"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. 

Common Core?

As we begin our admissions season for the 2015-16 school year, I have been getting a number of questions from prospective parents about the Common Core Standards, which most states have adopted in their public schools. For those of you who are interested in my take on the Common Core, I will say this: Houston Academy will not be adopting the Common Core Standards. In this blog entry, I’ll explain why.

For something that has elicited so much controversy, the Common Core’s premise is really quite simple: to have a set of national standards for K-12 education which standardizes what students should be expected to master at each grade level. It actually does not tell teachers how to teach, and despite popular misconceptions, there IS no curriculum. However, as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, every state had to test every child every year in 3-8 grade in math and reading, plus one year in high school. The results of these “high stakes” tests were used to determine whether a school was “failing.” Each school was expected to increase the percentage of students passing the test, each year, thereby meeting the law’s requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Students at “failing” schools could transfer to a different school, and if the schools persistently failed, they could be “reconstituted.” Many states, including Alabama, have recently received waivers from adhering to No Child Left Behind in order to create their own accountability measures. Alabama has adopted the Common Core, but unlike most states, Alabama has chosen to use the ACT Aspire as its end-of-year test.

As it stands, though, states have poured billions of dollars into implementation of the Common Core. Nationally, putting the Common Core in place will cost the states as much as $10 billion, with an additional estimated cost of $800 million per year.[1] This, according to many, has diverted needed resources away from teacher recruitment and training, facilities, and remediation for our most challenged students. For example, amidst numerous complaints about a crumbling school infrastructure, Los Angeles spent $1 billion dollars of revenue from a “school construction bond” in order to put Common Core testing software on iPads.[2] Last year, the state of Alabama spent $6.7 million dollars on their testing program, alone.[3] Of course, the textbook companies are thrilled with this development, because it allows them to sell brand new “Common Core aligned” textbooks to every district in the United States. This amounts to a profit windfall.

While I certainly have problems with some of the content of the Common Core, I think we could all find problems with any universal set of standards. The reason why Houston Academy will not be adopting Common Core has nothing to do with the quality of the standards. It is because I have not found credible research that backs the notion that common standards, alone, will lead to increased levels of student achievement.[4]  Sure, high standards are important, but it’s only a fraction of what goes into student achievement and gains in student learning.  What’s interesting is that when one explores the scores on the Department of Educations’ National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), there has persistently been a four to five times greater difference within states than between any two states.[5] In other words, in Alabama, there’s likely to be more of a difference in test scores between any two school districts in Alabama than there is likely to be between the state of Alabama and the state of Massachusetts. Of course, states have had common sets of standards for decades. If standards, alone, could work miracles, we’d see similar achievement within our state. Additionally, whether a state has strong standards or weak standards bears no statistical relationship to either standardized test scores or student achievement.⁵

What does make a difference in student achievement? Well, years of data tell us that much of student learning is influenced by context variables that are beyond the control of the school. However, of the factors we can control, the literature has consistently confirmed that quality teaching is the single most powerful factor in increasing and improving student learning.[6]

That seems like common sense, right? I mean, I’ve never had a student come back after graduation who said, “I’d really like to thank the person who wrote your curriculum! That curriculum has made all the difference in my life. When I look back on Unit 6, Goal 3a in Chemistry – ‘Derive the empirical formula for a compound by using percent composition data’ – I can’t help but smile and think about how that has helped me in my life’s work and career success.”  No, what former students DO want to talk about is how Starla Lewis made them love math, Wanda Emblom made them want to be a doctor, or Paige Knight made them want to be a writer. 

Put another way, students don’t learn from standards; they learn from teachers.

Permit me to use this analogy. I can determine the absolute best type of fertilizer to put on my lawn to make it grow and prosper. However, if I dump the fertilizer in the middle of my lawn instead of spreading it properly and at the correct weight, I’m going to kill my grass. We can have all the finest standards in the world, but if we don’t apply those standards properly, we are not going to improve student learning.  It’s the quality of the teacher that matters.

Actually, I’d argue, you could give us students at Houston Academy from any socio-economic background, and given a certainly level of motivation and God-given ability, our teachers at HA will lead them to achieve.  Furthermore, I’d argue that it’s precisely because our teachers are freed from the demands that public school teachers face– high-stakes testing, Common Core, exhaustive evaluation systems, individualized educational plans, state certification requirements, monotonous paperwork, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, etc. – that our teachers are free to focus on children and their learning needs.  It’s because our teachers don’t have to focus on a broad set of national standards that they can focus on having high standards for every individual student. Those standards are much higher than anything the government has prescribed.

Learning is a very complex activity, and we know that every student learns differently. Not all of our students are going to be successful all the time, but what I can tell you for certain is that throwing billions of dollars at a set of national standards is not going to fix our problems. Focusing on teachers and students just might.

---

[1] Chiaramonte, P. (2014, February 5). High cost of Common Core has states rethinking the national education standards. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

[2] Murphy, T. (2014, September 1). Inside the Mammoth Backlash to Common Core. Mother Jones.

[3] State of Alabama Department of Education. (2014). ACT assessments establish new baseline for student achievement [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.alsde.edu/sec/comm/News%20Releases/12-11-2014%20Statewide%20Assessment%20Results.pdf

[4] Loveless, T. (2012, February 1). The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

 [5] Loveless, T. (2012, April 13). Does the Common Core Matter? Education Week.

[6] Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (2003). The act of teaching (Third ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wayne, A., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains. Review of Educational-Research, 73(1), 89-122.