Archive for the ‘Assessment’ Category

From Shakespeare to Steinbeck, Literature is Losing Value in School

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

“Hamlet” or “ELA Test Prep 101”?  Today’s teachers often have to decide whether they will teach works of literature or test prep materials. Increasingly, test prep is winning.

Claire Needell Hollander is a middle school reading enrichment teacher in New York City.  Of Mice and Men,  Sounder, The Red Pony, “A Raisin in the Sun,” Lord of the Flies, The Catcher in the Rye, “Romeo and Juliet” and “Macbeth” are just a few of the classic works of literature she has taught her classes in recent years.  As a result of their exposure to these important books, Hollander’s students have experienced significant educational transformations.  For example, she describes witnessing one student’s “historical perspective broadening” and “sense of his own country deepening” as he read “The Grapes of Wrath”.  Additionally, Hollander writes that “year after year, ex-students have visited and told me how prepared they felt in their freshman year as a result of the classes.”  And yet, Hollander has a big problem: in today’s data driven assessment culture, how do you measure this kind of impact?

In her opinion piece Teach the Books, Touch the Heart for the New York Times, Hollander describes her struggle to preserve the use of classic literature in her classes due to increasing pressure from administrators to prove their effectiveness on raising student test scores.  She writes,

 As student test scores have become the dominant means of evaluating schools, I have been asked to calculate my reading enrichment program’s impact on those scores. I found that some students made gains of over 100 points on the statewide English Language Arts test, while other students in the same group had flat or negative results. In other words, my students’ test scores did not reliably indicate that reading classic literature added value.

As a result of this finding, Hollander had to cut two of the three classes to which she teaches classic literature, replacing them instead with a “test-preparation tutorial program.”  Now, only the highest-scoring students are allowed to keep taking her enrichment class and are the only ones in the school being exposed to high-quality texts with depth and substance.   The rest of the students are given “watered-down news articles or biographies, bastardized novels, memos or brochures — passages chosen not for emotional punch but for textual complexity.”

This scenario is illustrative of one of the most outrageous and deeply unfortunate consequences of the data-driven accountability movement that has consumed our education system in the past decade.  It has become increasingly common for mediocre, contrived test-prep materials to be seen as preferable to the works of Shakespeare and Steinbeck because such works are more efficient vehicles for teaching to state tests.  This is not only absurd, it is unnecessary, and is likely doing more harm than good.  At Common Core, we encourage all policymakers, educational leaders, and teachers to evade this regrettable outcome and fight to preserve literature’s purpose and place in schools.

Emily Dodd

Not even 10 minutes for Social Studies

Monday, November 28th, 2011

You can’t even make this stuff up.  The Dallas Morning News reports that teachers at Field Elementary School in Dallas have been fabricating social studies, science, music, art, and physical education grades for students. Was it because students were doing poorly in those subjects?  No.  It was because Field’s principal simply would not allow teachers to teach those subjects.

According to Field teachers they had to give students phony grades because the principal required them to spend all of their instructional time on math and reading.  A third grade science and math teacher told investigators his request to teach science for 10 minutes twice a week and social studies for 10 minutes once a week was denied.  Field’s principal told the teacher that students would “pick up” science knowledge though math lessons on creating and interpreting graphs.  According to a school counselor:  “I do not know of science being taught in 3rd or 4th grade, and I am unaware of social studies being taught at all.”

Many Field Elementary students also missed out on art, physical education, and music classes because they were pulled out of these “specials” for extra tutoring in math and reading.  A music teacher reported giving students all a grade of 95 because after the first six weeks of school she “never got to see them in music again.”  In one affidavit a math instructional coach reported “90 percent of third graders did not attend specials because of TAKS [Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills] tutoring.”

Field has earned the state’s highest school rating–“exemplary”—the last two years.  That judgment is based significantly on students’ performance on state reading and math tests, of course.

So, is what happened at Field a singular, potentially criminally extreme example of educational negligence?  Perhaps.  But the pressure that spurred Field’s principal is felt by public educators nationwide.  And this is far from the first time we’ve seen folks buckle under that pressure and do the wrong thing.  We’re reminded of the well-documented cheating scandals in DC and Atlanta.

Pressure can be an effective source of motivation.  It can also be used as an excuse to do the wrong thing—and to get others to go along.  As we begin to implement the CCSS and the new assessments to come we need to keep these stories in mind.  With its emphasis on informational text, academic vocabulary, and research, the CCSS in ELA provides an opportunity to fight curriculum narrowing, not an excuse to give in to it.  Social studies, science, and the arts are among a wide array of core subjects that can be taught in powerful ways via the new standards.  They should also continue to be taught in their own right, in part because no student will become a strong reader, writer, or researcher without the key knowledge those subjects impart.  No one should make the mistake Field did—and many other schools are likely doing in less dramatic ways–and set these subjects aside.

Lynne Munson

The “Continuous Narrowing” of ESEA

Monday, October 17th, 2011

In September 2009, when reauthorization of ESEA seemed imminent, Secretary Duncan said, “Let us build a law that discourages a narrowing of curriculum and promotes a well-rounded education that draws children into sciences and history, languages and the arts in order to build a society distinguished by both intellectual and economic prowess.”

Now, more than two years later, Sen. Harkin has released a draft ESEA reauthorization proposal. And, in spite of the Department’s significant influence, the draft bill’s support of the “well-rounded education” Duncan touted is, well, almost undetectable.

The document is 860 pages long. Student achievement in “Core Academic Subjects” is referenced a dozen times, but specifics never arise. This tome contains no mentions of chemistry, physics, or biology, for example. Music gets four mentions; art only one. And history and civics just two. How are we going to improve education if no one is willing to talk about the substance of what is being taught?

Meanwhile, the shape, method, and approach to accountability measures continue to be tweaked, tuned, and obsessed over. The big news the draft contains is a reinvention of the current accountability system, scrapping AYP’s strict performance targets in favor of a measure of “continuous improvement” for all students and for particular subgroups.

But “continuous improvement” will do nothing to address ESEA’s intense focus on math and reading at the expense of the rest of the liberal arts. Although the bill would shift testing requirements to include measures for student growth, required tests would continue to measure student achievement in only math, reading and science. And the science test would remain inconsequential to “continuous improvement.” Why not widen the lens of the “continuous improvement” measure to include other subjects? It is an idea that would present many challenges and face many obstacles, but it is at least worth discussing.

Writing about the unintended consequences of NCLB, Diane Ravitch and Checker Finn predicted, “Rich kids will study philosophy and art, music and history, while their poor peers will fill in bubbles on test sheets. The lucky few will spawn the next generation of tycoons, political leaders, inventors, authors, artists and entrepreneurs. The less lucky masses will see narrower opportunities.”

We know that is happening already. And if anything resembling Harkin’s draft becomes law, the problem will only get worse.

Lynne Munson

Teachers and Reform

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011

As students across the nation head back to school, their teachers have a bigger than usual lift ahead. They bear the brunt of many recent education reforms: from new standards and assessments to changes in teacher evaluation. Yesterday, we listened to none other than AFT’s Randi Weingarten and AEI’s Rick Hess discuss “When Reform Touches Teachers.” It’s an issue that we, as an organization focused on what gets taught, consider often.

Not shocking to find that Weingarten, a union leader, and Hess, a right-leaning education thinker, find little common ground on the macro issues, such as the role of unions like the AFT. But encouraging to hear them agree on one important issue: Both Weingarten and Hess believe teachers must be deeply involved in decisions about teaching and pedagogy.

As Weingarten puts it: “What are the tools and conditions teachers need to do their jobs?”

With this in mind, we recently surveyed teachers across the country to learn how policies have impacted their classrooms. We asked teachers on the front lines of reform to provide detailed reporting on what they see happening in their classrooms and schools. How are they spending class time? How does state testing affect what they do? Which subjects get more attention and which get less?

The answers augment what was previously only anecdotal evidence: Teachers—for both better and worse—are experiencing a policy-driven shift in how and what they teach.

Look for a full report on our findings, coming this Fall.

Stephanie Porowski

 

NAEP Results: Flat Again

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Yesterday, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released the Nation’s Report Card: Geography 2010, the last of the social studies “triumvirate.” We’ve blogged on the others (history and civics). And, unfortunately, we’re bound to repeat past analysis: Scores are flat, again.

Only a quarter of students performed at the Proficient level on the assessment. And only a small percentage — 2 percent of 4th graders, 3% of 8thgraders, and 1% of 12th graders — achieved an Advanced designation. The math is simple: Most students are scoring at Basic or below, an “F” as we see it.

NAEP tests students’ knowledge of space and place, environment and society, and spatial dynamics and connections. As David Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board said, “Geography … is a rich and varied discipline that, now more than ever, is vital to understanding the connections between our global economy, environment and diverse cultures.” Students require more than the cursory knowledge of geography present in most curricula to understand history and civics in context.

Can we expect future improvement? Our guess is no — not as, in the words of a Penn State geography professor, “geography’s role in the curriculum [remains] limited and, at best, static.”

Update: While scores have remained flat overall, poor and minority kids have made gains on NAEP. Fordham’s, Mike Petrilli has an interesting take on the gains, and their cost, here.

Stephanie Porowski

“Ready” for College, But Not College Credit

Monday, June 6th, 2011

There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether or not colleges really prepare students for jobs. According to some, in our push to make college more democratic, we’ve set large numbers of students up for failure. A lot of good work is going into holding colleges accountable for students’ abysmal graduation rates. But it’s hard not to place the blame further down the chain―in the hands of the high schools who “prepared” those students for college in the first place.

Only 24 percent of ACT-tested high school graduates were deemed college ready in all four subjects tested — English, math, reading and science. As college becomes an expectation for all students, they hurt from poor preparation. In 2007-2008 an estimated 42 percent of first-year undergraduate students in two-year colleges took at least one remedial course. (Remedial courses are non-credit bearing “courses in reading, writing or mathematics for college-level students lacking those skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required by the institution”, according to NCES.)

New standards and planned assessments attempt to raise the bar for students. And the developers of these assessments and standards  have engaged higher education intentionally in the process. But better standards and assessments aren’t enough; many high school courses lack college-preparatory content. Honors, and even AP, courses are too-often advanced in name only, and succeeding in “college prep” courses does not guarantee real college preparation. A study by ACT found that even students taking the recommended college-prep curriculum were insufficiently prepared for college-level work. Incredibly, according to one report, most students taking remedial college courses graduated high school with GPA’s over 3.0.

A community college chancellor told the Chicago Sun-Times: “A lot of them don’t even know that they’re going to get tested. They have the high school diploma, they come in and, rightfully so, because nobody told them, they thought they were just going to go into college credit.”

Students who take remedial courses are significantly less likely to graduate college. As we advocate “college for all,” there’s a pressing need to better-align the content of our high school courses with the demands of college.

Stephanie Porowski

 

New York’s Budget Mistake

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

According to Gothamist, “Next week New York students may take Regents exams in Spanish, French, and Italian for the last time.” The state’s foreign language Regents exams are the latest victims of state budget cuts. And, saving the state only $700,000,  one of the more regrettable.

Currently, students in New York must demonstrate proficiency in a foreign language in order to graduate with a “Regents diploma with advanced designation.” Without the state’s foreign language exams, students will still be evaluated for proficiency―but the “how” is left up to districts.

Meaning already cash-strapped districts will be required to create their own tests. And somehow the state will need to find money to ensure districts are testing.

Nationally, only one in five students takes a foreign language. But New York, with nearly 800,000 students taking a foreign language, is only behind Texas and California in foreign language study. Granted, population drives this ranking, but New York is inarguably language-rich: Its “Empire City” is home to an estimated 800 languages.

Not only do the Regents exams in foreign language bow to this diversity of culture, they also support schools preparing students to contribute thoughtfully to a  global world.

Plain speak: Dropping exams in Spanish, French and Italian to save less than a million dollars is a mistake.

Stephanie Porowski

Real Literacy, and How to Assess It

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

Today, we’re looking back to an important little piece on literacy and assessment by E.D. Hirsch and Robert Pondisco. With the current controversy over common standards and assessments, it’s worth a read. From the article:

“Schools and teachers may indeed be making a Herculean effort to raise reading scores, but these efforts do little to improve reading achievement and to prepare children for college, a career, and a lifetime of productive, engaged citizenship. This wasted effort is not because our teachers are lazy or of low quality. Rather, too many of our schools labor under fundamental misconceptions about reading comprehension — how it works, how to improve it, and how to test it. …

“Think of reading as a two-lock box, requiring two keys to open. The first key is decoding skills. The second key is oral language, vocabulary, and domain — specific or background knowledge sufficient to understand what is being decoded. Even this simple understanding of reading enables us to see that the very idea of an abstract skill called ‘reading comprehension’ is ill-informed. Yet most U.S. schools teach reading as if both decoding and comprehension are transferable skills. Worse, we test our children’s reading ability without regard to whether we have given them the requisite background knowledge they need to be successful.”

Is “Basic” Good Enough?

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

Yesterday, NAEP released the results on its civics exam (see our chart below). Of the grades tested, only fourth graders showed gains―and those gains were minimal―in the last decade. Across the grades, a minority of students tested “at or above” proficient.

NAEP defines “basic”—where about 75% of students fell on this test―as “partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge.”  With a glance at cut scores, though, a basic score falls somewhere staggeringly short of expectations. At Grade 4, a score of 136/300 clocks in at basic. That’s a 46% percent―a solid F, if your school uses the letter grading system―on any other test. By the same measure, “proficient,” or “solid academic performance,” is cut at 59%―still an “F.” Grades 8 and 12 have similar expectations. Of course, NAEP scores aren’t designed to be reported this way, but we think it is good to be reminded from time to time of the low level of performance that terms like “basic” and “proficient” actually represent.

The NAEP test is a good one.  It tests the “knowledge, intellectual and participatory skills, and civic dispositions” of American students―through questions addressing five important components:*

  • What is civic life, politics and government?
  • What are the foundations of the American political system?
  • How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and principles of American democracy?
  • What is the relationship of the United States to other nations and to world affairs?
  • What are the roles of citizens in American democracy?

These are key questions. Who doubts that our students need to be able to earn more than a failing grade in their understanding of the underpinnings of our government and their responsibilities as citizens?

Not surprisingly, students whose teachers report emphasizing civics knowledge scored higher on the exam. Yet, apart from NAEP, few states test civic understanding. And, in a time of budget worries, states like Maryland consider these tests easy cuts. With little incentive to teach social studies under NCLB’s current testing requirements, the subject continues to lose ground to the tested subjects (English and math). In their recommendations for ESEA reauthorization, the folks at Fordham suggest mandated testing beyond English and math. An interesting, if potentially controversial, idea.

Better standards, assessments, curricula, teacher preparation―something needs to change if students are to report more than a basic knowledge of their government.

Stephanie Porowski

*If you’re curious, The Answer Sheet has a great run-down of the knowledge and skills tested by the exam, as well as some sample questions.

 

Art Works?

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

The latest data from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) show arts programs in the midst of drastic budget cuts.  Only 50 percent of 18-year-olds surveyed report receiving any arts education in school. And the numbers are worse for minorities. Only 26 percent of African-Americans surveyed report having arts instruction in school.  And only 28 percent of Hispanics (down from 47 percent in 1982).

Recent scores on the NAEP Arts assessment show similar gaps. In 2008, black and Hispanic students scored significantly lower than White and Asian students. Cuts in school programming forced the NAEP test to focus primarily on the visual arts and music, instead of all four arts areas (dance, music, visual art, and theatre) – so much for a well-rounded arts education.

Arne Duncan encourages schools to “cut smart:” to reduce shortsighted cuts, especially in the instruction of the arts. Yet, the arts verge on nonexistent in President Obama’s new budget plan for the Department of Education. Instead, STEM education is its top priority. Science, technology, engineering and math training is the focus.  In practice, the emphasis of STEM education is often more on technology with little science, engineering, or math to go with it. Don’t students need to know about more than technology to succeed, even in the 21st century?

Research shows that children are more likely to be successful with a strong background in the arts. The best and brightest recognize the importance of music, dance, and visual arts in K-12 programming. So why aren’t we making the arts available to all of our students?

Meagan Estep