Parent Cortical Mass

What Did President Obama Mean About Standardized Tests?

At a recent town hall meeting focused on Hispanic education one of the high school students asked President Obama if he could do something to reduce all the tests students have to take. 

The President's answer seemed to contradict his policy on using standardized tests for accountability.  Is he signaling a policy shift, or is the President misunderstanding his administration’s policy?

His answer differentiated between regular subject tests and standardized tests.  He told the students emphatically if they wanted a break on regular tests, "Tough luck!"  Students had to study hard, take tests, and find out if they understood the subject matter.

Then he said, "What is true, though, is that we have piled on a lot of standardized tests on our kids." 

Standardized tests, the President explained, provide a baseline of where students are at and should be used as a tool to diagnose strengths and weaknesses.  They should not require special study and should not be "pressure-packed." 

Standardized Tests Should Not Be High Stakes Tests

What has been happening, the President said, is that standardized tests were being "used to punish students and, in some cases, schools."  

He said, "…let's find a test that everybody agrees makes sense…and let's make sure that that's not the only way we are judging whether a school is doing well."

President Obama did not want schools "teaching to the test" because then students were learning less about the world, culture, science, and math, and were just learning tricks.  Test preparation made education "boring," and students learned more when they were interested.

He summed up with, "…you're going to have to take some tests, man, you're not going to get completely out of that."

What is President Obama Saying?

If standardized tests are used to account for a school's success or failure, that’s high stakes testing.  

When the President says if "everybody can agree on a test that makes sense” does he mean that buy-in by the stakeholders makes accountability to the test fair?

Or, is he suggesting that when other criteria besides standardized tests are included in the accountability system, then the test's stake is no longer high? 

Could the President be saying that standardized tests are diagnostic tests and should not be part of the accountability system?  That would be a policy shift.

Background Information:

PCM Core Article: What is Accountability in Education Policy?

PCM Top 10 Education Policies

The Achievement Gap in Education Policy

There is an achievement gap in school performance between low-income and well-off students and between white and minority students. It can be seen in standardized test scores, grades, course selection, graduation rates, and other measures.

Education policy has focused on the achievement gap for two main reasons.  First, America is legally obligated to provide all children with equal access to good schools. Second, economists have now quantified the impact of this gap on the economy and have made clear the tremendous economic benefit of closing it.

The Right to Equal Opportunity in Education

When the 14^th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the federal government promised equal protection to all citizens and established the right to equal opportunity in education.

But in 1896, that right was set back when the “separate but equal” ruling by the Supreme Court allowed states to segregate schools.  In 1954 when the Supreme Court ruled that separate schools were inherently unequal, federal policy became desegregation.

In 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act established Title 1 funding, federal policy took on reforming school finance.  In 2001 when the No Child Left Behind Act passed, federal policy tackled unequal schooling by holding schools accountable to every student's achievement.

The journey to equal opportunity in education has been a long, hard march. 

Economic Benefits of Equal Access to a Good Education

Economic researchers have calculated the value of education to America's economy.  Their results have roused an urgency to close the achievement gap. 

Economists figured out that if the gap had been closed over a prior 15-year period, GDP would be 3-5% higher.  This means the gap is equivalent to a “permanent recession.”  Dropouts are estimated to cost the nation $200 billion a year in lost wages and tax revenues as well as increased costs for social services and crime.  Economists warn that America's demographics require as large a productive workforce as possible to sustain Social Security and Medicare as the boomer generation ages.

More than ever lawmakers have deep and convincing data.  A good education for all children not only meets America’s moral and legal responsibility, it produces a sizable economic benefit for all. 

How is the Achievement Gap Tracked?

The most used measure of the achievement gap is NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, called the Nation's Report Card.  

Since 1971 the Department of Education has measured the growth in performance of America's students at age 9, 13, and 17.  NAEP scores show that during the early 1970s through the mid 1980s, the gap closed almost 50%.  Since the late 1980s nine year olds closed the gap slightly, but the gap for 13 and 17 year olds increased somewhat. 

NAEP scores expose the surprisingly different results which states, districts, and schools get even though they have similar racial and income demographics. Texas and California have similar demographics, yet Texas students score on average 1-2 years ahead.  New Jersey, compared to Connecticut, has a greater proportion of poor and minorities, yet their scores are higher and their gap is lower.  In Ohio, Latino students surpass white students in 13 other states on 8th grade reading tests. 

These results show that school factors matter.  Duplicating what the best performing school systems do would reduce the achievement gap.

Why Has the Gap Persisted?

Over the years many opposing ideas have been debated and much has been learned about why the gap persists.  At this time three reasons are mentioned most. 

The schools most minority and low-income students attend don’t come near the quality of those most white and middle-class students attend. Because schools are funded with property taxes, affluent neighborhoods get more money than poorer neighborhoods.  Though many think extra funds from government make up for this, the truth is big disparities remain.

On the first day of school there are achievement gaps.  Groundbreaking research in early childhood discovered that the more words spoken to children during ages 0-3, the bigger their vocabulary at the start of school and the higher their achievement test scores at age 9.  Most experts say closing the gap will mean getting help for at-risk children in their earliest years.

Not having access to quality teaching and curriculum means year-after-year children in poor schools lose ground.  To have a chance to compete for great teachers who provide a rich curriculum in English, math, history, arts, and science means that low-income schools need equal funding.

The Achievement Gap and No Child Left Behind 

No Child Left Behind set a goal to close the achievement gap. Since the law has been in effect, the gap closed slightly.  Most agree we can do better.

 

Additional Resources:

For a concise recounting of the conflicting ideas that shaped thinking on poverty and the achievement gap, read Chapter 2, “Unequal Childhoods,” in Paul Tough’s Whatever It Takes, one of PCM's Books for Parents.

For a perfect summation of the facts on achievement gap economics, read this 18-page report with clear graphs by McKinsey and Company,  The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools. It has some surprising facts that will increase your cortical mass.

For a discussion on how to close the gap, read The Knowledge Deficit, Chapter 1, by E.D. Hirsch, Jr.

 -- Go to PCM's Top 10 Education Policies List --

What is Accountability in Education Policy?

Accountability policies assert that taxpayers shouldn’t just fund programs; they should get great results for their tax dollars. 

In education policy today, accountability means that schools, not just the students, should be held accountable for the progress, or lack of progress, in every student's achievement. 

How did Accountability in Education Policy Become Important?

Accountability in education emerged during the early 1990s at the state level. Governors figured out that excellent schools were necessary to attract new business, so they started expecting schools to deliver great results. 

Few have problems with the idea of accountability.  They do have problems when accountability systems are so poorly designed they obstruct progress.  

An education accountability system requires three things, 1) a clearly defined set of standards, 2) valid and reliable tests that measure how well the standards are met, and 3) an effective plan to improve schools that fall short.  Throughout the 90s states strived to get these three things right. The federal government was not involved. 

But in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act changed everything.  Instead of no federal benchmark for student achievement, the new law set an almost utopian national goal--that every student be "proficient" in reading and math by 2014.  To hold schools accountable to that goal, every school was required to make "Adequate Yearly Progress” or face serious punitive consequences. 

Standardized Test Scores Became the Measure of Accountability

How was adequate yearly progress (AYP) measured?  The law required states to test third through eighth graders in reading and math every year. States were responsible for developing their own standards, tests and annual expectations of progress.  But every state had the same end goal--all students must score at a proficient level by 2014. 

The law set the expectation that every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status, make annual progress.  To make their progress more transparent, the law required the disaggregation of test scores, so a lack of progress in a group couldn’t be disguised by school wide averages. 

If schools failed to meet AYP they faced a series of increasingly punitive measures over a period of six years.  At first, parents could remove their children from a failing school and enroll them in a better school.  But years of failing would lead to firing some or all of the school staff, or even closing down the school.

The Unintended Consequences of High Stakes Testing

With harsh sanctions for failing to meet standards, and no rewards for meeting or exceeding them, NCLB's accountability system led to unintended negative consequences such as lowering standards, narrowing curriculum, teaching to the test, and gaming the system.

Because states lost federal funds if their schools failed to meet standards, NCLB actually incentivized states to lower standards.  The law even created disincentives to high standards, since there was only a downside to doing so. During this NCLB era, almost half the states actually lowered their standards. 

By testing just reading and math, NCLB unintentionally incentivized schools to narrow the curriculum to make more time to teach the accountable subjects.  To lawmakers, more class time for reading and math seemed smart, but that also meant less time for science, social studies, and P.E.  This obstructed federal goals to expand science education and reduce childhood obesity. 

Since standardized tests scores determined success or failure, teaching test taking skills became a success strategy.  Hours of instruction time shifted from subject matter to test preparation, further narrowing the curriculum. 

Standardized tests aren’t designed to measure teaching effectiveness, so many educators said it was unfair to tie their reputation and job security to these test scores.  Many didn’t "buy in" and this led to "gaming the system."  For example, students likely to score low might be encouraged to stay home on testing day. States might lower the “cut score” to raise the pass rate.  Worse yet, instances of cheating were exposed.

What Good Came From NCLB's Accountability System?

Most agree that good will come from the enormous amount of data produced with ten years of testing.   Researchers say that the requirement to disaggregate test scores has provided essential information to understand and overcome achievement gaps.  Most importantly, the law’s accountability system gets credit for focusing the attention of all K-12 stakeholders squarely on student achievement.

 

Additional Resources:

Has accountability improved student achievement?  This question is hotly debated.  

The case against current accountability polices is well-stated by Diane Ravitch in her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Chapter 8.  

The case for the positive effects of accountability is well made in this Harvard Report by Kress, Zechmann, and Schmitten (pdf).  

For a discussion of what a smart accountability system might look like, read The Flat World of Education, Chapter 9, by Linda Hammond-Darling.

-- Go to PCM's Top 10 Education Policies List --