Beware High-Stakes Testing

Before I begin, a few disclaimers. I'm not opposed to tests, not even multiple choice tests like the SAT which, for many high schoolers, are extremely high-stakes. National, well-researched tests are important, and the results can be meaningful and ought to inform practice at every level. I'm not opposed to judging schools and teachers--in part--on students' test scores. But test data, like anything else, must be looked at critically before running with it. And that has not happened many times.

Today, the New York Times reported on what should really be called a scandal for the New York Department of Education. Test scores were artificially inflated by making the tests easier to pass. When critics of the Bloomberg/Klein regime pointed this out over a year ago, the Times and the state looked the other way. Repeated claims of rising test scores should have been accompanied by the note that the benchmarks are moving, but instead, credit-claiming was all that we heard. It was obvious that test scores were rising due, at least in part, to manipulations of the test and the scoring, but the mainstream media remained silent.

Every year, test scores in many states rise and rise, but that only reflects manipulation of the tests! A few intelligent folks have pointed this out in the past: Diane Ravitch comes to mind. Here she notes that No Child Left Behind actually hurt student achievement and slowed student progress, particularly for racial minorities.

I'm pleased that the state of New York, at least, has finally realized the disservice they are doing when they advertise that an outrageously high percentage of students are "proficient" when, in truth, many high school students still are unable to read or do basic math. The "Shock Plunge" in test scores is actually not a plunge at all; instead, it's a realization that calling a kid proficient doesn't actually raise numeracy or literacy.

In defense of the state board of regents, they have been warning us for months that this was coming. The raising of proficiency levels for state tests has indeed been a long time coming, but the warning disguises the fact that the proficiency level for years was decreased specifically so that folks like Joel Klein could brag about improving test scores year after year, despite the fact that actual student achievement had remained constant or even decreased. It's dishonest, embarrassing and shameful, and those responsible ought to be held accountable.

from the NYT story:

And the results could cast doubts on the city’s improvements over the past several years; both the mayor and the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have used increases in state test scores as evidence that schools have improved.

“It certainly complicates the Bloomberg administration message, because the state test is completely unreliable,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a researcher with the Fordham Institute, a Washington-based research group.

Just unconscionable. This is why tests should be just one measure of success for students, teachers, and schools. Test scores--clearly so malleable to the point of being almost meaningless--should only be considered as one part of a larger review. If tests are too important, they are likely to be manipulated, and that's exactly what we've seen in New York. The one major takeaway for ed reformers from this story: pay attention! Don't believe everything you here, and hold on to a healthy dose of skepticism.

The Failure of Obama's Education Reform Efforts

President Obama entered office as the great hope of many segments of the population, ranging from racial minorities to political progressives who were hoping for particular policy changes. Teachers and education reform activists were also excited by the ascendancy of Obama, and for good reason: he had detailed, exciting plans to reform public education, and during the campaign he had advisors like Linda Darling-Hammond on staff, leading many to believe that his efforts would encapsulate a certain set of policy prescriptions. Darling-Hammond was in fact a leading candidate for Secretary of Education, the post currently occupied by the controversial Arne Duncan.

Duncan was firmly ensconced in the "reform" camp of candidates, balanced by Darling-Hammond and others on the "pro-union" side. The reformers are folks like Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, people with little teaching experience who believe in reforms like the removal of tenure, mayoral control of schools, expanding charter schools, and test-based accountability for both teachers and schools. The opposition, led by teachers unions and their spokespeople like Randi Weingarten, disagrees with the "reform" banner given to the other camp, because they too believe in reform.

Since Duncan was chosen, he has led the administration's education reform efforts--though some claim that none other than Bill Gates is truly in charge. He has followed in the footsteps of those like Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein in New York City and Rhee in Washington, pushing test-based accountability, closing struggling schools, and other reforms without input from teachers.

The biggest criticism of Obama's efforts thus far has been just that--he has disrespected those on the frontlines of education reform: teachers. The Race to the Top, the largest, most visible piece of a larger reform effort, is entirely top-down, without consultation even from principals and district leaders. It proscribes particular reforms that states should enact in order to become eligible for a huge pot of federal money.

Teachers have voiced significant complaints about RttT and other efforts. In early July, the National Education Association had their national conference in New Orleans. Union President Dennis Van Roekel summed up his feelings and a sentiment apparently shared by many in attendance this way: “Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced." This was one of many pokes and criticisms of Duncan and Obama throughout the conference, which last year warmly welcomed Secretary Duncan.

The NEA conference is far from an isolated incident. Critics of the administration come from every corner, which is to be expected. Unfortunately, one huge camp of critics are essential stakeholders in education reform: teachers. Across the country, teachers have voiced their disapproval loudly and clearly, protesting appearances by Duncan frequently. The teachers have latched onto a few points of criticism, but the substantive claims they have--meritorious or not--are fairly irrelevant.

Whatever reason given by teachers for their bitter opposition to the plans, the mere fact that teachers are opposed is enough to doom Race to the Top and other programs. Qualified, experienced, effective teachers are necessary for any education reform effort to succeed--Duncan and some of his compatriots have repeatedly stated that effective teachers are the most important piece of reform. The disrespect and resulting alienation of the nation's teachers in and of itself is the death knell of Arne Duncan's entire tenure in the Department of Education. Without teachers on your side, very little is possible in the field of education.

To be fair, what could we have expected from Arne Duncan? An old crony of Obama's from Chicago's Hyde park neighborhood, his efforts as Superintendent in that city have proven to be ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. Test-and-punish schemes like No Child Left Behind have been positive only for test-writers, and observers from every side have repeatedly pointed this out. Also, the accountability and stricter licensing guidelines he has proposed would have certainly disqualified Duncan from many of his former positions and certainly his current post. His resume includes highlights like a brief pro basketball career in Australia and the highest degree he has received is a BA from Harvard. Teachers in many states are now required to hold Masters degrees, but the Secretary of Education cant be bothered even to work towards a Masters of Arts degree in Teaching, or public policy, or something else relevant to his very difficult job. This hypocritical stance is particularly damning and has turned many against him; highly-qualified educators are important, and one should be installed at the DoE with all due haste.