Economics, Princeton University.

Urquiola, M. (2006). Identifying class size effects in developing countries: Evidence from rural Bolivia. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(1), 171-177.

Word, E., Johnston, J., Bain, H.P., et al. (1990). Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee’s K-3 class size study. Final summary report 1985-1990. Nashville: Tennessee State Department of Education.

---

[1] Schanzenbach, D. (2014, February 1). Does Class Size Matter? Retrieved January 7, 2016, from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter

[2] Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know? (2010). Canadian Education Association, 1-22. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from http://www.cea-ace.ca/classsizereport

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1.

Mosteller, F. (2008). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children, 113-113. Retrieved January 7, 2016, from https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/05_02_08.pdf

[3] Vasquez Hellig, J., Williams, A., & Jez, S. (2010). Inputs and Student Achievement: An Analysis of Latina/o-Serving Urban Elementary Schools. Association of Mexican American Educators, 48-58. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from http://www.classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Inputs_Student_Achievement.pdf

[4] Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., Martin, C., & Browne, W. (2002). A study of class size effects in English school

reception year classes. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 169-185.

Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class size reduction. American Educational

Research Journal, 44(3), 670-700.

J.D. (1997). Class Size: What does research tell Us? Spotlight on Student Success #20.

"You Can't Fatten a Cow By Weighing It!"

In my last blog entry, I briefly alluded to the “high stakes testing” regime that has accompanied the standards movement. “High stakes” tests have taken different forms in different states, but primarily, they involve standardized tests that students have to pass in order to allow them to move on to the next grade level, graduate from high school, or pass a given class. To be clear, these exams do not typically comprise any percentage of a student’s grade in a class; these tests are the sole criteria used to measure student mastery and proficiency.

 I believe that our nations’ high stakes testing regime has had a crippling effect on our nation’s schools and has harmed our children. It’s been disheartening to teachers and administrators, but it’s also caused many school systems to focus on teaching to the tests instead of teaching children. The pressure to have students perform well on standardized tests has also led to widespread cheating by teachers and administrators across the country. In fact, there is strong evidence that some sort of cheating or score misrepresentation has gone on in 48 out of 50 states (Beckett, 2013).

One would think the nation would have moved to a different school accountability measure by now. The preponderance of educational literature has been highly critical of the federal No Child Left Behind Law [NCLB], which is the law that has required that states institute high-stakes testing.  The literature has pointed out that NCLB was an unfunded mandate based on faulty assumptions about teaching and learning; that it was antithetical to all philosophical dispositions towards a more democratic leadership style; that it ignored the possible contributions of mixed methods or qualitative studies; that it had the unintended consequence of increasing dropout rates, narrowing curricula, and discouraging good teachers; and that many of the statistics assumptions on which it was based were not accurate (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Chatteriji, 2000; Jones, 2004; Mathis, 2003; Neuman, 2003; Slavin, 2001; Wheelock, 2003 ).  In actuality, the testing movement is working under the implicit assumption that test score indicators are the only true and “scientific” way to measure learning outcomes – ignoring all recent research on the effectiveness of constructivist pedagogy; ignoring the realities of multiple intelligences; and ignoring the truth that, by their very nature, standardized tests are pedantic, rudimentary, and limiting. Furthermore, standardized tests were never intended to decide if one went from the 8^th grade to the 9^th (Ghezzi, 2005). The tests were supposed to be “used to determine how best to teach kids” (Ghezzi, 2005), not to narrowly define what learning is and punish those who cannot operate within that narrow definition. Moreover, in a norm-referenced test, won't half of our children always be below average? This, after all, is not Lake Wobegon.[1]

I understand that many state graduation tests are criterion-referenced test – that is, they are tests designed to determine whether a student has mastered certain material. However, many of the principles of these tests are based on perceived problems which become evident through the results of norm-referenced tests, and many of these state tests are still culturally and socioeconomically biased, narrow, and invidious. Proponents of NCLB and the state legislatures generally make the assumption that the proverbial playing field is level, when clearly it is not (Neuman, 2003). For example, children from high socioeconomic status families are exposed to thirty million more word before kindergarten than children from low socioeconomic status families, and that gap does not disappear in one year; it is cumulative (Neuman, 2003). There is nothing in a state-mandated test that is going to get our poor and underprivileged children up to the level of more affluent children before they enter kindergarten, much less the 9th grade. 

To this point, there’s an old Iowa farm adage that says, “You can't fatten a cow by weighing it.” In other words, its one thing to say, “Our students are failing;” it’s another thing to figure out what to do about it. Even if you assume that criterion reference tests identify the problems correctly, they do not begin to offer us a solution.

What is most troubling to me, though, is the research that shows that since the passage of No Child Left Behind, American students’ creativity[2] has plummeted.  In 2010, Newsweek published an edition of their magazine titled “The Creativity Crisis.”  I urge you to read the magazine in its entirety, but the gist of it is that what has made America great and economically successful has been our ability to be creative. Moreover, the world is facing environmental and social problems on a global scale. These problems require leaders with an ability to come up with creative solutions to complex problems. These problems also require an ability to build consensus and work collaboratively. We have traditionally been a country of entrepreneurs and innovators. America has led the world in scientific, technological, and artistic endeavors. While children in China were learning how to take tests, American children were learning how to think.  The research tells us that as a direct result of our “drill and kill” daily drudgery and emphasis on standardized test scores, our schools have now become a place (in the words of Pat Bassett) where “creativity goes to hide.”  They have become a place where, by fourth grade, most students wallow in boredom and misery.

While researching my blog on Common Core, I read a letter to the editor in the New York Times written by Howard Miller, who is the chair of the department of secondary education at Mercy College School of Education. He said it better than I could:

The sticking point rests not with the standards, but with the ways in which we attempt to measure student learning through a combination of multiple-choice test items and short essays.

Learning is a very complex human enterprise. It is a building up of a depth and breadth of knowledge and skills over time through a process that includes trial and error, interpretation and analysis, “aha” moments of discovery, and applying what we have learned to different situations.

Standardized tests are flawed because they decontextualize learning and attempt to break it up into tiny measurable segments. With learning, the whole is definitely greater than the sum of the parts that we do measure.

Simply put, I'm not convinced that ANY of our standardized tests accurately measure if a student has what it takes to be successful in work and life. For example, does the ACT measure persistence? Resiliency? Emotional intelligence?  Does it adequately address the competencies (“6 C’s”) that have been identified as the core facets of 21^st century learning: collaboration, communication, creativity, critical thinking, cross-cultural competency, and character?

On a national scale, the high-stakes testing movement works to absolve society or the

broader educational system of any real accountability for the root problems in of poverty, malnutrition, housing, and unequal opportunity. We know what our root social problems are, and they are not going to be solved by giving students a test, the results of which will be used to hold them back a grade level, fire teachers, or shut down a school.

We know that education is the key to opportunity in any Western country. Many well-meaning educators support a high-stakes testing system in our country with the hope of raising standards and holding our teachers and students accountable. Our teachers and students should be held accountable. A standardized test, however, is just one measure on one day; this is not the right way to promote accountability (Ghezzi, 2005).

References

Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-37.

Bassett, P. (2011, October 11). School: Where creativity goes to hide. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/Independent-Ideas/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=318

Beckett, L. (2013). America’s most outrageous cheating scandals. ProPublica. Retrieved from http://www.propublica.org/article/americas-most-outrageous-teacher-cheating-scandals

Biddle, B.J., and Berliner, D. C.  (2002). Unequal school funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48-59.

Chatterji, M. (2000). Models and methods for examining standards-based reform accountability initiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools? Review of Educational Research, 72, 345-386. 

Darder, A. (2005). Schooling and the culture of dominion: Unmasking the ideology of standardized testing. In G. E. Fischman, P. McLaren, H. Sünker, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Critical theories, radical pedagogies, and global conflicts (pp. 3-22). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Ellinger, K., Wright, D.E. III, & Hirlinger, M. W. (1995). Brains for bucks?: School revenue and student achievement in Oklahoma. The Social Science Journal, 32(3), 299-308.

Ghezzi, P. (2005, May 8). Experts: Student testing overdone. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,

Goldberg, M. (2000). An interview with Harold Hodgkinson: Demographics, ignore them at your peril. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(4), 304-307.

Jones, K. (2004). A balanced school accountability model: An alternative to high stakes testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 598-605. 

Mathis, W. (2003). No child left behind: Costs and Benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (9), 679 – 686. 

 Miles, K., Ware, K. & Roza, M. (2003). Leveling the playing field: Creating funding equity through student-based budgeting. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 114-119. 

 Miles, K.H. (2001). Putting money where it matters. Educational Leadership,59(1), 53-57.

Miller, H. (2013, June). Will common core improve schools? [Letter to the editor]. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/will-common-core-improve-schools.html?_r=0

Neuman, S.B. (2003).  From rhetoric to reality: The case of high-quality compensatory prekindergarten programs.  Phi Delta Kappan, 85(4), 286 – 291.

Odden, A. (2001). The New School Finance. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 85-91. 

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 120-125. 

Payne, K. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1999). Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 4-13.

Reville, S. P. (2004). High standards + high stakes = high achievement in Massachusetts. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 591-597.  

Slavin, R.E. (2001). Putting the school back in school reform. Educational Leadership, 58(4). 

Slavin, R.E. (2003). A reader’s guide to scientifically-based research. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 12-16. 

Starratt, R. (2003). Opportunity to learn and the accountability agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(4), 298-303. 

Wheelock, A. (2003). Myopia in Massachusetts. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 50-54. 

_______________________________

[1] "Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."  - Garrison Keillor

[2] Generally, we use the term creativity to mean the ability to produce something original and of some use or value.