Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Standards & Standardization
So much going on now that school is back in session... There are potential walk-outs at UC campuses across the state due to budget cuts and tuition hikes. Todd Gallagher, a 33-year old author and former ESPN writer, is writing a new book about going back to high school - by going back to high school. And as I try to keep my eyes open writing this, I am reminded of the early start time to school (and work!) that has serious effects on students, teachers, and schools in general.
None of these stories, however, get me more riled up than standardized testing. Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch, two of today's most influential educators, share a common passion for improving schools, yet are often at odds about how to do so. In a recent post to their blog on Ed Week, "Bridging Differences", Ravitch wrote a letter to Meier about her beliefs on testing, what she calls the NCLB Paradox. She reprimanded NCLB's misguided approach to high-stakes testing, and talked about the harmful results that come from punitive discipline (closing down schools instead of reforming them) to unfair rewards (NYC teachers received $33 million in bonuses after they reported allegedly phony test scores).
Educators have argued about standards and standardized tests for years. Teachers constantly debate the value of learning "hard content" vs. "soft skills". How do we measure what students learn? And more importantly, what should students learn? When studying history, is it more important to learn specific facts (when World War II broke out, where the major battles took place, etc.), or is more important to understand general ideas (what led to WWII, what effect the war had on technology, education, politics, etc.)? When studying science, is it more important to learn how to balance chemical equations (photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6CO2 + sunlight = C6H12O6 + 6O2, for those currently in chemistry class), or is it more important to understand the general idea that if we feed plants water, carbon dioxide, and light, they'll give us glucose (sugar) and oxygen in return? How should we measure literacy (language, science, math, and history)? Just like everything, probably a little from column A, a little from column B...
We need to set high standards for all students, not just those in low-performing public schools, and not just those in high-performing private schools - ALL STUDENTS. This is an assumption that is lost among proponents of standardized testing - just because I don't like standardized tests does not mean I don't like standards. We just need to have different ways of measuring standards, and bubbling in a multiple-choice test in a timed situation is not the best way, and it certainly is not the only way. Not only have many studies shown the biases of such tests, but these tests can also be so ineffective that they result in conflicting conclusions. The stress and anxiety that comes from a timed, multiple-choice, pencil-and-paper exam (see the SAT, CAHSEE, and STAR assessments, just to name a few) do not show what students know and are able to do. The best educators - teachers, tutors, and parents - know that we all learn differently, so we must measure this learning differently - through authentic assessments. This can be in the form of narratives (using standard rubrics designed by teachers), exhibitions (public presentations of student work), and performance assessments (testing know-how, along with know-what). These are all ways to assess students according to their individual learning styles, be they audio, visual, or kinesthetic.
Combine these assessments with computer-based learning and student-centric technology, and we will have successfully disrupted class. Until we figure out a better way to measure student achievement, we will continue to waste millions of dollars on failed schools, failed tests, and failed policies that do more harm than good. Sure, authentic assessments - based upon high standards - will cost more money and take more time than sticking a piece of paper and pencil in front of a student, but consider the alternative: students held back, schools shuttered, and an entire generation of kids who think they're dumb because a dumb test says so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Standardized testing, as far as I can tell, is the product of a bureaucratic system that values clean, manageable, quantitative data over a more holistic method of student assessment. There is nothing wrong with data that is clean, manageable, and quantitative, but there is something wrong with cramming the entire worth of a student into one (or a few) numbers. There has to be a better way. Like the author said, this better way (performance-based assessments, project-based learning, portfolios, and the like) is more difficult and initially more tedious, but it's ultimately more meaningful. The most important point here is that alternative means of assessment don't negate standards; in fact they depend on standards in order to establish benchmarks. Standardized tests result in a homogenization of how students turn out. Instead of pushing everyone to become the same, let's choose a means of assessment that promotes diversity.
I certainly agree with the author in the original post and with David in his comment in principle, but I am concerned about the feasibility or immediacy of these goals. On one hand I want to be an idealist but the realist in me tells me that none of these problems are going to get fixed over night, over a year, or even over a decade. I think the idea of a holistic approach is wonderful, but with (most) schools being run by the government and very powerful interests bent on keeping our education system a bureaucratic mess what are the odds of a holistic approach coming to be any time soon? My personal inclination is that solution is greater privatization of the education process, but that is a whole other can of worms for a different time.
Standardized testing is probably the standard that we are going to be left with for some time. So while we should advocate for a move away from it to something better, in the mean time we should do what we can to make standardized tests better. In the immediate future, as a tutoring company, this means Tutorpedia should strive to teach students how beat these silly loopholes. As advocates we should do our part to at least improve the tests to make them more fair and more holistic. For example, I would say that the addition of the essay section to the SAT was a step in the right direction. A baby step indeed, but with the way bureaucracies tend to drag their feet, baby steps are accomplishments in themselves.
Post a Comment