Listserv Archives

Dear TNLI National:

Many thanks to TNLI San Francisco Fellow Julie Alderete for leading March’s discussion on the article "Can educators close the achievement gap? An interview with Richard Rothstein and Kati Haycock.”

We’ll jump into our April listserv discussion with a short article out of the Washington Post titled, “A Concentrated Approach to Exams: Rockville School's Efforts Raise Questions of Test-Prep Ethics,” by Daniel de Vise. 

The article is available online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301372_pf.html

TNLI Delaware Fellow Laura Thompson will be kicking off the discussion in a few days.  Please join Laura in getting our discussion off to a great start!

-Ellen, Peter, and Jenn

When I read this article, I was intrigued. Not by the process, but by the realization that this school is not the only school engaged in this practice.

Questions, quoted from the article, are important: Is it RIGHT to give extra help to some students and withhold it from others based on who is likely to pass? Is it ACCEPTABLE to set aside regular instruction for lessons on how to solve multiple-choice questions? Is it RIGHT to forsake free-form poetry for a steady diet of heavily formatted reading passages?

In addition to these questions, I had the following thoughts:
1. Do we prepare students to take a test, but fail to provide them with instruction that encourages them to be metacognitive?
2. If our only focus is THE TEST and how to answer questions on the test, when do we teach our students to think creatively and outside-of-the-box?

Finally, did the school's actions cross the ethics line?

Laura Thompson
Delaware
3/30/07

Reading the responses to the Washington Post article brings home the divisiveness that NCLB's focus on high stakes testing creates. Whether deliberate or not, in the highly charged racialized atmosphere in this country, "targeting" African American and Latino students, whether with extra help or pressure to drop out undermines the slow progress we've been making towards equity since the Civil Rights Movement.

White and Black parents in these blogs are blaming "illegal immigrants" for taking away resources and even driving down property values. Black parents are railing against Latinos and white parents are railing against everyone else. It sounds like the fifties!

The way the API is set up, low performing children within non-targeted groups are less likely to get help, while children in targeted groups are less likely to get arts, technology, and vocational opportunities (and in some districts even science or social studies) because their education has to focus on passing the tests (which, I might add, have questionable validity). In both situations there are issues of inequity.

It's also interesting to note that there is a big flap about a principal preparing her students to take this test but little attention given to middle class, mainly white students, who sign up for SAT test prep. Is that because the white parents are able to pay out of their own pockets while the schools are using tax dollars?

Either way it seems unfair.

What NCLB and its focus on testing does is divert attention from the real problem-- some children have access to highly educated and experienced teachers, superb preschool programs, and an array of enrichment activities, and some don't. Now, do we want to solve those problems or do we want to throw more money at publishers of tests and testing materials? And there's the deeper question--do we believe in democracy or don't we? Because a democracy requires an educated populace.

Susan Gold
San Francisco
3/30/07

Sometimes I feel like we can’t win.

If we don’t raise test scores, we are failures… run the risk of losing our students, our jobs, and our credibility. However, if we focus too much on the test - teach test taking strategies or emphasize items that are heavily stressed on the test - then we are robbing our students of authentic learning opportunities.

Anyone else confused?

Julie Alderete
San Francisco
3/31/07

I agree NCLB is extremely divisive. NCLB promotes a "crabs in a barrel mentality," where minority groups wind up fighting over a lack of resources. It makes me wonder about who is really benefiting from all this. I believe it is just another way of maintaining the status quo.

Is it right to give extra help to some students and withhold it from others based on who is likely to pass? The answer is NO! I believe it is very dangerous when educators who are charged with helping all children reach their academic potential are forced to decide which children are "worth the time and effort." All children are worth it.

As far as high stakes test are concerned, I am sort of torn. In my heart I know that standardized test don't accurately measure intelligence or academic potential. By no means do I believe it is okay to forgo regular instruction for lessons on how to solve multiple-choice questions. I believe all the content areas are valuable and important to the academic & social development of children. However, I am concerned about what happens in the meantime. The reality is students are judged by their performance on standardized test. So while the battle to test or not to test is being fought, what becomes of the students lacking test taking skills? What about their future? This battle was being fought when I was in High School of 10 years ago. I wonder if I would have gone to college if I had not taken the Test Prep Courses. I wonder if I could have passed the teacher certification test without these test taking skills.

Lesley Morris
NYC
4/10/07

I have been torn about my response to this article because like Lesley Morris I also know in my heart that standardized testing is controversial. As a teacher I don't make a distinction about who I teach or am willing to assist. I simply do it without thought for all the students who come through my classroom door without a thought as to who they are or what they may represent. Children are children and they do not in themselves represent the political controversy that is being fought behind closed doors. And, indeed some of them have a lot to lose from it. One of the things that I have thought about a lot and I don't believe that I have a response for it is that in education we seem to bicker among ourselves about what exactly are the best practices. I consider accounting or the medical practice and there are specific ways for doing things. Whereby in education we don't seem to agree on what exactly we are doing in the long. If I am making sense here. Testing falls into this category of disagreements-where is the balance? What about balancing testing with portfolios for all students? I think that it is time to stop disagreeing so much among ourselves in education and start applying the measures to balance education for all our kids.

Heidi Willard
Virginia
4/11/07

It's interesting when we look at the consequences of assessment. You took test-prep courses and feel that they helped you actually become a teacher.

When we limit the scope of instruction to basic test-prep to help a student pass a test, then we hurt our students. When we make decisions about who gets more help and who doesn't get instruction based upon fears of passing a high-stakes test, we play Russian Roulette with children's lives.

Laura.Thompson
Delaware
4/21/07

I appreciated Susan Gold's comments, and I agree wholeheartedly with her insights about inequities in our current system.

I want to comment on some specific practices in California that may or may not be the case in other states. In California, students' scores fall in one of five categories: far below basic, below basic, basic, proficient and advanced. Schools are expected to bring students from one level to the next. The problem with this system is that only the five categories are considered, not the actual score. For example, a student might show improvement within the "basic" category, but these gains will not affect the API unless particular students cross the threshold from one category or level to the next. This has resulted in practices such as those described in the article "A Concentrated Approach to Exams." In the article, the principal refers to "passing" and "not passing." In our case in California, "targeted" students are those who might just gain enough points to move to the next level or who might just drop below a certain level. The way that schools are judged encourages principals to be what some might consider strategic...and others might consider unethical.

I disagree with schools being assessed with such a narrow assessment tool in the first place. But, if we are going to be assessed with this tool, the state should look at gains for specific students, and they should look at points gained, not just whether students pass a threshold level (from basic to proficient, for example).

I understand from speaking with an administrator in Chicago that they look at scores differently in Chicago.

Stacy Schmidt Wenzel
San Francisco
4/22/07