Standardized Tests: Pros and Cons

Visiting Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio, Jan. 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signs into law the No Child Left Behind Act. On hand for the signing are Democratic Rep. George Miller of California (far left), Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (center, left), Secretary of Education Rod Paige (center, behind President Bush), Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire (not pictured). White House photo by Paul Morse. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/images/20020108-1_20020108-1-515h.html

In my researching for a couple of entries this week I came across a web site managed by ProCon.org.  As they say on their site their purpose as a nonpartisan, nonprofit website is to present facts, studies, and pro and con statements on controversial issues that matter to citizens of the USA and there potential impact on society.

One of the topics they have researched is Standardized Testing.  As stated in the study they conducted titled ‘Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?‘:

Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states. US students slipped from 18th in the world in math in 2000 to 31st place in 2009, with a similar decline in science and no change in reading. [95] [145] [144] Failures in the education system have been blamed on rising poverty levels, teacher quality, tenure policies, and increasingly on the pervasive use of standardized tests.

Proponents argue that standardized tests are a fair and objective measure of student ability, that they ensure teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers, and that the most relevant constituents – parents and students – approve of testing.

Opponents say the tests are neither fair nor objective, that their use promotes a narrow curriculum and drill-like “teaching to the test,” and that excessive testing undermines America’s ability to produce innovators and critical thinkers.

Here is the table of 22 points they put forward in that web reported study designed to explore both sides of the issue:

Pro & Con Arguments: “Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?”

PRO Standardized Tests 93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a “positive effect” on student achievement, according to a peer-reviewed, 100-year analysis of testing research completed in 2011 by testing scholar Richard P. Phelps. [138] Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Without them, policy makers would have to rely on tests scored by individual schools and teachers who have a vested interest in producing favorable results. Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias. [55] 20 school systems that “have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains” on national and international assessments used “proficiency targets for each school” and “frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress,” according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm. [146] Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. Former Washington, DC, schools chancellor Michelle Rhee argues that using alternate tests for minorities or exempting children with disabilities would be unfair to those students: “You can’t separate them, and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it. This is a civil rights issue.” [103] China has a long tradition of standardized testing and leads the world in educational achievement. China displaced Finland as number one in reading, math, and science when Shanghai debuted on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in 2009. [150] Despite calls for a reduction in standardized testing, China’s testing regimen remains firmly in place. [139] Chester E. Finn, Jr., Chairman of the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, predicts that Chinese cities will top the PISA charts for the next several decades. [150] “Teaching to the test” can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don’t produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel. [18] The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that “if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested–and probably much more.” [19] Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives, teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement. [116] Increased testing does not force teachers to encourage “drill n’ kill” rote learning. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives, good teachers understand that “isolated drills on the types of items expected on the test” are unacceptable, and principals interviewed said “they would sanction any teacher caught teaching to the test.” [116] In any case, research has shown that drilling students does not produce test score gains: “teaching a curriculum aligned to state standards and using test data as feedback produces higher test scores than an instructional emphasis on memorization and test-taking skills.” [18] Most parents approve of standardized tests. A June-July 2013 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 75% of parents say standardized tests “are a solid measure of their children’s abilities” and 69% say the tests “are a good measure of the schools’ quality.” 93% of parents say standardized tests “should be used to identify areas where students need extra help” and 61% say their children “take an appropriate number of standardized tests.” [2] Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: “Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned.” [19] A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that “the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs.” [5] Young students vomit at their desks for a variety of reasons, but only in rare cases is this the result of testing anxiety. [6] Most students believe standardized tests are fair. A June 2006 Public Agenda survey of 1,342 public school students in grades 6-12 found that 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is “about right” and 79% believe test questions are fair. [22] The 2002 edition of the survey found that “virtually all students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously.” [108] Most teachers acknowledge the importance of standardized tests and do not feel their teaching has been compromised. In a 2009 Scholastic/Gates Foundation survey, 81% of US public school teachers said state-required standardized tests were at least “somewhat important” as a measure of students’ academic achievement, and 27% said they were “very important ” or “absolutely essential.” [111] 73% of teachers surveyed in a Mar. 2002 Public Agenda study said they “have not neglected regular teaching duties for test preparation.” [108] Standardized tests provide a lot of useful information at low cost, and consume little class time. [134] According to a 2002 paper by Caroline M. Hoxby, PhD, the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor in Economics at Stanford University, standardized tests cost less than 0.1% of K-12 education spending, totaling $5.81 per student per year: “Even if payments were 10 times as large, they would still not be equal to 1 percent of what American jurisdictions spend on education.” [135] Other cost estimates range from $15-$33 per student per year by the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office (GAO), to as low as $2 per student per year by testing scholar and economist Richard P. Phelps. [55] A 50-item standardized test can be given in an hour [134] and is graded instantaneously by computer. Most teachers and administrators approve of standardized tests. Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests “by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,” saying they “improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.” [116] An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA‘s Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools. [152] The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests produces accurate information necessary to assess and improve American schools. According to the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, multiple-choice questions can provide “highly reliable test scores” and an “objective measurement of student achievement.” [131] Today’s multiple-choice tests are more sophisticated than their predecessors. The Center for Public Education, a national public school advocacy group, says many “multiple-choice tests now require considerable thought, even notes and calculations, before choosing a bubble.” [39] Stricter standards and increased testing are better preparing school students for college. In Jan. 1998, Public Agenda found that 66% of college professors said “elementary and high schools expect students to learn too little.” By Mar. 2002, after a surge in testing and the passing of NCLB, that figure dropped to 47% “in direct support of higher expectations, strengthened standards and better tests.” [34] [108] Teacher-graded assessments are inadequate alternatives to standardized tests because they are subjectively scored and unreliable. Most teachers are not trained in testing and measurement, and research has shown many teachers “consider noncognitive outcomes, including student class participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment,” which are irrelevant to subject-matter mastery. [105] Cheating by teachers and administrators on standardized tests is rare, and not a reason to stop testing America’s children. The Mar. 2011 USA Today investigation of scoring anomalies was inconclusive, and found compelling suggestions of impropriety in only one school. [118] It is likely that some cheating occurs, but some people cheat on their tax returns also, and the solution is not to abolish taxation. [152] Each state’s progress on NCLB tests can be meaningfully compared. Even though tests are developed by states independently, state scores are compared with results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ensuring each state’s assessments are equally challenging and that gains in a state’s test scores are valid. [57] State-mandated standardized tests help prevent “social promotion,” the practice of allowing students to advance from grade to grade whether or not they have met the academic standards of their grade level. [136] A Dec. 2004 paper by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research found Florida’s 2002 initiative to end social promotion, holding back students who failed year-end standardized tests, improved those students’ scores by 9% in math and 4% in reading after one year. [137] Many objections voiced by the anti-testing movement are really objections to NCLB’s use of test results, not to standardized tests themselves. Prominent testing critic Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University, concedes standardized testing has value: “Testing… is not the problem… information derived from tests can be extremely valuable, if the tests are valid and reliable.” She cites the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a positive example, and says tests can “inform educational leaders and policy-makers about the progress of the education system as a whole.” [1] Physicians, lawyers, real-estate brokers and pilots all take high-stakes standardized tests to ensure they have the necessary knowledge for their professions. [23] If standardized tests were an unreliable source of data, their use would not be so widespread.

CON Standardized Tests Standardized testing has not improved student achievement. After No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading. [95] [145] [144] A May 26, 2011, National Research Council report found no evidence test-based incentive programs are working: “Despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education.” [154] Standardized tests are an unreliable measure of student performance. A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and “caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning…” [107] Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non English speakers and students with special needs. [106] English language learners take tests in English before they have mastered the language. [101] Special education students take the same tests as other children, receiving few of the accommodations usually provided to them as part of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP). [102] Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. According to late education researcher Gerald W. Bracey, PhD, qualities that standardized tests cannot measure include “creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity.” [147] “Teaching to the test” is replacing good teaching practices with “drill n’ kill” rote learning. A five-year University of Maryland study completed in 2007 found “the pressure teachers were feeling to ‘teach to the test'” since NCLB was leading to “declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum.” [11] [12] NCLB tests are drastically narrowing the curriculum. A national 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math. [1] A 2007 survey of 1,250 civics, government, and social studies teachers showed that 75% of those teaching current events less often cited standardized tests as the reason. [16] Instruction time is being consumed by monotonous test preparation. Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year’s instruction to test prep. [Kozol] After New York City’s reading and math scores plunged in 2010, many schools imposed extra measures to avoid being shut down, including daily two and a half hour prep sessions and test practice on vacation days. [14] On Sep. 11, 2002, students at Monterey High School in Lubbock, TX, were prevented from discussing the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks because they were too busy with standardized test preparation. [15] Standardized tests are not objective. A paper published in the Fall 2002 edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Resources stated that scores vary due to subjective decisions made during test design and administration: “Simply changing the relative weight of algebra and geometry in NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress) altered the gap between black and white students.” [130] Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound “illustrating how testing… produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both.” [7] On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that “test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it.” [8] Older students do not take NCLB-mandated standardized tests seriously because they do not affect their grades. An English teacher at New Mexico’s Valley High School said in Aug. 2004 that many juniors just “had fun” with the tests, making patterns when filling in the answer bubbles: “Christmas tree designs were popular. So were battleships and hearts.” [132] Testing is expensive and costs have increased since NCLB, placing a burden on state education budgets. According to the Texas Education Agency, the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year. [94] The billion dollar testing industry is notorious for making costly and time-consuming scoring errors. [99] [42] NCS Pearson, which has a $254 million contract to administer Florida’s Comprehensive Assessment Test, delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state’s superintendents. [100] After errors and distribution problems in 2004-2005, Hawaii replaced test publisher Harcourt with American Institutes for Research, but the latter had to re-grade 98,000 tests after students received scores for submitting blank test booklets. [99] [42] The multiple-choice format used on standardized tests is an inadequate assessment tool. It encourages a simplistic way of thinking in which there are only right and wrong answers, which doesn’t apply in real-world situations. The format is also biased toward male students, who studies have shown adapt more easily to the game-like point scoring of multiple-choice questions. [77] America is facing a “creativity crisis,” as standardized testing and rote learning “dumb down” curricula and jeopardize the country’s economic future. A 2010 College of William & Mary study found Americans’ scores on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking have been dropping since 1990, and researcher Kyung-Hee Kim lays part of the blame on the increase in standardized testing: “If we neglect creative students in school because of the structure and the testing movement… then they become underachievers.” [133] Finland topped the international education (PISA) rankings from 2001-2008, yet has “no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools,” according to Stanford University researchers Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura McCloskey. [148] Success has been achieved using “assessments that encourage students to be active learners who can find, analyze, and use information to solve problems in novel situations.” Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. [140] China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, “Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy.” [139] China is trying to depart from the “drill and kill” test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only “competent mediocrity.” [112] [113] [1] Using test scores to reward and punish teachers and schools encourages them to cheat the system for their own gain. [117] A 2011 USA Today investigation of six states and Washington DC found 1,610 suspicious anomalies in year-over-year test score gains. [26] Standardized tests are an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, over 17% of Houston teachers ranked in the top category on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills reading test were ranked among the two lowest categories on the equivalent Stanford Achievement Test. The results “were based on the same students, tested in the same subject, at approximately the same time of year, using two different tests.” [30] Each state develops its own NCLB standards and assessments, providing no basis for meaningful comparison. A student sitting for the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is asked a completely different set of questions from a child in California taking the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test, and while the former includes essay questions, the latter is entirely multiple-choice. [120] Open-ended questions on standardized tests are often graded by under-paid temporary workers with no educational training. Scorers make $11-$13 per hour and need only a bachelor’s degree, not necessarily related to education. As one former test scorer stated, “all it takes to become a test scorer is a bachelor’s degree, a lack of a steady job, and a willingness to throw independent thinking out the window…” [97] Schools feeling the pressure of NCLB’s 100% proficiency requirement are “gaming the system” to raise test scores, according to an Arizona State University report in the June 22, 2009, edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership. [141] Low-performing students are “encouraged to stay home” on test days or “counseled to quit or be suspended” before tests are administered. State education boards are “lowering the bar”: manipulating exam content or scoring so that tests are easier for students to pass. [141] An obsession with testing robs children of their childhoods. NCLB’s mandate begins in third grade, but schools test younger students so they will get used to taking tests. [13] Mar. 2009 research from the Alliance for Childhood showed “time for play in most public kindergartens has dwindled to the vanishing point, replaced by lengthy lessons and standardized testing.” [21] A three-year study completed in Oct. 2010 by the Gesell Institute of Human Development showed that increased emphasis on testing is making “children feel like failures now as early as PreK…” [20]

SAT (Should I Attempt Twice)

Denver Post cartoon satirizing the effect of standardized tests on public education.
Source: Mike Keefe, Denver Post, 2002

Keeping with yesterdays dialogue about the SAT/ACT I thought I’d share a little known fact about the SAT.  It came into question recently with one of our clients whose daughter wants to get into an Ivy League school and she didn’t (actually her parents) feel her scores were high enough on her first attempt at the SAT.

We recommended to the family that 24 hours of tutoring would be needed to get some decent increase but we also said it would not get her the increase they desired since it is actually hard to increase the SAT by more than 40 points.  The family decided that 12 hours would be enough and the daughter would take the SAT in 6 weeks.  The daughter did the tutoring and everything the tutor asked as far as homework and extra study.  She was a model student but her results came back and she went down on two of the three parts of the SAT.  The family was stunned.  In talking with the mother I mentioned that it is not unusual for a SAT score to go down on the second attempt.  She got very irritated with me on that and just couldn’t believe it.

I know it does sound a bit odd but it is a well documented fact and even the SAT’s owner, The College Board has researched the phenomena and report it in ‘Retaking the SAT‘.  There is also a story of a validation by the The Providence Journal’s ‘Truth-O-Meter’ of a comment by Rhode Island Representative on a radio interview on March 19th, 2013 focused on Common Core and Standardized testing that “Do you know that, statistically, when you take the SAT a second time, one-third of the people that take the SAT, even if they’ve been studying, will get a lower score than they did the first time around?”  The ‘Truth-O-Meter’ gave the comment a 100% true approval following some very good investigations and email with a College Board representative.

As stated by the SAT report titled ‘Retaking the SAT‘ I viewed today:

Score changes when students test again

Here are some general points about score change that may help you advise your students.

• 55 percent of juniors taking the test improved their scores as seniors.
• 35 percent had score drops.
• 10 percent had no change.
• The higher a student’s scores as a junior, the more likely that student’s subsequent scores will drop.
• The lower the initial scores, the more likely the scores will go up.
• On average, juniors repeating the SAT as seniors improved their combined critical reading, mathematics, and writing scores by approximately 40 points.
• About 1 in 25 gained 100 or more points on critical reading or mathematics, and about 1 in 90 lost 100 or more points.

Our client has four hours of tutoring left and she has already signed her daughter up for the SAT again in 4 weeks time….oh the horror.

…and just why would a Rhode Island Representative be interested in the SAT?  It seems that some of the State’s education leaders want the an assessment similar to the SAT called the NECAP to be used to support student academic proficiency to graduate high school. His point is relevant to the debate because as stated in the story “NECAP supporters point out that students who don’t do well on the test must take it again and show improvement to qualify for graduation.”  60% of the adults who take the math portion of the test fail.

College Applicants Sweat The SAT’s… Perhaps They Shouldn’t?

We are a tutoring business and do getting numerous calls for help from parents to assist their child on the college entrance aptitude tests widely used in the USA known as the SAT and ACT.  This is a great revenue generator for us and for many organizations such as The College Board, ACT, Inc., Sylvan, and Huntington.  Despite this business opportunity I am NOT a fan of these “standardized” tests, the costs to take them, and the stigmas they give to students (and parents).  As a student in the late 70’s and 80’s I weaved my way through the system avoiding both of these assessments and successfully earned a Master’s degree.  Yes, I even got around the Graduate Entrance exams..Of course I was always a bit defiant and anti-establishment.

While it is easy to criticize these widely used, time proven and highly accepted aptitude tests the scientific proof to support my dislike has been scarce.  Then today while listening to my local NPR station a report came on of a study focused on the reliability of the SAT to predict college success.  The results described in the story titled ‘College Applicants Sweat The SAT’s… Perhaps They Shouldn’t‘ show that the SAT does little better than good high school grades in predicting a students college success.  As stated by William Hiss, Bates College former dean of admissions in the NPR story “This study will be a first step in examining what happens when you admit tens of thousands of students without looking at their SAT scores. And the answer is, if they have good high school grades, they are almost certainly going to be fine.”

Don’t be fooled, the ACT and SAT are gigantic revenue generators.  According to Guidestar in 2011 the College Board (owner of SAT) generated over $759 Million in revenue and ACT, Inc. $293 Million.  Together that is over a Billion dollars!  Of course they both have “Not-For Profit” status. As one commentator to the NPR story said ‘There’s nothing wrong with testing as an objective proof of what one has learned. But an “aptitude test” as a “predictive indicator” of future success seems to be nothing more than a money-making industry unto itself. People aren’t “standardized,” so why in the name of sanity should testing be? Everyone had different strengths, weaknesses, understandings, and learning styles.’  Seems to bring into question the standardized testing the Federal government is trying to unjustly mandate States buying into the ‘Race to the Top’ institute for their K-12 students as a select few are made richer via the continuing ‘No Dollar Left Behind’ policy.

To me, as a parent it says I need to help my child do good throughout their school years and build a portfolio of success over time rather than focusing on developing an expertise at taking standardized tests.  Perhaps she’ll take the tests when the time comes, but I’m sure not going to put any undue pressure on her to do well or take them multiple times to increase her score.  Hopefully she is like me and decides she’ll do just fine without ever taking these unnecessary instruments of educational torture.

Sunday Morning Shout Out

“Common sense says we educate to help learners make better sense of experience—themselves, others, the world…”    Marion Brady Teacher, Educator and Author

 

This past week, NYS Education Commissioner John King, Jr. and NYS Regent Bob Bennett were at WNED studios in Buffalo for a forum on the Common Core Standards and other related educational concerns. The Common Core Standards continue to be a source of controversy, confusion, and uncertainty for many parents.  While I applaud  a philosophy that, at least theoretically, supports critical thinking; makes standards more universally strong for all students; and challenges students to analyze, process, and integrate  information instead of regurgitating it for tests, I  have some real world concerns.

Image Source: http://news.wbfo.org/term/educational-forum

As a parent of three small children, two of whom are school aged, and as a licensed social worker with a background in educational advocacy, I am most concerned with how Common Core seems to pigeon holes all students  as doing their best learning via text (visual learning);  through an auditory format of lecture and response; and through mathematical reasoning?  What about students who learn best through movement (kinesthectic  learners); through social learning; or through solitary learning? What about students who thrive with hands on learning or project based learning? Is there room or time for these styles in the core curriculum?  What about students who struggles in reading or mathematics, are they getting the help they need to pass these standards?  This maybe a universal curriculum in New York State, but each district does not have universal resources  to assist students who struggle in these areas.  What about students  who speak English as a second language?  What about students with disabilities? Is it fair that they are expected to perform at the same level as their peers, when they already come in with deficits?

With teachers  seemingly having less than stellar time to implement common core modules in their classroom; with curriculums that were implemented before they were thoroughly examined and developed; with the added additional issue of New York State attaching teacher evaluations to test scores in their classrooms, is this education at its finest?  I definitely feel like our children are more guinea pigs than anything else.  All too often the Washington experimental policies and ‘flavor of the President’ (i.e., Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind) do more damage to our children than good.  In his editorial “The Biggest Weaknesses of the Common Core Standards“, Marion Brady examines some of these issues.

The quote I started with, is the question I leave you with to ponder.  Does the Common Core Standards help students make better sense of themselves; their experiences; others; and the world?  My response is maybe some. But some doesn’t cut it for me when it is being applied as a universal application….

Sunday Morning Shout Out

Image Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2013/0812/1912-eighth-grade-exam-Could-you-make-it-to-high-school-in-1912/Arithmetic

The television show “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader” is temporarily being replaced by a new show “Could You Get to High School in 1912?”  The Christian Science Monitor website recently featured an article that allowed its readers to take part of a high school entry exam for one Kentucky county in 1912.  Called the “Common Exam”, it was noted as a big deal.  Perhaps it sheds a little light on today’s Common Core Standards.  But as I write this, I am remembering that this was a high school entrance exam.  Some of my fourth grader’s math assignments do not look extremely  different in comparison.  Would you make it to high school in 1912?  In the article, your grade is tabulated as you go.  Let me know your thoughts and if willing your grade!  It will be fun to see who is off to 9^th grade.

Adding Another Race When We Are Barely Started With The First?

Image Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2012/03/26/11220/race-to-the-top-what-have-we-learned-from-the-states-so-far/

So by now most of us have heard of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his call for three new educational initiatives. As taken from a transcript of the speech these initiatives are:

1. “Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America”
2. “Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy”
3. “Tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid.”

So where does that leave ‘The Race to the Top’, or RTT, initiative and fund of the Obama administration?  This $4.35 billion competitive grant program aimed to kick-start many key education reforms in states and districts. It was also intended to create the conditions for greater educational innovation. “America will not succeed in the 21st century unless we do a far better job of educating our sons and daughters,” President Barack Obama said when he first announced the program in July 2009. “The race starts today.”

As described by the Center for American Progress Race to the Top promises to help states and districts close achievement gaps and get more students into college by supporting key reform strategies including:

• Adopting more rigorous standards and assessments
• Recruiting, evaluating, and retaining highly effective teachers and principals
• Turning around low-performing schools
• Building data systems that measure student success

States that applied for the grant also had to show momentum around collaboration and reform as well as promise to work in key innovation areas, including expanding support for high-performing charter schools and reinvigorating math and science education.

Since the challenge was put forward forty states and the District of Columbia applied for funding, and the U.S. Department of Education announced the winners of Phase 1—Delaware and Tennessee—in March 2010. Phase 2 winners were named in August 2010, and they included the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. (Note: Another seven states received RTT Phase 3 grants in December 2011.

So in the 3.5 years of the ‘Race’ being initiated what impact has it had on our 1000 student school district in NY since it was awarded to the state about 2.5 years ago? The answer would be that while much has changed the impact of these changes on student ability, student college and career readiness, measuring student success and teacher competence are still just starting to take root.  It will take years for these changes to become part of the cultural and social fabric of our academic institution. It will also take almost as long for empirical measures to assess the impact.

While I don’t disagree with the Presidents ideas and desire to move our education system forward I do disagree with adding more federal involvement in education.  Dangling more sticks with carrots hanging on them to promote more change without completing the initial set of changes is only asking for trouble and chaos at the school district level. Pre-K is funny here in NYS because right now Kindergarten is NOT a required level of education and Pre-K is viewed the same. Pre-K is something we do as a school district because we get a state grant of $200K to offer it. That is great, but the program actually costs $250K. So in these tough economic times the elimination of Pre-K from the budget for next school year is a very real possibility.

As bad as NYS is on keeping promises to fund initiatives we know that the Federal government is worse. Letting the Federal Government dictate education and education standards is not in the best interest of students especially if they continue to create these ‘Presidential races and initiatives that are never given the chance to succeed. Infact, estimates are that the standardized state tests that will be given this year will have 60% higher failure rates then last year. How are our children going to feel about that?