On programming and standards, part 2

[The title of this post is losing its relevance, since I probably won't do much more than refer to programming, but if you read Part 1 hopefully it'll make a little more sense.]

As I argued in part 1 of this series, I believe that explicit standards actually prevent the type of learning most educators say they'd like to see in the classroom. Standards make educators think they have to explicitly cover that topic. What results might be a more uniform coverage of content, but it also lends itself to teacher-focused instruction, and a lack of overall creativity and risk-taking by teachers1.

Chris Lehmann has been known to describe standardized tests as the "coin of the [US educational] realm," and as such they shouldn't simply be ignored. If they're how our school system has decided to measure success, we can't just pretend the standards they cover don't exist (as much as I'd love to do just that). How then should our schools create standards?

Currently each state generates its own standards and all schools in the state are expected to follow the standards. Many big education-policy people in favor of national standards. I'm not. The more I think about this, the more I'm certain we should be heading away from state and national standards and more towards flexible standards set by every district and ideally every school. Locally created standards can be more responsive to the needs of the students. They can be more easily changed, rearranged, improved, and fit to local issues. Deborah Meier has long argued for similar arrangements- and indeed most of my thoughts in this area come from reading her thoughts2.

Instead of mandatory standards, states could generate general guidelines for each subject. For example, they might suggest students should study climate change, the evolution of the universe, plate tectonics, etc. before graduating from high school. Individual schools could then decide how and when to teach those concepts- or perhaps decide to ignore them in favor of something they see as being more important.

The current cycle of state standards then standardized testing is unlikely to change quickly, and it may seem silly to spend time thinking about it, especially since I have no voice in the world of education policy. However, the more discussions and more awareness that exists for these issues, the more likely it becomes that those who have the ability to influence education policy start considering alternative viewpoints. I also believe it's wise for all of us to consider what effect policies have upon the educational system, to suggest alternatives, and have lively debates about the future of education.

_

  1. There's some research that suggests this. Liu and Szabo in their article, "Teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration in schools: A four-year study" (2009), note that educators feel pressure to prepare for state standardized tests and so were adverse to taking risks with using technology in the classroom (that was so not APA style).  []
  2. For a great article on Deborah Meier's views on standards, check out this article written for the Boston Review. []

C(R)APT testing

I truly believe that it is possible to have a standardized test that does at least a decent job of measuring student achievement. That being said, I have yet to see one that does.

Exhibit A

I snapped a quick pic of a CAPT (Connecticut's standardized test of choice) practice sheet that was left sitting by the copying machine on Friday.¹

Question 1

My favorite part of this? It includes the little bubble-it-in-grid. Not because this particular worksheet gets scanned, but it's just practice so students know how to fill in bubbles. As if there's nothing more important in our students lives than learning these valuable life skills (Objective A.12.34: Students will display proper usage of No. 2 pencils and bubbling technique).

These tests always seem to be trying to trick students. The questions asks for the answer given to the nearest gallon. Doing the math without rounding gives you an answer of 12,990.6542 gallons. The bubble grid includes space for decimals. How many students put in 12,990.65 and get it marked incorrect? What are they supposed to bubble in? 12,990? Would that get marked wrong because the last two decimals aren't filled in? 12,990.00? That's technically incorrect² but I can see how a 15 year old who is really trying to follow directions to a "T" would answer in that way.

Question 2

What knowledge is this question testing? At first it seems to be a question about proportions (40 gal. sap : 1 gal. syrup), but then it throws this whole gallons into quarts thing in at the end. Thus this question only tells us if students understand the conversion and the proportion concepts.The test can't determine if they understand one but not the other. Thus, the test doesn't determine what a student actually knows with any degree of accuracy.

Furthermore, how important is it for students to memorize conversion factors? Especially in Imperial Volume Units? I can barely keep those straight (and have little reason to). Anytime I really need to convert these units, I pull up Google and use their handy unit conversion tool.

What's the big deal?

This isn't a problem unique to Connecticut. It's a general problem that is pervasive throughout the high-stakes standardized testing world. How can these tests accurately determine what students know if they're poorly written? How can districts be told they're failing their students if the instrument used to determine that students aren't learning has serious validity problems? How can the entire education system in the United States buy into these tests as the best way to measure success?

Who are the people that write these tests? Do they read the questions they've written?

_________________________________________________

¹ Sorry for the poor quality images of the tests. They were taken with my camera phone.

² The reason 12,990.00 is incorrect because it implies that the measurement is accurate to the nearest one hundredth of a gallon which is a higher degree of accuracy than can be ascertained from the given information. In fact, the correct answer should be 13,000 gallons, due to the total dollar value being given as the entirely vague "about $556,000." This implies that the final answer can only be accurate to the nearest thousand. Thus ends the quick & dirty lesson on significant figures.

Better teachers make better schools

Teachers are the key. To be more precise, highly effective teachers are the key. Putting high quality educators in every classroom would increase student performance more than any other reform movements. This isn't just my opinion, it's also the opinion of Professor Edward L. Glaeser according to his op-ed in the Boston Globe.

Dr. Glaeser proposes that step one to getting high quality teachers into the classroom is getting highly capable people into teaching. He suggests increasing teacher compensation as well as making the certification process less of a bureaucratic nightmare. I think both ideas are promising. I've certainly had to (and continue to) deal with the mess of getting certification and keeping it current.

Step two involves keeping these high quality teachers in the classroom. Teacher burn-out is a serious problem, especially among highly motivated, highly effective teachers who spend countless hours planning and prepping for those pivotal few minutes actually spent in contact with their students. People who are highly motivated and very capable also tend to have no problem adapting to careers outside of education.

Step two is where I'd really like to agree with Dr. Glaeser, but perhaps I'm just too cynical to really think things would work out as well as he hopes. Glaeser says, "Perhaps teachers unions could start endorsing the use of test scores to evaluate their members and determine tenure."  Look, I totally agree the current seniority based pay scale is not helping our education system. There's simply no incentive to work hard. I get a raise next year whether I bust my behind or just slide through the year. However, tieing test scores to salary gives me the willies.

Why basing teacher pay off student test scores scares me

  1. Test validity. Most state sanctioned standardized tests have a better correlation with socio-economic status than a students ability to think critically, scientifically, or those other skills that actually matter. If a standardized test could be shown to reliably measure the ability to think scientifically, mathematically, critically, etc. then I'd be much closer to liking this idea.
  2. The measurement of instruction affects instruction. Once you pick an instrument, that instrument determines what and how instruction will occur. If my salary is tied to successful test taking, I'm much more likely to focus on test taking skills or knowledge that students need for that one test. Gone is the focus on life-long learning.
  3. Local policies. What happens if my students don't do so hot on the test one year? Or a couple years? Who determines that policy, and how fluid is it? Perhaps it's just my cynicism, but I can envision too many ways this type of system could be used to keep the "good ol' boys" employed while pushing out innovation.

Things my salary should be based on

  • Classroom observation. Watch me at work. If you're paying me to interact directly with students, my salary better be based upon you watching me do that.
  • Student improvement in the areas of critical thinking, literacy, numeracy, and scientific thinking. I realize the standards say students need to know the difference between an element and a compound, but isn't it more important that my students know how interact with scientific information? We need to be teaching students more than facts.
  • My role as a professional educator. Am I a leader in the school? Can I be counted on to work for what's best for the school community?
  • Personal improvement. Am I reflective about my practice? Can I effectively target when things have gone poorly and change things to improve my weaknesses?

I'm unaware of any instrument that measures all the variables above. I'm not sure if that instrument existed if that would be the solution to our educational woes.

What things should your salary be based upon? Discuss.