Jeffrey Miller, Ed.D 1/20/19 Jeffrey Miller, Ed.D 1/20/19

The Real Cost of High-Stakes Testing

In an age of accountability and high stakes testing, public education has accomplished a lot. We have managed to utilize assessment data trends to identify resources and programs to support students' educational needs. We have also learned how to breakdown objectives or learning standards to their most intricate parts to align our resources. Most of all we have developed ways to hold educators accountable for student achievement...One question remains: at what cost are we making all of these efforts? In other words, what have we sacrificed for this “data-driven” approach to education?

From the literature on students' motivation for learning, we have come to understand that students learn more when they experience activities that they enjoy and find meaningful and interesting. However, as educators face growing pressure to prepare students to perform well in math and reading in high-stakes testing, public schools slip into predictable traps. Namely, educators implement instructional strategies that boil down content to isolated bits of information at the same time that they dramatically reduce the amount of time and resources used to engage students in creative, interdisciplinary activities and real-world projects that inspire learning.

We also know that students are motivated to work harder when they are able to personalize the purpose of learning. Yet, our high-stakes testing culture communicates to students that we value scoring well on tests as the overarching goal for engaging in learning. Sometimes in curriculum and teacher professional development, teachers and principals blur the lines between student learning and student achievement when they promote blatant "teaching to the test" practices couched in ideas like "backwards planning" or "teaching with the end in mind."Finally, research shows that academic achievement is influenced, in part, by self-concept and self-efficacy. Unfortunately, the heavy emphasis on high-stakes testing encourages teachers and administrators to view students as test-score increasers or suppressors rather than contributors to the learning environment or in terms of their incredible human potential. In turn, students, especially those from impoverished or at-risk environments, perceive this and come to define themselves as winners or losers on the basis of their test performance, to their academic and emotional detriment.With our current trends, it is clear that high stakes testing and accountability are not likely to go away anytime soon. Nevertheless, leaders in school systems can take measures to minimize their harmful effects and to foster a school culture that emphasizes student learning and preparation for life's challenges. Here are a few ideas to begin this process:

1. If school leaders want to ensure that students get enough test practice, they should schedule periodic practice times that are spread throughout the year rather than just two or three weeks before high-stakes tests are administered. Schools should, at least, refrain from engaging in test-prep boot camps where they shut down regular classroom instruction for intense focus specifically on the test at hand. Such activities only reinforce the impression that the test is the primary goal of schooling.

2. Administrators and teachers should work together to foster a productive mindset about testing. As a start, rebrand "tests" as "performance opportunities" and use language in the classroom that focuses on mastering knowledge, improving individual ability.

3. School leaders should focus on the value of schooling as a method to prepare how to live. As teachers use instructional resources and pedagogy that bring fun and authentic engagement back to the classroom, students can be encouraged to participate in activities that relate to what they're going to be doing outside of and beyond school.

4. Administrators and teachers should strive to create a culture that encourages cooperation and service instead of competition. We now know that students are more likely to be successful in school when they have a sense of belonging. Making these kinds of connections leads to a more significant effort, greater persistence, and positive attitudes. Feelings of rejection have the opposite effects.

If we put the same energy and intensity that we have invested in high-stakes testing into understanding how to enhance the quality of students' learning experiences, we might actually experience more success in getting more students to reach their full potential...and, hopefully, make room for learning in education again.

Jeffrey Miller, Ed.D 8/21/18 Jeffrey Miller, Ed.D 8/21/18

Texas A-F Accountability System - More Questions than Answers

On Aug. 15, the Texas Education Agency released academic accountability ratings for districts, charter schools, and other campuses across the state. In this first implementation of an A-F scale to rate how well school systems are functioning, Texas joined 15 other states across the country that have implemented a similar accountability system.In 1999, Florida became the first state to adopt an A-F school rating system as part of its A+ Education Plan. In 2015, when the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law, the federal government gave states the authority to meet education standards without hampering them with excessive mandates and stipulations. In response to this new flexibility, several states began implementing accountability models like Florida's. Now that the approach is becoming more widely used, educators all over the nation are debating the merit and implications of an A-F accountability system.

A-F Accountability Proponents

States that have adopted the A-F school rating system claim that it gives students, parents, educators, and communities clearer information regarding how well their schools are doing. Proponents also argue that the A-F system provides a transparent and objective way to communicate school performance to community stakeholders as well as an incentive to compel improvements in low-performing schools.Another attractive feature of the A-F accountability system is its ability to incorporate standardized test data. Texas policymakers believe that standardized tests, which are tailored to the Texas curriculum standards, offer one of the only consistent statewide metrics that can be used. The state assessment should, therefore, be a significant component of the state's accountability system.

A-F Accountability Opponents

Many schools systems counter states' support for an A-F accountability system by arguing that assigning a letter grade to a school system based almost exclusively on quantitative data (e.g., test scores) does not account for numerous other factors that contribute to school performance, including many that are outside of educators' control. According to critics, the lack of clarity about the relative difference between each letter grade and the absence of explanations about the how or why of low performance impede future school improvement efforts. Some opponents also believe that schools or districts that receive a low grade may find it more difficult to attract and retain the highly effective teachers and school leaders necessary to turn around school performance.Finally, in spite of all the support for such a system, there has been little research conducted to determine the reliability or validity of using them for state accountability. Simply put, many A-F accountability system opponents find that a single letter grade for schools does not tell the whole story.

The Reason for the Disconnect

Regardless of what your opinion is in regards to the national A-F accountability system trend, one has to wonder why we have such divergence between state policymakers and educators. What lies at the heart of this disagreement? I believe it is rooted in the differences between two schools of educational theory that have been in conflict for centuries - progressivism and essentialism.

To give a brief overview, the progressive education philosophy was established in mid-1920's America and was led by major educational philosophers like John Dewey. Those who subscribe to progressivism believe that learning is rooted in the questions that students devise as they experience the world. They also believe that schools should improve the way of life of citizens through offering the experience of freedom and democracy in schools. This multi-dimensional purpose for schools would lead one to support a more comprehensive and descriptive accountability system that goes beyond standardized tests.

An opposing educational philosophy, essentialism rose in response to the progressive movement. With the goal of molding productive citizens, educators with this perspective emphasize academic rigor and focus on teaching essential knowledge and skills and moral standards. This more conservative belief about the purpose of schools would lead one to support a simplified accountability system that is based on the measurement of the essential knowledge and skills students must know (e.g., standardized tests based on rigorous state standards).

With philosophical differences in mind, it appears that the A-F accountability system, supported by many politically conservative states, is mostly based on a belief that schools and districts should focus in teaching students the essential knowledge and skills addressed through state standards. Conversely, opponents of an A-F accountability system seem to believe that such a system oversimplifies school performance and ignores the fact that schools today are multi-dimensional institutions charged with teaching students much more than what can be measured on a standardized test.

How to Solve the Problem

It is abundantly clear that there are real differences between how proponents and opponents of the A-F accountability system understand what it means. Those differences go beyond what each side argues for: a system that makes it easier for parents to know how schools are doing; or a system that provides comprehensive ratings that don't make it difficult to recruit good teachers and administrators.

A more in-depth analysis should lead us to shift the debate over accountability systems to a debate over what kind of education we want for our children. At the heart of the argument, we should be debating the answer to these questions: what should be the purpose of public schools today? Should schools focus on teaching students the essential knowledge and skills, or should schools and districts focus on preparing students to be productive members of a democratic society? Of course, anyone could conclude that both are necessary for schools. However, people might take a more nuanced perspective when considering the traditional role of the family and public schools have had in educating children.

Such an analysis should also force us to take a more critical look at how educational philosophies like essentialism and progressivism have manifested themselves in our modern educational programs and accountability systems today. Educators should not overlook how relevant these fundamental theories impact what we do in public education and what we believe the role of public schools should play in educating our students today. If we are more explicit about the purpose of our public school system, then we can be more precise about how to measure its effectiveness.

I encourage you to share your thoughts below on what the role of public schools and districts should be in educating children today.

Jeffrey Miller, Ed.D 11/4/14 Jeffrey Miller, Ed.D 11/4/14

Public School Accountability: The Death of Student Learning

Satisfying the demand for highly skilled workers is the key to maintaining competitiveness and prosperity in the global economy. For this reason, many educational policymakers strive to craft policies that assist educators in developing a stronger workforce. This was the intended aim of the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act put forth by the Bush administration. However well intended the NCLB Act was, the consequences of several key requirements have turned out to be counterproductive.

In terms of direct impacts, the NCLB Act has eclipsed the following state and local education policies in the areas of (1) Standards and Assessment; (2) Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); (3) Corrective Action; (4) Staff Qualifications; and (5) Parental Involvement (Federal Register Part IV, Department of Education 2013). More specifically, the NCLB Act strengthened Title I accountability by requiring States to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems are required to base their accountability systems on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, grades 3-5 annual testing for all students, and establish annual statewide progress objectives so that all groups of students demonstrate proficiency within 12 years. According to the United States Department of Education (2005), the assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency, and if school districts and schools fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals over time they will be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures. Schools that meet or exceed the AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards.

In the analysis of the NCLB direct impacts to state and local education policies, two key unintended consequences stand most prominent in the overall impedance to student learning. The first unintended consequence is that of accountability. Diane Ravitch (2011) makes the case in her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System, that there are many questions can be made about the true origins and implications of NCLB and accountability. Ravitch (2011) goes on to claim that many educators falsely believed that the NCLB was an outgrowth the standards movement when in fact, “the new reforms had everything to do with structural changes and accountability, and nothing at all to do with the substance of learning.” (Ravitch, 2011, pg.39). The structural changes within NCLB, mentioned by Ravitch (2011), have frequently been stated as being politically motivated with little to do with a real substantive impact on student learning. Today the effect of the accountability movement has not brought about the much-desired growth in student learning (Ravitch, 2011). The second unintended consequence of NCLB Act was the imposed requirements for schools that consistently fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. According to Floch, Taylor, and Thomsen (2006), this requirement of NCLB could lead to schools dismantling years of comprehensive school reform efforts by implementing a new curricular program, restructuring the school day, or dismissing staff, all of which are possible courses of action under the legislation. Floch, Taylor, and Thomsen (2006) go on to explain that,

Frequently, NCLB accountability is perceived to focus only on AYP targets, potentially diverting attention from comprehensive improvement strategies. However, AYP and comprehensive improvement strategies should be linked, not in conflict: If schools do not make AYP, administrators should seek sound, research-based strategies to attain higher academic performance. However, this connection is often obscured by a “drill-and-kill” reaction to test pressure, a focus on more mechanistic components of AYP (e.g., attendance rate), or developing strategies to “game” the system. Such conditions could indeed persuade teachers that they can no longer take time to focus on all the components that are traditionally assumed to be a part of CSR, such as participation in shared governance structures, professional communication with peers, and parent involvement.

With these types of unintended consequences of the NCLB Act permeating the educational landscape, it is hard to see how the educational legislation, in its current state, can help schools improve student learning and assist educators in developing a stronger workforce.

References

Federal Register Part IV, Department of Education. (2013). Title I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; final rule. 34 CFR Part 200.

Floch, K. C. L., Taylor, J. E., & Thomsen, K. (2006). Implications of NCLB Accountability for Comprehensive School Reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 11(3-4), 353-366. doi: 10.1207/s10824669espr110304_8

Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: how testing and choice are undermining education (Apple iBooks ed.). New York, NY: Perseus Books.U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Introduction: No child left behind. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html