Promoting Failure Part 1

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2011

It’s Maundy Thursday, Good Friday Eve, and I have such a hard time wishing folks “Happy Easter” knowing we cannot get to Easter Sunday without going through Crucifixion Friday. Regardless, it is also the weekend before the annual Texas educational self-flagellation of standardized, high stakes testing, this year somewhat more remarkable because it is the last year, we think, that the state administers the TAKS test. I hear no cries of grief, no sentimental wailing, and have yet to be invited to a single going-away party. Next year, we will devote even more days of testing to a more “rigorous” test to be known by a new acronym, STAAR. Can’t wait. Clearly we continue down the wrong road, accelerating.

I have oft’ penned of the fallacies inherent in the belief that testing students with standardized tests somehow both measures student accomplishment and merits judgment of students, teachers, principals, schools and school districts. I shall save you from a repeat of those previous rants, (only for a little while longer, as I gave up those particular rants for Lent. And yes, Protestants can practice Lent if we want to. There is no copyright.) Rather, I wonder, why elected leaders are so interested in promoting the failure of our kids, our schools, our teachers, our principals and our school systems? Does that seem to you to be a noble effort? Does that seem to you to be a wonderful campaign slogan, “Elect me and I guarantee that more kids will fail and that companies that generate standardized tests will make more money!” As before, poppycock and balderdash. Yet, that is what they do because they know not what they do. Perhaps in the spirit of the season we should forgive them. Perhaps.

What our elected leaders and their appointed henchmen fail to understand (among many things) is the difference between the concept of “standards” and the concept of “expectations.” These two notions are dramatically discrete, yet rarely discussed. In fact, some use them as synonyms. They are not.

Standards are clearly defined, measurable rules, laws, outcomes, etc. They are black and white. One either meets the standards or one does not based on behavior or attributes. The speed limit is a classic standard. If the posted limit is 70 mph and a radar gun measures your vehicle’s speed at 75 then you have failed to meet the standard by over-achievement! We understand that speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. (Why is that, by the way? Few other standards work as uppers instead of downers. Wouldn’t driving be exciting if the speed limit was a lower limit?) Should you be stopped for exceeding the upper limit, or standard, you will receive punishment. Some communities grasping this concept all too well intentionally lower their standards to generate more revenue; that is, they post a speed limit of 50 so that motorists driving under the previous limit of 70 are immediately sanctioned and the municipality gains wealth from the punishments inflicted. We call these communities speed traps, but in reality, they work like other levels of government who post standards in the hope of gaining the reward of imposed sanctions. The critical point is that a standard can be measured and those who meet it are either rewarded or ignored, and those who do not can be punished. Standards are external and are imposed.

So, what happens if we raise standards? Raising our standards sounds like such a good thing to do, why would we ever oppose it? I oppose raising standards for the sake of raising standards because the result is always, always, more failure and more sanctions. For instance, in a local high school, any boy can try out for the basketball team. Suppose a new coach imposes a standard on tryouts requiring every boy to be at least 6’ tall to qualify for the audition. The number of boys now excluded from tryouts jumps way up. The number of boys who will actually try out will go way down. The coach has raised the standards. More fail to meet it.

Suppose one had to have a college degree to be a welder? That would be raising the standard. It would also result in fewer welders and more welder wannabees who fail. Suppose we raised the standard to get a high school teaching certificate and required everyone to successfully accomplish a major in their chosen field of instruction. That would be raising the standard. It would also result in fewer high school certified teachers. Ooops. We did that in Texas and that is what happened. And double oops, I have already blogged on that topic.

So, should we get excited that the state has decided to raise the standards for getting a high school diploma by implementing a more rigorous standardized test? Yes, we should get excited, because the state has just announced that we will create more failures!

As I review the history of student performance on all the Texas standardized, high stakes tests, several trends are very clear. The first year of implementation of the TABS, TEAMS, TAAS, and TAKS is always the worst year of student performance. Every year after the first year, scores go up, because every year after the first year teachers learn what the test asks and focus their instruction on those areas. Once everyone is doing mostly OK, the state, under the rubric of “raising standards” implements a new test and we repeat the cycle. What is clearly amazing is that after the implementation of the first high stakes test (TABS), and the state’s observation that more and more students were passing, and the state’s conclusion that we were for some reason still not educating public school kids well enough, the state, in its wisdom, implemented a second, more rigorous test called TEAMS. The cycle repeated. Someone needed to simply stand up and say, the reason students are passing the test and you remain unconvinced of the quality of their education, is because the test cannot measure that. Implementing a more rigorous test will make matters worse, not better.

So, if the first test, the TABS test, was tough enough to force some students to drop out because they could not pass, what do we say to them now? Or, to all the students who did manage to graduate in the 1980’s, do we tell them their diploma does not mean nearly so much as a high school diploma today because they took a low standard, high stakes test? And, to the current year seniors who are still taking TAKS tests in the hopes of passing and thereby graduating, what do we say to them now? Do we say, “You are lucky our standards are as low as they are right now because you would never graduate had you been born a year later!” This is ludicrous. And it is the result of using one, standardized standard to determine graduation in Texas.

I support raising standards if we are talking water quality, food inspection, sleeping habits of air traffic controllers, and the like, if we discover people are being harmed or are put at risk by low or inadequate standards. I absolutely do not support raising standards if it is clear that students and teachers and schools will be harmed by raising the standards. Do no harm! I further oppose doing so when the evidence mounts that raising standards and using standardized tests is in fact the source of the harm. The answer to school improvement lies not in the rigor or mystery of the judgmental standardized test. It lies in the concept of “expectations.” That concept merits a separate post. For now, let us be clear in our conversations with Legislators. Raising standards increases failure. Paying test generating companies takes money out of the hands of local school districts. Determining the future of children based on a standardized test is ludicrous.

Can God make a rock so big he/she cannot move it? I do not know the answer to that question, though I suspect the answer is yes and no. (Reminds me of the driver who asked an Aggie, "Are my blinkers working?", to which the Aggie replied, "Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No.") Can the Legislature mandate a standardized test they cannot pass? I believe the answer is yes. If public school high stakes testing is so important to the assurance that we have an educated, college or career ready population by age 18, then surely passing all the newly proposed high school End of Course exams should be a minimum requirement to serve in the Texas House and Senate. Or, shall we admit that making the rules school aged children must follow is beyond the ability of the rule makers to follow themselves. Or, should we announce that everyone who has graduated with a high school diploma in Texas prior to the implementation of the STAAR test does not deserve the diploma because the test was not rigorous enough?

The Legislature would oppose the requirement that their members must pass the STAAR End of Course exams to qualify to serve in the Legislature. (Clearly, no one would advocate such a standard for the governor’s office lest we be leaderless in the Executive Branch.) The grounds for opposition to this requirement will be simple. Raising such a standard would result in fewer qualified Legislators.

Maybe then they’d get it: Who in their right minds would promote increasing failure?

POSTED BY EILEEN GOOD AT 2:42 PM

LABELS: PUBLIC SCHOOLS

4 COMMENTS:



Anonymous said...

Testing and the accountability tied to it not only is destroying our public schools, it is threatening our democracy!

APRIL 22, 2011 6:59 PM



Eileen Good said...

Amen!

APRIL 23, 2011 7:30 AM



sunnyravenwood said...

I wonder why we keep going down the wrong road, faster and faster. The Prussian system of education is and always has been a failure. It was invented by Bismark to turn boys into mindlessly obedient soldiers and factory workers, girls into docile hausfraus.

First, school should be voluntary. "Go to school or we'll put you or your parents in jail" is not a very effective motivator.

Second, testing should be done several times a year, but it should also be voluntary. It should be like taking a driver's test, you do it when you feel you are ready, not when someone else tells you to do it.

Remove the element of coercion from school and everyone will have a much more enjoyable experience.

And no I am not a teacher, I'm someone who has learned a thousand times more from the library than I ever did in school. In fact, the only things of value I learned in school were reading, writing, and arithmetic. Everything after the second grade was a complete waste of time.

JUNE 9, 2011 4:10 AM



Eileen Good said...

My kind of thinking! Thanks.