Join the conversation

I find this post, and the paper it is commenting on, highly disappointing. They both assume that the whole goal of education is to raise test scores, as if they are all that matter. They also assume that improving achievement must require more top-down, forced "shocks" like NCLB and the Common Core Standards.

As the parent of two high achieving students, I'll tell you what made them high achieving: not focusing on test scores. Both our children received perfect reading scores last year. Our son just scored in the 99th percentile on the PSAT-- for the second time. A friend of ours has a young daughter who just scored high on an IQ test. We were discussing what made our children bright. We decided it was several factors: we read to them from the time we were born, we talked to them, and we included them in adult conversations from very early on. Interestingly, all our children were raised around a theater and performed in shows, saw their parents appear in shows and direct shows. Our children were simply immersed in literate environments-- not because it would raise their test scores, or even because we set out to make them smart, but simply because being literate is who we are... and being literate is fun.

All of this focus on scripted programs and common core standards will not produce as much progress as immersing children in real, rich, creative literacy experiences. They never plateau.

And as for the "improvements" that teacher evaluation reform and common core standards represent, I am witnessing teachers leaving the profession in droves. Those of us that stay are under increasing stress to conform, whether we think what's being forced on us is good for kids or not. As long as our dialogue is focusing on standardized test scores, we are talking about the wrong issues.

David, I am sorry that you find the post and paper (the post more so than the paper) disappointing. I personally believe very strongly that test scores are not the whole goal (or a primary goal) of education. I agree with you in that talking solely about standardized test scores is not productive, and can result in policies that ignore the main concerns with our education system today.

But I do notice that in talking about your own/friend's children's intelligence, you too appear to measure it by test scores - the PSAT, an IQ test and reading scores. You believe that they achieve at high levels on those tests because they don't focus on them. I agree with that concept, and I think it could apply system-wide - we can improve system performance on tests without focusing on the tests themselves.

I also think it is important to point out that when we talk about how students perform on tests, it is not indicative of the type of education they receive. A child could score a perfect score on a reading test as a result of a creative environment, or one that is drill and kill. When all we know is a test score, we don't really know a whole lot about that child's education.

As to your statement, "All of this focus on scripted programs and common core standards will not produce as much progress as immersing children in real, rich, creative literacy experiences" - I agree. As to whether they will never plateau under that type of educational system, I am not sure...Certainly I agree that in that type of environment they will never run out of things to learn.

One more thing: Based on your use of the word "top-down" I realized that I missed making an important clarification in the post. I in no way believe that a "shock" has to come from the top-down.

The general point that I was trying to make is that I agree with what I perceive as Schneider's main argument: To get different results, we must do things differently. The "shock" can come from anywhere. The example I cited was early childhood education, which relates to something that you point out doing for your children - reading to them early on. But it could be anything.

It could be a local eye doctor offering free screenings and glasses to school-age children - my guess would be that the result would be a "shock" to some kids' current stasis. Or it could be a district offering a summer program. Or it could be the addition of a drama club at an elementary school. Or it could be a district partnering with a college of teacher education to develop a student teaching program that results in teaching candidates prepared to meet the distinct needs of a local community. Or it could be getting rid of a scripted curriculum, giving educators the autonomy to teach how they believe is best for children, based on their professional expertise.

My assumption is that Schneider cited the Common Core and teacher evaluation reforms because he was looking at a national snapshot and those issues are hot at the federal level right now. I cited early childhood education for the same reason. But I in no way meant to imply that shocks introduced at other levels would not be as - or even more - effective.

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I was too vituperative. You are right to point out that I use standardized tests as evidence of my and my friends' children's intelligence. When someone as not fond of the standardized testing industry as I am resorts to using scores to make a point, you know that the idea of scores is having a tendency to dominate all our thoughts. I should have talked instead about the dozens of poems my daughter has written, the writing contests they have both won, and the novels my son and I have collaborated on... but then questions would be raised about the validity of those achievements as evidence of intelligence. I wish we could have a broader view of "student achievement."

I'm glad to hear you don't think more and stronger NCLB-like measures are not necessarily the "shocks" we need. I couldn't agree more. I guess I would question why we need "shocks" at all. It seems that our main problem is bringing up the level of our lowest-level students. When I look at the level of rigor that our highest performing students are dealing with, I can only say that middle and high schools are more advanced now than they were when I was in school in the 70's and 80's, or when my parents were in school. As one colleague has said, we seem to be at two extremes. We have high performing kids who basically move college down into high school and get a head start before they graduate, or we have students operating at such a low level that elementary school moves up with them into high school.

I guess what made me reel in your initial post was that I read it as saying that scores had gone up due to the shocks of NCLB, but since they leveled off, we need more draconian shocks to the system to raise them even more. As someone whose evaluation this year will be based half on my students' state test scores, I can tell you that I, and most of the teachers I know, can't take many more "shocks." Shocks come with unintended consequences.

Another colleague who works with teachers all over my district said that she sees two emotions in the faculties at each school: fear and anger. That's an unintended consequence of the "shocks" we've been experiencing. The fact that our elementary schools are no longer really teaching Social Studies and Science so that they can raise Reading and Math scores is another unintended consequence.

I like the idea of alternative shocks to the system. Perhaps you could investigate some and post about those. I think we can be more creative than simply making the multiple choice tests trickier and stressing out teachers more than they already are. I especially like the idea of throwing out scripted curricula. As I've said else where, you can't have both excellence and standardization. If all my teaching materials, teaching methods, and assessments are designed for me, what's left for me to excel at-- talking louder to the students?

Thanks for listening. As the T-shirt says, sometimes "I yell because I care."