apk x8

The one lesson politicians should have learned from No Child Left Behind, is that when all of your energies and resources are turned to just improving test scores, failure is the result.  As education historian Diane Ravitch states eloquently in her book, The Death and the Life of the Great American School System, ”Our schools will not improve if we rely exclusively on tests as the means of deciding the fate of students, teachers, principals, and schools.” Sadly, I’m not sure our current political leaders have learned the lesson yet that schools will not improve by solely focusing on using test scores and standards to improve them.

Our national education policy is still dominated by a “test-centric” approach to reform that ignores so many other factors that impact education such as poverty, inadequate health care, and lack of gainful employment. According to education scholar Linda Darling-Hammond, “The United States has the highest poverty rate for children among industrialized nations,” (The Flat World and Education, Linda Darling-Hammond, 2010). We want to “Race to the Top” but we’re looking for short cuts to get there. We want standards and “better tests” but we don’t want to engage in the hard, difficult work of addressing poverty, lack of health care, lack of good, affordable housing, and lack of opportunity for jobs with living wages. As long as national education policy is driven by a blind belief in test results and national standards, 10 years from now, we will be either staring at the same dismal  conditions both educationally and economically if we’re lucky, or we will be much worse with a society with an even wider gap between those that have and those that have not.

What then is the answer? Just how bad are things in different parts of the country? This morning I stumbled upon a 5-year initiative by the American Federation of Teachers and partners like Cisco, Blue Cross Blue Shield, College Board, among many others, that focuses on the educational improvement of an entire community ravaged by unemployment, lost opportunity and lost promise. McDowell County West Virginia has not fared well at all since 1980 and that community is the focus of this initiative.


While it is easy to become entangled in the debate about the role of teachers unions in education when debating education policy, I think it is admirable that the AFT and its partners are putting into practice what they’ve been trying to make politicians understand all along; education reform must do more than focus on test scores and standards. It has to also address the dreadful conditions some of our fellow US citizens find themselves living in.

With this post, I am not taking sides in the debate about unions per se. I do believe, after 20+ years experience, and seeing countless students struggling to live in forgotten communities without the basics most of us take for granted, that the answer to our problems as a country lies, not in investing in more and different tests, or in national standards, but in focusing on the crushing problems facing our poorest students.

After watching the video below about “Reconnecting McDowell” I was reminded of an incident that happened in one of the schools where I once worked. I walked by a table during lunch one day, and a young 11 year old girl sat there with her head down. She had enormous tears in her eyes. I walked up, leaned down and asked her to step out the lunchroom for a minute. Once out of the hearing of others, I asked, “What’s wrong?” Through her tears, she blurted, “I don’t have any lunch money. My parents didn’t have any to give me.” She proceeded to tell me that when she went through the lunch line, the cafeteria took her plate away and refused to serve her lunch because she owed so much money. I took her back through the lunch line and told her to get anything she wanted, and that it would be taken care of. You can debate all you want about why a child does not have money to eat. You can accuse her parents of not taking care of her, but the reality for her is she was not going to be able to eat that day, and a focus on raising her test scores was not going to change that reality.

As I understand it, Reconnecting McDowell is an effort to try to improve the education of a community, and not do it by just focusing on test scores. It is an effort to focus on poverty, healthcare, housing, and  a broken community. I have been to McDowell County West Virginia and have seen firsthand all that the video describes. That is why this effort caught my attention. Poverty is real, and those of us who have worked in schools where it exists know its faces.


Link to Reconnecting McDowell Web Site.

In a meeting this past Monday I attended, representatives from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction provided educators with a presentation describing how our state is adding a sixth standard to our teacher evaluation and an eighth standard to our principal evaluation directly tying those evaluations to test scores. What I discovered at that meeting was that the standards proposed are worded innocuously and can hardly be questioned. For example the teacher standard reads:

"Teachers contribute to the academic success of students. The work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable progress for students based on established performance expectations using appropriate data to demonstrate growth."

I would think just about all teachers hope that what they're doing is contributing to the academic success of their students. The big difference in opinions among educators, however, is perhaps what this "academic success" is and whether growth measured by a test score is accurate. The principal standard is also written in this hard-argue-against language:

"ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT LEADERSHIP: School executives will contribute to the academic success of students. The work of the school executive will result in acceptable, measurable progress for students based on established performance expectations using appropriate data to demonstrate growth."

Both of these standards make sense on the surface. There's no educator alive who would argue that teachers and principals are not responsible for the achievement of their students. In my years as an educator, there's not a day that passes where concern about whether our students are learning what we're asking them to do isn't on my mind. The problem is not with these standards, but it is with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction's interpretation of what "student achievement" is. Under their plan, student achievement = growth on standardized test scores. While that is a nice, neat simplification of what achievement is, it ignores all learning that can't be tested with standardized testing. By interpreting student achievement as test score growth, the state is simply making testing in North Carolina even higher-stakes than before. With this test-emphasis, we will be well on our way to becoming test-prep factories that don't churn out educated students, but excellent test-takers. North Carolina is going to subject students to tests early and often, not to measure student progress, but to measure how well the teacher is doing. This betrays an underlying, but mistaken belief that tests can be used to tell you how teachers and principals are doing. North Carolina has defined "effective teaching" and "effective school administration" as simply growth demonstrated (by whatever model they can create) by test score performance.

Ultimately, the meeting I attended was billed as an opportunity for educators like myself to provide "feedback" to North Carolina Department of Public Instruction personnel on this proposed teacher evaluation change. However, in practice, it seemed more of a here's-what-we're-going-to-do-to-you session, but we want to give the "appearance that we're listening to educators." (That's a tactic perfected by Arne Duncan.) During the session, when educators expressed concerns about what the state is planning to do, they were often cut off by DPI personnel who interrupted to defend the state's plans rather than sincerely allowing educators to voice their concerns and listening. They felt the need to stifle honest opinion by cutting off people while they were speaking. Instead of being an opportunity to express concerns, it was an opportunity for the state of North Carolina to try to summarily dismiss those concerns.

To this educator, there are two equally frightening things about this whole test-centered approach to teacher and principal evaluations that I and other educators at this meeting tried to bring up, but the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction representatives quickly let us know that we were wrong.

• First of all, North Carolina is planning to evaluate teachers and administrators  by using test scores this spring even though they have not decided what growth model they are going to use, nor do they know exactly how this evaluation is going to take place. What's worse, they will not know at least until February of this year when the State Board has an opportunity to hear the first reading. In typical bureaucratic fashion, they are rolling out a program and implementing it even before it is finalized and clearly defined. Historically, I can recall two other examples of North Carolina Department of Public Instruction initiatives that were rolled out before they were defined well. These were when the state during the 1990's rolled out the ABC Accountability Model, and in the early 2000s, when the state rolled out the NC WISE student data system used throughout the state. Both of these were rolled out without any deep thought on its practical application in the districts. They were both rolled out bugs and all, and classroom teachers and educators had to suffer while the state got its act together. Now, it appears our State Department of Public Instruction is doing it yet again, except this time there are much higher stakes tied to it. North Carolina will be evaluating educators' careers based on something that isn't even clearly defined, and won't be until three-fourths of the year is completed.
• Secondly, North Carolina is also planning to create tests for every single subject taught, administer these tests, and use the results, not to see how students are doing, but to see if teachers and principals are able to raise test scores. Recently, Charlotte-Mecklinburg proposed this "test-everything-that-moves" approach, and it blew up in the administration's face so bad, they had to take money from Bill Gates and the Broad foundation to hire public relations personnel to try to sell it. If something smells so bad that you have to repackage it to sell, then perhaps there's something fundamentally wrong with it. In spite of the fact that educators at this meeting expressed concern over how much more time we will spend testing under this proposal, and how problematic it will be to implement, the Department of Public Instruction personnel at this meeting dismissed these concerns outright repeatedly, and told us how wrong we were.