First, let me correct what I said in my December 7 post on the "silliness" of issuing school report cards based on achievement test scores.
In that post I said that three years of math were required in Oregon high schools, and I implied that English was required for all four years. Not true, apparently. Both Oregon and Washington mandate only two years of math and three of English, so it's no wonder that test scores plummet, relatively speaking, when kids are tested in high school.
High schools are mired in a 100 year-old subject area curriculum that is stubbornly resistant to change, so simply requiring a couple more years of core classes in English and math --more of the same, in other words--probably won't accomplish miracles. As I have argued before, high schools need to fundamentally change both the manner and substance of what they teach in order to affect student learning. Smaller communities of learning, for example, with truly integrated (or interdisplinary) coursework built around themes that continually reinforce reading, writing, and math skills. Studying English literature in isolation just doesn't cut it, at least for most students.
But this post isn't about pedagogical reform. It's about our mania for testing. And our misuse of standardized tests to judge the performance of schools.
This article from the New York Times shows just how far--off the deep end-- that mania has taken us. The headline says it all, but the obsession with a new Time Tracker gadget should be cause for alarm among all serious educators:
"Shaped like a colorful peppermill, with a digital readout panel, lights that suggest a traffic intersection and an electronic male voice that booms "Begin" and "Time's up," the Time Tracker, which sells for a list price of $34.95, has turned into a surprise hit of the holiday season, according to some toy sellers. By using the tracker during playtime, homework or any other activity, children are supposed to develop a sense of passing time - 20 minutes, half an hour, an hour - that translates into better management during tests. Siren sounds indicate when a certain period has gone by, and the lights switch from green to yellow to red to demonstrate how close the child is to the end of the allotted time."
At $35 a pop they probably won't sell many of these gizmos in low income, minority neighborhoods, where the students who really need help on test performance mainly live:
" 'Lower-middle-class parents are concerned about their school quality and their children's grades,' Professor Carnoy said. 'The upper middle class is less concerned about the quality of the school than about the performance of their own kids on these make-or-break tests.' "
Which brings me to demographics. And the 1966 Coleman Report:
"The first finding is that the schools are remarkably similar in the way they relate to the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of the students is taken into account. It is known that socioeconomic factors bear a strong relation to academic achievement. When these factors are statistically controlled, however, it appears that differences between schools account for only a small fraction of the difference in pupil achievement."
Simply put, socioeconomic status--wealth and ethnicity--has a much greater effect on academic performance than the school one attends.
The Coleman Report, I think, was largely responsible for the school reform movement in this country. How could we structure schools in such a manner as to make them matter, or to make them more effective, in the learning of students? Could effective schools be identified? And then could the characteristics that make them effective be enumerated and described? The answer, of course, is yes.
Here's how Larry Lezotte, one of the original researchers into effective schools describes it:
"The first task of the effective schools researchers was to identify existing effective schools – schools that were successful in educating all students regardless of their socioeconomic status or family background. Examples of these especially effective schools were found repeatedly, in varying locations and in both large and small communities. After identifying these schools, the task remained to identify the common characteristics among these effective schools. In other words, what philosophies, policies, and practices did these schools have in common?"
Much other research has followed, especially into curricular reform and the reform of the actual structure of schools. What has emerged is a consensus among educators that certain approaches and practices are effective, and result in greater student learning, both emotionally and academically. They include team teaching, small learning groups, integrated or interdisciplinary instruction, project-based learning, and, perhaps most importantly, student-centered teaching.
It should be noted that nowhere in the research can be found calls for an increased reliance on standardized testing as a measure of how well restructured schools are performing.
Comments