The Domino Effect of Education Standardization

Cross posted at Brilliant or Insane 
 
Fourteen years ago, after five wonderful years as a teacher, everything imploded during the sixth year. The same administrators, who once encouraged risk-taking and personal growth, became dictatorial and over-controlling. Instead of working together, we now competed and fought for control.

Why the sudden deterioration? Standards of Learning (Virginia’s standards).

I abandoned the sinking ship. I wasn’t alone. Seven other teachers (a significant number as this was a very small school) jumped to other jobs. One of the other departing teachers expressed the feelings of all of us, “I feel like I’m just a cog in the machine. Easily replaceable.”

In the blink of an eye, everything changed with the new standards. Administrators became manipulative and domineering. Teacher autonomy went out the window. We were told, “If it’s not mentioned in the Standard of Learning Framework, you won’t be teaching it.”

When observing classes, administrators sat with the standards in hand. I got chastised for talking about Winston Churchill and the Battle of Britain in my World History class (remarkably at the time this wasn’t included in the framework, but it has since been added).  A peer was raked over the coals at a School Board Meeting for having poor SOL scores (Virginia’s End of Course Tests) despite his students scoring well above the state average.

Sadly, my experiences are not unique. Today far too many teachers feel the same way I did 14 years ago.

Essentially one knee-jerk reaction led to another in a domino falling-like series of transgressions. NCLB led state governments to increase “accountability.” Pressured school districts exerted control on school administrators who passed it on to the teachers. Constantly being reminded, “It’s your job to make sure your students perform to these high standards,” led teachers to increase their control over students. Reluctantly, we taught to the test.  With autonomy destroyed, many educators’ enthusiasm and excitement for teaching waned. Lectures became commonplace. Teachers bypassed labs and projects that engaged students and instead dispensed review worksheets to drill in the facts.

The pressure to produce results undermined teachers. The burden of standardized test results backfired as student learning suffered. Teachers became more controlling despite knowing that students need the opposite—teachers who nurture, support and engage students.

Fortunately, many states, including Virginia, are looking at loosening the standardization grip. Reform can’t come soon enough.

Standardized Tests: The Movable Target?

A couple of weeks ago, a Washington Post article stated, “Reading scores for the Virginia Standards of Learning test dropped by double digits following the introduction of a new, more rigorous exam this past year.

A couple of years’ ago, it was Virginia’s math scores that dropped as a result of newer, more rigorous standards.

Meanwhile D.C. Public School students made impressive gains in math and reading tests, but math officials reported that the gains were in part tied to the division’s decision to “score the tests in a way that yielded higher scores even though D.C. students got fewer math questions correct than in the year before.”

Virginia and D.C. are by no means alone as they try to balance tougher standards with consistent scoring. In 2012, seeing scores plummet, Florida state education officials decided to lower the passing cut rate/grade. A couple of months ago, the debate played out again with the Florida State Board of Education again voting to prevent school grades from dropping more than one letter grade. Even Board Member Kathleen Shanahan, who was a driving force behind the school grading system that “served as a model for other states,” commented, “I am struggling with the integrity of the accountability system…and the reliability of grades.”

As the debate plays out amongst politicians and state boards of education, it is teachers and students who are caught in the middle.

Should standardized tests enable educators to compare student performance from year to year? Yes.

On the other hand, standardized tests should challenge all students. But, at what expense? In Virginia, the more rigorous tests and scoring resulted in significantly lower student scores. State officials talked up the results as a temporary price to pay as Virginia shifted to higher standards.

But who paid the price? Students. Students, who in essence served as guinea pigs, and as a result may not earn and Advanced Diploma or even a Standard Diploma.   

Like too many classroom grading systems, proficiency on state tests seems immeasurable and perpetually alterable based on the whims of a few elected or appointed officials. Instead of being based on teacher instruction and student learning, passing rates and standardized testing have become politicized (the consequences range from the grade the school receives, to funding, to accreditation,  to employment decisions, to student graduation) while failing to galvanize meaningful educational reform.

We cannot expect our teachers and students to hit a moving target.

The Dangers of Grading Our Schools

On March 22, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed legislation “aimed at ensuring all students in Virginia have the best opportunity to learn and that students, regardless of their zip code, receive a world class education.”

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/report-card-f-76289-20120503-3.jpg

Included in McDonnell’s All Students initiative was the creation of an A-F School Report Card. According to his press release, the new performance ratings will simplify the current system of accountability to help parents fully understand the performance of their child’s school. It continues by stating, “the new report cards will recognize schools for challenging all students to reach high levels of achievement. They will also give schools a tool to encourage more parental and community involvement.”

Sounds good, right?  We can’t argue against high achievement, parental involvement and accountability. All are extremely important to effective schools and student achievement.

But let’s peel away the layers and ask ourselves, “Does grading our schools benefit our students?”

No.

Instead, school report cards may actually cause more damage. School-wide grades are notoriously inaccurate. They do not increase parental involvement and they can ruin teacher morale. This clearly is not a recipe for school improvement.

Question 1: Are School Grades Reliable and Accurate?

Accountability systems are only useful if their measures are reliable and clear. Creating such a system is a monumental—perhaps impossible—task. Ask 100 people to define a high quality or A school and you’ll probably get 100 different answers. Of course, Virginia will rely primarily on SOL tests and other data such as graduation rates, but disagreements over what specific measures to include and how to include them are inevitable. Virginia hopes to use a balance of both absolute performance factors such as student SOL test scores and growth measures that encompass changes in SOL scores over time.

Both measures present their own unique set of problems. Absolute performance factors vary little from year-to-year, but they are also highly correlated with student characteristics such as socio-economic status. Conversely, growth measures, which the Board of Education will have two years to develop and add to the grading system, fluctuate greatly.  Accurate and credible growth measures require multiple years of data.

One grade cannot tell the whole story. What do I mean? A good school, let’s say one earning a B, may not be serving the needs of ALL of it’s students very well.  For example, the overall student population may meet the math benchmarks, but a subgroup/gap group (Hispanics, Blacks, or students with disabilities or economically disadvantaged) may not meet the necessary requirements. One grade cannot portray this; a narrative is needed.

A narrative would also be necessary to differentiate between schools. In a fictitious example, only 5% of Millard Fillmore High School students receive free/reduced lunches, but at Andrew Johnson High School 95% of students qualify for reduced lunches. We cannot expect these schools to earn similar SOL scores or have comparable graduation rates. Similarly, we must address the difference between low-performing schools and schools serving lower-performing students.

McDonnell claims that Virginia’s current system lacks clarity. Oversimplifying the process by assigning one grade actually undermines his goal of clarity. A-F grades fail to explain how or why a school earned such a grade, nor do they tell you much about a school’s true effectiveness. 

Question 2: Do School Grades Increase Parental Involvement?

Governor McDonnell suggests that creating a school report card will increase parental and community involvement. In the March/April issue of Education Policy Rebecca Jacobsen of Michigan State warns against presenting unclear or misleading information because it can ultimately erode parental support for the schools. As part of her research, Jacobsen examined New York City Schools, each of which is assigned a simple letter grade. As a result of a policy of capping the number of schools that can receive an A grade, many schools grades fell. As  a result, parent satisfaction declined—despite the fact that student performance didn’t drop. Her research also concluded that parent satisfaction did not increase when school grades increased.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Jacobsen’s research highlights two important facets of school grades. First, the effect of declining grades has a larger effect than seeing a school maintaining or improving its performance.  Declining grades erode trust and can lead to declining community and parental support. Secondly, she states, “In our rush to produce data of all shapes and sizes and then reshape these data for policy or political purposes, we cannot forget how the public is interpreting these data.”

Like Jacobsen, I do believe in high student expectations and accountability. We should strive for transparency and accountability. But, in our haste to create such a system Virginia has ignored too many variables (socio-economic status, percentage of special education students, percentage of English language learners, etc). Despite good intentions, Oklahoma, Florida, New York City and others rushed to implement school grades. Flaws in their grading systems were soon discovered and changes were made. The unfortunate byproduct of such haste: erosion of the public’s trust in schools, ineffective and harmful education policy, and plummeting teacher morale. Of course, who suffered the most: students. 

As McDonnell suggests, parents understand A-F grades, why not eliminate a single grade in favor of multiple school indicators that accurately reflect a school’s performance? Creating a balanced grading system would enable each school to be accurately measured in regards to student achievement, student progress and other strategic goals established by each school. 

Question 3: How Will School Report Cards Affect Teacher Morale

Because of the newness of school grades, I found little no research indicating how school grading systems impact teacher morale. But I can speak from both personal experience and other research.  Goals that others choose for us seldom motivate us to change. In Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us Daniel Pink concluded, “Goals that people set for themselves and that are devoted to attaining mastery are usually healthy. But goals imposed by others—sales targets, quarterly reports, standardized test scores, and so on—can sometimes have dangerous side effects.”

Pink suggests that teachers are motivated by mastery, autonomy and purpose. As teachers we want to know we are doing our jobs well; we don’t need a standardized test or a school grade to tell us this. We desire to have freedom to choose our own goals and how to achieve them. Finally, wanting to make a difference in the lives of our students motivates us. In the last twenty years, flexibility, autonomy and creativity have eroded. Instead, we’ve been besieged by federal, state, and district compliance checklists.

School report cards, especially in schools with lower-performing students, will further diminish our sense of accomplishment and purpose.

What Should Be Done

We all stand together for raising student expectations, even if mandated by state or federal governments. Instead of rushing to provide parents with a singular letter grade, we should proceed deliberately and cautiously by implementing the following.

1.     Eliminate the single grade and replace it with multiple school measurements that accurately portray a school’s performance.

2.     To ensure accuracy and balance, combine both absolute and growth-based data. Effective growth models use multiple years of data to measure the school’s effect on student performance.

3.     Data should not be used for high-stakes decisions, such as school takeovers or closures.

4.     Use compiled data to develop school-based improvement plans that focus on incremental and continuous improvement. Plans should be locally generated with teachers and administrators collaborating, Struggling schools should receive additional resources such as instructional and assessment experts.

5.     Schools should be measured on the progress they make in achieving their goals.

Government attempts to grade schools will backfire if done for political purposes. We must take the appropriate steps to depoliticize education and empower our educators to make the necessary changes.

What are your thoughts?

Sources
Pink, Daniel. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2009. 

Michigan State University (2013, March 25). How school report cards can backfire. Science Daily. Retrieved March 26, 2013 from http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/how-school-report-cards-can-backfire/

Governor McDonnell, Keep Guns out of Our Schools

Dear Governor McDonnell,

During a recent radio interview, you suggested arming and training school officials so they could respond in the event of a school shooting.

Unfortunately, your idea is misguided on two levels: it would not increase school safety and it conflicts with the very essence of why we teach.

Police officers have received countless hours of training and must constantly retrain to be recertified. Educators don’t have the training or the time for training. Our time would be better spent attending professional development to ensure we meet the mental and emotional needs of all of our students so they don’t become violent offenders.  Lacking the training, it would be far too easy for an angry student to wrestle a gun from a school official. As an educator, I don’t understand the intricacies associated with confronting an intruder. I don’t comprehend the dangers of crossfire or when deadly force should be used.

Looking at research about the availability of guns in homes for self-defense, we know that they are significantly more likely to be use for unintended purposes. I don’t want to read about an educator who erroneously shoots an unarmed, but threatening, student. We’ve all heard of suicide by cop, do we want this replaced by suicide by principal? (Teen suicide is the 3rd leading cause of adolescent death and for each completed suicide 25 are completed, we cannot make suicide 'easier'.) GovernNor do I want to read about an administrator who turns the gun on him/herself, a co-worker, or god-forbid a classroom of students.

Even if principals are willingly trained and armed, many recent mass shooters have been armed to the tilt with automatic, high-powered weapons and/or protective gear. Arming an administrator would simply make him/her the first target of a focused intruder leading to more gunfire and more death.

To the second issue, carrying a weapon in school conflicts with why I chose to teach. I entered teaching because I wanted to matter. Everything I do matters. I expand knowledge. But before teaching the mind, I must reach hearts and souls. I try to make the world a better place.

Carrying a firearm directly conflicts with why I teach.

Governor McDonnell, your suggestion of arming educators is defeatist.  Instead, we must proactively prevent these events through better mental health solutions—not to mention gun training and regulation.

Governor, your reaction was based on an unfortunate stimulus. Your suggestion reeks of desperation and helplessness.  Instead, we must consciously respond based on our values.  We must commit ourselves to improving our ability to provide the necessary mental and social services to our students. Instead of creating maximum-security schools, let’s make schools places of peace, harmony, thinking, and happiness.

Sincerely,

Reed Gillespie...