On Standardized Tests

I must be on a roll. Actually NYT is. Mayor Bloomberg has released test analysis that indicates that NYC students are performing tremendously better on standardized test since he came into office. The editors invited 8 (and counting?) education professionals to comment on the test results. While I don’t think test results can really demonstrate the potential of a student, I concede that it’s probably the most cost effective method. The commentators definitely provided me with something to think about.

Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas sees nothing wrong with teaching to the test, as long as the tests are of a high quality—particularly reading comprehension. She reads in the New York States tests that even though the number of “passing” students has increased, students’ proficiency actually declines grade over grade. She also wonders if the reading standards of the tests are of a worthwhile quality.

Author and professor James Comer emphasizes that the purpose of education is to “help prepare students to be successful in school and in life; to protect and promote their own health, development and learning, to be highly competent workers in school and beyond, to be competent and responsible family members (parents if they choose) community members and citizens capable of finding gratification and meaning in life.“ I couldn’t agree more. He warns that too much focus on test scores can diminish the variety of efforts and the support system that teachers need to bring up well-rounded students. He sights dropout, crime and dependency rates, as well as quality of life and work as efforts that need focus. I’m sure there are a variety of tangibles that we can measure to determine the success of a student. What are some?

UC Berkley professor Bruce Fuller believes that the exaggerated success that Bloomberg trumpets diminishes his credibility, particularly since states set their own proficiency standards which have been subject to change since the inception of No Child Left Behind. He notes that this is happening across the country and not just in NY. When politicians are under pressure to show progress, they will lower the standards to product results. This again hits me as education being treated as a commodity, a product, and not the valuable conduit toward higher quality of life for all Americans. While NYC students have certainly made progress, Fuller argues that it’s undermined by the city’s self-aggrandized declaration of off the charts success.

Author and Century Foundation fellow Richard D. Kahlenberg similarly argues that exaggerated results can overshadow areas that still need work, particularly, the highly segregated schools of NYC. The fact that the achievement gap between the city’s black and white students has nearly been eliminated has already been used to imply that separate can be equal after all. There is a community aspect that needs to be address, and simply can’t be tested on. He also points out that if these results are true gains, they would be replicated on other achievement tests, which they weren’t.
There was much more commentary and great points and opinions that I can’t summarize here due to lack of time. Please read the article here; I know the other professionals also made some valid points, so please let me know what I failed to add in the comments.

Now, I’m not in education (“Education”) but I think there should be a standard test developed at the federal level or through a consortium of the state educators that is not used to determine whether a student is passed on to the next grade. However, it may be used determine what type of state and federal funding a school or district receives. I think if they can develop an academic test that we can all agree on (fat chance, huh?), then the states can focus on tracking less tangible indicators of success for students. I think if I ever start a school, I would try to use the highest standard of standardized test, and then try to focus on other ways to track their progress.

Teaching & Unions

I read this article in the New York Times about unionizing in charter schools that seemed to focus on Illinois. Teachers at charter schools were frustrated with the long hours and the high turnover. They felt they deserved a comparable wage to what public school teachers earn, and that the workload was affecting the quality of the service they provide. Here in Illinois, charter schools are increasing in popularity and the governor has just signed a bill to double their number in Illinois.

I know almost nothing about unions. Learning about them is on my bucket list. What I do know is that unions get very bad press. They are blamed for the excessive costs that brought down GM and Chrysler. However, a lack of them is also said to maintain the low wages associated with southern car manufacturing plants, as well as pricing GM and Chrysler out of business. I think they’re very necessary for workers to have their voice heard, and people had to fight for the right to form a union.

The unions are empowering some charter school teachers, according to the NYT article. However, this article on Huffington Post is a glaring counter point. Over 700 teachers are sitting around doing nothing with full pay, because the union limbo (not to mention a swamp of corrupt administrators). My simple mind wonders if some unions may too big to work effectively for both teachers and students. You want the teachers to have equivalent pay, especially across a school district. However, you also want the schools to have freedom to design their own schedules and curriculum and the flexibility to put the right teachers where they're needed most.

Do private schools have unions? I think that in society today we’ve turned education into a commodity, to the point where people start to believe that is something they can do without. But that’s another blog post.

I’m going to learn more about unions to find out:
1. Prevalence of unions in Illinois, USA.
- Numbers
- Mission statements
2. Conditions that facilitate union activity.
3. Perception of unions’ impact on student performance.
4. Perceived wins and losses for teachers unions.

History is written by the Victors…

I’m excited to see this article because curriculum is the aspect of education that I’m most interested in. When I was in college, I worked in math education research and with an institute that create elementary math and science curriculum. Clearly, as evidenced by the arguments put forth in this Wall Street Journal article, it has the ability to have the greatest impact on students. I would like to develop a model of engaging teachers so that they have the greatest impact on the curriculum. I think you want to have standards, but you also want to give teachers the freedom to engage their students.

This clearly is a very controversial issue. I’m upset and surprised by how quickly and easily some of the people in the article conjure images of war. Words have impacts and I don’t think that is impressed on people enough; maybe that should be taught in school.

I think religious education is a very good thing but I think it should be done at church, after school. I also think teachers make great church leaders, specifically because of the tools they learn in their day job. But I think it’s kind of lazy that don’t want to teach religion after school and insist on incorporating it in their day jobs. I think religious schools and religious after school programs are great way for children to spend their time, to keep them out of trouble and keep them from settling roots in front of the TV. There is a huge opportunity there that I hope people are taking advantage of. But I think it doesn’t belong in schools.

I also think it’s ironic that some reviewers of the curriculum insisted on teaching in a public school that separation of church and state has biblical origins....

Science Unlearned

It came to me in a dream last night to start a blog about education in the news. Lo and behold the first article I see on Salon today is about Why America is Flunking Science. Science and math were my favorite subjects in school so my heart frowns whenever I see people reject the art and beauty of science.

This article doesn't actually talk about why we're failing science, as much as it elaborates on the culture around science and scientist. It argues on the one hand that movies and entertainment have boxed science into the realm of crazy villains and lonely nerds, and distorted it just enough that if someone by chance did want to be a crazy nerd, real science is much harder and more boring than it looked on the screen. On the other hand, we're not failing science--we're just cherry picking the science we want to trust, which most of the time is wrong.

I think that ideally, scientist and educators want to see science as a benevolent, neutral observer of nature. But in reality it is biased and controversial and used in morally ambiguous ways. Science has been manipulated for political and financial gain for centuries, and that also leads people to be suspicious. I think it's unfair to say it's up to the scientific community to dispel the myths and caricatures about science. It's up to all of us to open our eyes and level our heads. I think it would also help if teachers, even in introductory science courses, discussed the way science is applied to our life and our view of life and society. Students should be given the skills to come to unbiased conclusions and recognize biased uses of science. Just my 2 cents...

Bear with me. It's my first blog.