Standardized Testing Leaves Many Children Behind

While standardized tests have been around long before the passage of NCLB, these types of initiatives have increased the focus on using such assessments to evaluate student learning.  From 3rd grade on, students in America's public schools have become conditioned to an educational environment that centers around "preparing for the test."  While I both support and appreciate the intent of legislation such as NCLB (to improve our educational system and ensure that ALL students have access to a solid education), I do not support the measures that have been implemented to accomplish those goals.  Instead of improving a student's overall educational experience, I fear that the exact opposite has happened.  Instead of preventing children from being left behind, far too many have been cast aside in the wake of standardized testing.  It is time that politicians, as well as those charged with directing the course of our system of public education recognize the harm that is done by these types of assessments.  It is time to decrease the focus on standardized tests, and increase the focus on exposing our students to a well-rounded curriculum and enriching educational experience.

A large part of the original aim of standardized testing was to measure student abilities in order to ensure that they were placed in classes of the appropriate level...another well-aimed intention.  However, this too has led to negative consequences, most notably the tracking of students.  Still, since the onset of standardized testing, our public schools have seen their use spiral almost out of control.  Unlike students of my generation, whose testing experience was limited to the CAT, PSAT, and SAT, today's students have grown up with a barrage of EOG, VOCATS, and EOC testing.  By the time a student has reached the 12th grade, I wonder how many times they have heard the previously mentioned acronyms, or the phrase, "this will be on the test."  I have no doubt that the number would be staggering.

My point is this...standardized tests do have some value.  They can be used as ONE of many measures to evaluate student progress and learning.  However, they should not be used as the sole measure to determine student proficiency or promotion.  And, furthermore, the results of standardized testing should not be given such credence when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of schools, or the administrators and teachers who work there.

WHY do I say this?  Because, although the are both pros and cons to the use of standardized testing, I believe that the negatives far outweigh any positives that accompany such tests.  While a complete list of cons would be far too long to include in this blog (entire books have been written on the subject), that list would include the following:

• The focus on using standardized test to evaluate schools, administrators, teachers, and students has led to a "dumbing down" of the curriculum.  Students are no longer exposed to a well-rounded curriculum, as many electives and non-core courses have been eliminated all-together.  Research shows that this actually has a negative effect on student learning.  Furthermore, this prevents many students from being exposed to hands-on opportunities for learning, and also delays their exposure to skills that might be used to secure employment after high school.
• Fearful of poor evaluations and potential ramifications, many teachers have begun to "teach to the test."  Instead of exposing students to a variety of content, teachers have focused their planning and instruction efforts towards preparing students to score well on EOG or EOC testing.  In addition to robbing students of opportunities for deeper learning, this often leads to unethical behavior from teachers.  One example of such behavior would be teachers providing students with questions and/or answers prior to a particular standardized assessment.  Recently, teachers and administrators across an entire school district in Atlanta took it a step further, altering student answer sheets in order to boost test scores.

• Overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed on tests, many of our nation's students fall victim to test anxiety and other related problems.  Eager to please parents and teachers, and fearful of being held back, the pressure can be too great for young people.  In addition to mental and physical health issues, this can also lead them to participate in unethical behavior such as cheating, etc.
• Research has shown that many standardized tests are flawed, filled with multiple types of bias and inaccurate questions.  Minority students and students from backgrounds of poverty frequently struggle the format and style of questions included on tests, and often perform poorly.  Regardless of background, many students struggle with questions that seem to have more than one correct answer, or even worse, NO correct answer. 

Yet, despite such issues (and the research), the testing continues...for whatever reason, policymakers continue to hail testing as a great way to measure student achievement.  For whatever reason, those "in charge" fail to recognize the cons that are apparent with respect to standardized testing.  In fact, the United States is virtually the only country in the world that uses standardized testing to such a degree.  Other nations assess student learning and progress using a variety of indicators and, when students are tested, more objective measures are used.  Interestingly enough, despite the lack of focus on testing in other countries, their students tend to perform BETTER on standardized tests than those from our country's public schools!

At some point, the move to improve instruction and student performance in our schools must involve a shift away from standardized testing.  I believe that the time for that shift has come...the time is NOW.  While some tests have recently been eliminated, those choices were made based on economics...not in the best interests of students.  It is time to put the interests of students first.  In a time of data driven decisions, it is time for policymakers to take a hard look at the data and come up with a better plan.  Testing is not a cure-all.  Instead of providing the solution, testing itself has become a part of the problem.  Until change is enacted, I fear that problem will become worse.

Credit Recovery is NOT a Bad Thing

Attention:  All High School Teachers

By now we are all aware of the "official" mission/vision of public education.  In some way, shape, or form it all comes back to "preparing students to be globally competitive in the 21st century."  However, in our efforts to use the latest jargon, or to satisfy state and district officials, I am afraid that a more important mission is at risk of being forgotten.  That mission is as old is public education itelf..."to do what is best for kids."

It is time that everyone recognizes and openly admits that everyone is not cut out to be a global businessperson.  In fact, everyone is not cut out for college.  While a college degree, and the experience that comes with it, can certainly open doors, many young people are better served to capitlize on various individual skills and abilities and enter the workforce immediately after their high school graduation.  Why do I say this?  Aside from the fact that I believe it to be true, I also know that ALL students need a high school diploma.  And, in the push to introduce new initiatives and programs, many students are being left behind.  Rather than being prepared to compete in the real world, many students become frustrated with their educational experience and eventually drop out of school.  Without a basic high school diploma, these individuals are often doomed to a life that may involve poverty, crime and/or many other negative issues.  With the proper resources and safety nets, many of these students can be "saved" and prevented from becoming a statistic.  Some of them may, indeed, go on to college.  However, more of them will graduate from high school and have the opportunity at a better life than they otherwise would have experienced.

One such resource is credit recovery.  Credit recovery allows students who have failed one or more courses the opportunity to recover credits by successfully completing online courses.  Nova Net is one example of such a program.  Until June 30 of this year, Davidson County Schools has used this particular program as a resource to help students recover "lost credits."  Having overseen the entire credit recovery program at Central Davidson High School, I have seen the many merits of such a resource.

As a teacher, I was very opposed to Nova Net.  Like many of my colleagues, I thought that it offered students an "easy way out."  I believed that students could bypass the work and rigor of a course in the traditional classroom setting, jump through a few hoops, and get credit.  In fact, I had even heard several unmotivated students openly admit their intention to do so.  I often shared my frustrations with colleagues, who were equally concerned.  Certainly, I wanted success for all my students.  But, I wanted them to EARN that success.  I wanted them to meet the challenges that I set before them and work hard towards achieving excellence.  Effort was huge in my class and approach to grading.  Effort was always rewarded.  Typically, when true effort was given, that was rewarded with results.  Students comprehended the material and excelled on assessments.  However, in the rare instance that effort was not enough, I always rewarded students with a grade that was reflective of the effort they put forth.  That was my greatest frustration with Nova Net.  I believed, like most teachers, that it provided an easier alternative for students.  I believed that it was a "freebie."

As an administrator, I have been exposed to another perspective.  I have overseen our school's credit recovery program and worked individually with students who were seeking to get back on track.  I have monitored classes and have even taken a Nova Net course myself.  I now realize that this is NOT a bad thing.  I now see the philosophy behind credit recovery.  I know understand that programs such as Nova Net do have merit.  Among the many positives I encourage you to consider are:

• Research and results show that credit recovery programs have a tremendous impact on the graduation rate.  In one such example, the Lockport City School District in New York was able to raise its graduation rate by over 10% in a five year period.  One of its three main approaches to accomplishing this goal was the use of credit recovery.

• This approach has also shown results in North Carolina, as the use of credit recovery has improved graduation and drop out rates in Davidson County and across the state.

• At many schools, such as CDHS, improving the four year cohort graduation rate has become a part of the School Improvement Plan.   Working together, stakeholders can decrease the drop out rate and offer more students the chance for success both during and after high school.  This can have a huge effect on the morale of a school and its stakeholders.
• Students who enroll in credit recovery courses do NOT have an easy way out.  In fact, these students must complete rigorous lessons and assessments that are aligned with state goals and objectives and are designed to help them achieve and/or demonstrate proficiency in a given area or subject.
• By enrolling students in credit recovery, class sizes will decrease.  Given continuing budget and staff cuts, this promises to allow more individual attention and instruction in traditional classrooms.  This is an obvious advantage to both teachers and students.  
• Credit recovery also offers an alternative to those students who experience struggles with traditional instruction, the classroom setting, testing, etc.  By completing online recovery at their own pace, these students have the chance to experience success and graduate with members of their cohort.
• Credit recovery can also be geared to the needs of the individual, addressing specific areas of weakness.  Detailed review can be offered in certain areas, allowing students to better prepare for online assessments, as well as EOC testing when necessary.

Credit recovery has a history of success, in Davidson County and beyond.  As with any program, state and local officials continue to look for ways to improve this particular resource.  Beginning on August 1, 2011, Davidson County will offer its credit recovery through a new vendor and program, E2020.  This program will

be more cost effective, while also offering a more user-friendly, interactive experience for students.  Having been a part of demonstrations and training, I am excited about its potential to help students, and encouraged by the rigor this experience will involve. 

Moving forward, I encourage all teachers to have an open mind about this resource, and its ability to improve the services provided at an individual school.  In the end, programs such as credit recovery will allow the most important mission of education to be accomplished..."doing what is best for kids."

An Amendment to the New Teacher Evaluation Instrument

The State Board of Education recently approved an "amendment" to the new Teacher Evaluation Instrument, adding a sixth standard to an assessment tool that has been in use for only one year..  As reported in the Raleigh News and Observer, teachers and principals will also be evaluated based on the amount of student progress or growth that occurs during a school year.  While I recognize the importance of student growth in measuring a teacher's effectiveness, my opposition to End of Grade and End of Course testing leaves me with mixed emotions when it comes to this decision.

Without question, all students have the right to a well-rounded education.  Students and their parents should expect that classrooms will be filled with effective teachers, regardless of grade, subject, or the level at which a course is being taught.  And, while there are many ways to measure teacher effectiveness, student growth is a great indicator.  Effective teachers are equipped with the passion and know-how to get the most from each student.  Sometimes, that cannot be measured through EOG and EOC proficiency.  For example, consider the following two cases:

1. A teacher has motivated a low performing student to reach, and even exceed, their full potential in a course.  That student has achieved more in this particular course than in any previous grade or class.  Still, when the EOG or EOC test is given, the student fails to score at or above proficient.  When indicators such as EVAAS data are measured, it is obvious that the student achieved tremendous growth during the year.  Should that teacher be judged "ineffective" because the student did not score a Level 3 on their final exam?  I say no.
2. A teacher is fortunate enough to have a class full of gifted, intelligent students who have tremendous academic ability (and also happen to test well).  This particular teacher plans poorly and fails to motivate or inspire their students.  Throughout the span of the course, many of the students lose interest and fail to reach their full potential.  Still, because of their abilities, these students score well on the test.  After examining the data, it is obvious that limited growth occured with these students.  In fact, many of them achieved scores that were below their predicted levels.  Because they were proficient, should that teacher be judged as "effective"?  I say no.

While only examples, these cases reveal the need for better methods to determine teacher effectiveness.  Among other things, this is why I like the new evaluation instrument.  Instead of relying merely on test scores, it takes other factors into account, giving a more well-rounded picture of a teacher and their performance.  Thus, I believe that this new standard has some merit.  However, as I previously indicated, I do have some reservations.  Included among those concerns are:

• Presently, student growth can be measured using indicators such as EVAAS, which compares a student's actual EOG or EOC score to a predicted score (an example is given below).  Given the fact that high school EOCs for Civics, US History, Algebra II, and Physical Science will no longer be given, I am concerned at how student growth will be measured. 

• Although I work at the high school level, I do have concerns with regards to using EOG results to measure student growth and teacher effectiveness at the elementary level.  In particular, those teachers who are preparing 3rd graders for EOG testing have limited previous data from which to work.  These students have taken no prior EOGs, leaving their teachers with less data at their disposal.  I also wonder if and how predictions can be made for student scores.  If no predictions are made, how will growth be measured?
• EOGs or EOCs for any grade or course have many flaws and issues, including cultural bias, inaccurate questions, etc.  It is unfair to connect any flawed instrument with evaluating teacher performance and effectiveness.
• Regardless of the level of a teacher's effectiveness, questions of test security also arise.  Many teachers can "score well" in their area by "teaching to the test" or even by giving students the answers to questions prior to the test. 
• If student growth is measured by "other means", what will those means be, and how reliable will they be? 
• Given recent budget cuts (and anticipated future cuts), can the state afford to develop and implement new means of measuring student growth and teacher effectiveness?

Obviously, I am torn on the issue.  It will be interesting to see if recently dropped EOCs are re-implemented in order to provide more data for measuring student growth.  Either way, I do believe that GROWTH is more important than proficiency.  Undoubtedly, any teacher who is able to show consistent and true growth with students is an effective one.  Anything that we can implement to identify and retain effective teachers should be given a chance.

Technology...

I guess I am finally moving into the 21st century.  As a result of my last graduate class, I am creating a blog, twitter account, etc.  Without a doubt, I am the most "techonologically incompetent" student in this class.  My computer skills are limited to checking emails, playing spider solitaire, and messing with ITunes.  I have never even seen Facebook!  Although this is all very new to me, I am interested to see how I do and how I can use it in my personal and professional life.  We'll see what happens...