It’s no secret that Reading First has been education’s biggest punching back these past few years. Earlier this month, IES released its interim study on the report, causing great glee with the whole languagers and the defenders of the status quo. Some used the study to write RF’s obituary. A few voices, including Eduflack, used the opportunity to highlight the flaws in the study. (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/02/rf-read-all-about-it.aspx)
For years now, Eduflack has been unabashedly supportive of RF. I still believe, when all is said and done, it could have a greater POSITIVE impact on education policy than any other piece of federal legislation. For that to happen, the law needs to be properly funded AND it needs to be implemented with true and complete fidelity.
Having worked with the National Reading Panel, I am a true believer in the principles embedded in RF. We know students need a comprehensive, integrated reading instruction platform that focuses on phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. We know that scientifically based reading research should rule the roost, with schools implementing only that which has been proven effective and proven to work in schools. We know that teachers must know the science. We know that students must be regularly assessed, with targeted interventions used to get all students reading at grade level.
Yet, we still debate on the value of RF and SBRR. And its been far easier to scream into the wind questioning RF. Few have been out there defending the law, calling for the need for proven research and proven instruction in our classrooms … particularly those classes who need it the most.
In RF’s darkest hours, though, we are now starting to see SBRR’s strongest proponents rising to its defense. It would have been easy to just awkwardly swallow the IES study, accept Congress’ funding slash, and forget the RF era. But we will not go quietly into the night.
When the IES study came out, the Fordham Foundation released a study — penned by Sol Stern — looking at the real failures of RF. The piece was strong, citing the operational weaknesses we’ve all heard. But it maintained that the law itself was still strong, worthy of our support, and needed by our students.
This week, the latest issue of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal came out, and Stern was at it again. Under the headline “Reading First Still Works,” Stern presents a strong and cogent analysis of the IES study and the flaws in its methodology. We can only hope that IES will take his critique seriously, and will correct the flaws before its 2009 report is complete.
The Stern piece is well worth the read time — http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0520ss.html. Its helps even us amateur researchers see the difference between strong and weak methodology. More importantly, though, it reminds us that programs like RF are well worth fighting for.
Here’s hoping that Stern’s continued work can serve as a rallying cry for RF and SBRR supporters and advocates throughout the country. Teaching our children to read is of paramount importance. Using proven effective methods is the only way to go. We need to remember that. Results should trump politics, particularly on an issue like student reading achievement.
NCLB
Is NCLB a Red Herring?
For years now, we have heard how No Child Left Behind was at the root of everything that was wrong with our schools. We’re spending too much time on high-stakes testing. We’re spending too much money on NCLB requirements. We’re asking too much of our teachers. We’re expecting too much from our students. If only NCLB were tucked back into the drawer, then our schools would improve, all students would be on their way to Nobel Prizes, and achievement gaps would be a thing of the past. Oh, if only we could go back to the good ole days.
Today’s Washington Times reports on the NCLB study released by the Center for Education Policy. It is an interesting read. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/NATION/766555380/1002 Under the header, “Many states leave behind education law,” Amy Fagan reports that more than 20 states have “procrastinated” in meeting NCLB requirements, meaning they likely will not hit the 2014 targets laid out in the law.
Imagine that. Nearly half of states are not implementing NCLB with the zealousness called for in the law. According to CEP, states like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and others aren’t in a position to bring all students to proficiency in reading and math in six years. Even Washington, DC, which has to answer to the feds, falls into the laggard bucket.
Interestingly, many of the states that join DC on the laggard list are the states that have been most vocal about the high costs and powerful problems caused by NCLB. We’ve heard the cries from Oregon, for example. They’re on the list. We’ve heard from states like Wisconsin that NCLB’s Reading First doesn’t work. Yes, America’s Dairyland is on the list as well. Even states who are about to lose their chief state school officers — like Rhode Island and Indiana — are also on the hit list.
It makes Eduflack wonder, is NCLB really to blame? Are these states having such difficulty implementing the law with fidelity that they have fallen so far behind? Or have they been slowly addressing the law, hoping a reauthorization or a new president would again change the game? Are they diligent in doing it right, or are they simply waiting it out?
Like many, I still believe our national goal should be every child proficient in math and reading. That’s a baseline that should be required in every school, every state across the nation. How can it not be? Do we identify now which third-graders don’t have to be proficient? Do we brand those fourth graders who we figure will drop out, and won’t factor into our high school data? Of course not.
As long as half the states are failing to keep up with NCLB implementation, we can’t say the law is failing. NCLB doesn’t work if the states can’t implement it, or if we find the states can’t make it work. The majority of states have been able to implement the law, and will meet the 2014 requirements. So the first box is checked.
The second box is the unanswered question. We are seeing states that are making NCLB work. We are seeing others with the potential. We are seeing math scores on the rise. We have identified what works and what hasn’t with Reading First.
It seems, to this uneducated soul, that 2014 is our moment of truth. Then, we’ll see how successful the states have been in gaining math and reading proficiency for all. Until then, we need to stop the blame game and focus on implementing the law with full fidelity. Maybe, just maybe, NCLB has a few solutions to what ails us educationally.
Some Ed Reccs for Senator McCain
Thanks to the Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper blog (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/) we now have a good sense for the great minds advising expected Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain on education policy. As to be expected, it is an impressive bunch. Their challenge, though, will be to get education issues to stand out on the Arizona Senator’s proposed domestic policy agenda.
No, McCain is not known in DC circles as one of the Senate’s leaders on education. But that doesn’t mean he can’t rise to the occasion. The presidential bully pulpit is a strong one, and education remains a top five domestic policy issue for most. If you can’t figure out how to fix the economy in the short term, you certainly can focus on education for the long-term economic benefit.
More than a year ago, Eduflack offered a top-five list of education ideas for the Republican nominee to think about when constructing an education platform. A lot has changed since then. The latest State of the Union seemed to de-emphasize the future of vouchers. Research still isn’t sure the long-term impact of charter schools. And the expected Democratic presidential nominee has been known to talk about merit pay for teachers.
That said, let’s take a look at those March 2007 recommendations:
“1. National standards benefit the nation. Such standards don’t mean we are denying local control. They empower our local districts to remain competitive in their state, across the nation, and throughout the world. National standards, both for students and teachers, are the only way today’s students can succeed in tomorrow’s global economy.
2. Invest in education R&D. We all understand the value of investing in medical or technology R&D. Now is the time to invest in research focused on improving our schools and educational quality in our classrooms. Such investment is key to triggering true innovation at the state or national level, leading to improved economies, better jobs, and better lives.
3. Respect the practitioners. It is easy for some to say our schools have failed because our teachers have failed. If any Republican wants to engender change in our schools, they need to respect the teachers delivering the curriculum. They are on the front lines. Without their support, reform will fall flat, destined for a garbage heap of good but failed ideas.
4. Don’t fear additional spending. NCLB scared off many a Republican, particularly with increased federal education spending. The feds are still only responsible for about 8 cents of every dollar spent on public K-12 education. Additional funding is good for the system, as long as we are spending it on research-proven instruction and improvements we know will boost student achievement.
5. Focus on what works. For decades, our schools have been bombarded with the latest in snakeoils and silver bullets. Today’s educators want to see what works in schools like theirs, with kids lke theirs. NCLB is all about replicable school reforms. Now is the time to spotlight what is going right in your hometown or your home state, and use it as the model for why we need to continue federal education reforms. Many of today’s improvements are directly tied to NCLB efforts. Take credit for it.”
Interestingly, these reccs ring as true today as they did 15 months ago. But I’d offer a few caveats to Arizona’s senior senator:
* Don’t hitch your wagon to NCLB, attach yourself to the intent. It isn’t about “NCLB” the proper, it is about doing what works and funding what is proven effective. Forget the title of the law. Focus on the outcomes. The federal government has a role in public education. Claim that role, focusing on the future and expected goals.
* Don’t forget, you were a teacher too. As a leader in the Navy, you instructed and taught. You molded and trained young men. It may not have been the ABCs or the quadratic equation, but you understand the importance of good teaching. Remind us of it.
* Shine your education agenda through the filter of economic opportunity. Too often, we view education in a vacuum. We can’t afford to do that in today’s economy. Education policies should be positioned as opportunities to better prepare today’s kids for the opportunities of tomorrow. That doesn’t mean turning our K-12 schools into trade schools, but it does mean an education that is relevant to both the student and the world.
* Borrow (and steal) from the Arizona experience. As you are looking at what is relevant, take a close look at what your Governor has been doing. Her focus on innovation and STEM education shows what we need to be thinking about in education reform. Speaking from the Arizona experience, you can let the home state serve as a model for others in need. You come from a state that gets it.
Eduflack isn’t naive. I recognize that education is not going to be a primary discussion topic for you between now and November. I don’t expect it will be an issue for a keynote speech during the Minneapolis convention. But I know it is a basic bread-and-butter issue that can play well in the blue states and with independent voters.
The days when a GOP president wanted to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education are over. Now, you have the opportunity to strengthen the Department, making it more efficient and better focused on the end result. You have a team of advisors who understand data, how to use it, and the importance of measurement and assessment. Take advantage of it. Improve the system. Reject the status quo.
And please, Senator, don’t lose sight of recc #1. It may not be popular with some, but national standards are worth a good, long look. Someone, some day is going to adopt national standards. And it will result in a legacy many seek, but almost none achieve.
Just my three cents (inflation, after all). Feel free to crib from, improve, or adopt wholesale.
What Happens in 2014?
Yesterday, a who’s who of the education blob gathered to discuss the future of education research. Hosted by Education Sector, AED, AIR, and the Knowledge Alliance, folks gathered for “Towards 2014: Education Research on the Leading Edge of School Improvement?”
It was an opportunity to soak in all that Checker Finn, Russ Whitehurst, Rick Hess, Mike Smith, and the like have to say about the state of education research. The forum was a follow-up to a similar event hosted by similar organizations back in 2002, when we were all just learning to let scientifically based research roll of our tongues (and before IES was even part of our vocabulary).
For those who missed it, you can get the main thrust from Knowledge Alliance President Jim Kohlmoos’ guest blog on edbizbuzz — http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2008/05/friday_guest_column_is_educati.html#more.
What is particularly interesting is how little seems to have changed over the past six years. Yes, we are all now aware of what SBR is, and why it is important. But we seem to still struggle in two key areas, agreeing on what SBR is and applying it to practice.
For many, SBR is like the popular definition of pornography — we know it when we see it. Ask us to define scientifically based research (as it applies to education) and we grasp for words. Show us a recently completed research study or a journal article, and we can tell you whether it makes the cut or not. Isn’t diagnosing SBR after the fact what has gotten us in the trouble we’re in? Shouldn’t we know if a study meets the scientific standards BEFORE we have spent millions of dollars on its execution? Without a firm understanding of methodologies and research models, we risk a system where we simply slap an SBR label on the outcomes we happen to like.
We don’t seem to have this problem in medicine. We know what are scientifically based studies and what are surgically enhanced fluff. So why is education so different?
Some will use the statistic Russ Whitehurst uses — that the research portion of the U.S. Department of Education’s budget is less than one half of one percent of the total budget, where Health and Human Services is spending nearly 42 percent of its budget on research. Doesn’t that mean it is even easier for ED to ensure that its research dollars are wisely spent?
I’ll be the first to advocate for additional spending on educational research. In many urban school districts — those with schools branded as dropout factories — we are spending $10,000, $12,000, even $15,000 per student on education. As taxpayers, we have a right to know our money is well-spent. As parents, we have a right to know that our kids are getting effective instruction. As members of our social community, we have the right to know our schools work. Research is the cornerstone to all of that.
Which gets us back to the previous issue — we’re still struggling to put SBR to use in the classroom. We understand the power of the buzzword, and are quick to describe our ideas or solutions as research-based or proven-effective. But have we really studied what is happening the classroom? Are we really measuring the effectiveness of specific interventions over the long term? Are we really looking at the comprehensive research base available before deciding on a textbook or supplemental material? Are we making sure what works is what we are using?
Unfortunately, “no” seems to be used an awful lot to answer those questions. And it doesn’t have to be that way. At the forum, Checker Finn called for one-stop shops on educational research, where we all have more access to statistical information. Add to that the means to train teachers, administrators, and decisionmakers to both understand and apply SBR, and we may have a real winner here.
Data is important, but it is also dangerous. Put it in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand what they are looking at (or worse, thinks they do when they don’t), and you can do far more damage than just maintaining the status quo. As part of our ed R&D investment, we should be training a cadre of educator scientists who help practitioners distill the facts, identify what works, and move that research into practice. That was the goal, six years ago, with NCLB and SBR. And that should still be our goal today.
Yes, Eduflack knows he is a cynic. But after this forum, he is cautiously optimistic. SBR is no longer a punchline to a status quoer’s ed reform joke. We all seem to understand the importance of sound, replicable research. Now, we are starting to break it down and see what makes the cut and what hits the trash. With luck (and real commitment), we should see some wholesale understanding and implementation by 2014. Let’s just hope we’re all there to see it (and still give a damn about it).
Keep Reid-ing
Earlier this week, Eduflack recommended anyone with an interest in reading instruction should check out the www.ednews.org interview with Reid Lyon. In recent days, the links back to that interview have grown and grown. While I’d like to think it is my influencer, I know it is simply the value of the information Reid provides. It doesn’t hurt that these are Reid’s first read comments on RF since leaving NICHD nearly three years ago.
Yes, the interview is an interesting one. But if you checked it out at the start of the week, you’ve missed out on the comments that are now attached to the piece. Those of us who write on the internet expect comments to be a sentence or two, either bouquets or brickbats. Those who have read Reid’s interview have provided some interesting in-depth opinion. Real thoughts from real practitioners and real researchers. How novel!
Check it out — http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largest-concerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html.
It doesn’t matter if your are and SBRR disciple or you’ve drunk the whole language kool-aid. It’s worth a read.
Kids Are Reading?!?
These are definitely reading days. Don’t believe me? Check out the front page of today’s Washington Post. Jay Matthews brings us the latest data from Accelerated Reader, an online reading program from Renaissance Learning. Looking at its student usage data from more than 63,000 schools nationwide, AR has identified what books today’s students are reading … and how often they are reading them.
The full Matthews story is here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/04/ST2008050402168.html?hpid=topnews. The AR study can be found here — http://www.renlearn.com/whatkidsarereading/ReadingHabits.pdf?sid=ST2008050402168.
The results are both interesting and disturbing. Some of the top titles are to be expected. “Green Eggs and Ham” is tops for first graders. “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing” for fourth graders. “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” was most read for second graders.
All of these are fun, well-written books that can be found in most independent reading collections for those grade levels. But we’re also seeing a number of “required” reading titles on the list, particularly with the older grades.
“The Outsiders” was tops for seventh and eighth graders. Eduflack remembers that as required reading in middle school. And for high schoolers, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was the most-read book. The Harper Lee classic has long been a mandatory read in ninth or 10th grade classes throughout the country.
Such data is interesting. The most popular titles today, for the most part, were popular titles when Eduflack was in school decades ago. What’s disturbing, though, is the amount of reading these students are doing. We all keep hearing about the Harry Potter effect, and how kids are reading more today than they used to (due, in part, to the tri-wizard champion). But AR’s data seems to tell a different story.
The average seventh grader is only reading seven books a year. Take away the required readings like “The Outsiders,” and it is probably safe to say these junior high students are only reading two or three books independently each year. Even more disturbing are high schoolers. The average 12th grader is reading four books a year, meaning after books assigned in English class, the only thing seniors are reading is the back of a cereal box.
If we’ve learned anything during the RF era, it is that good reading comes in two parts. Students need to gain the instructional building blocks identified under the law — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Then they need to practice it. They need to read in class and outside of it. They need to continue to develop those skills. They need to become readers for life.
Reading is like any other skill. If you want to play golf, you can get instruction on how to tee off, how to chip, and how to putt. You can learn how to read the greens and choose your clubs. But if you aren’t out there knocking out a few buckets a week and playing on real courses, you will never be a good golfer (though completing those tasks is no guarantee of success, trust me). Developing skills requires practice, practice, practice. And reading skills are no different.
This data also helps us see the need to prioritize independent reading in our schools and homes. And that is due to the continued importance of statewide assessments. When it comes to ELA, the assessment is one big independent reading test. Think about it. The test may include an excerpt from “Charlotte’s Web,” but it isn’t a test on how much you know about spiders and pigs. Assessments are independent, cold reads. We test a student’s ability to comprehend what they read. Do they know the vocabulary? Can they read and process it in the requisite period of time? Can they reach conclusions based on what they read?
Now, we must see what we can do with this data from AR. How do we use it to get good books in the hands of good students? How do we set goals to increase book consumption among students of all ages? How, exactly, do we build the reading skills of all students?
Lots of questions. In RF and in successful schools throughout the nation, we can find the answers. We just need to look. And we need to know how to read the signs.
And Now a Word from a RF Godfather …
Last week, the education reform community was abuzz with discussion on IES’ interim report on Reading First’s effectiveness. There’s been a great deal of good talk on the topic, particularly from Mike Petrilli and the folks over at Fordham Foundation.
Today, we’ve got a great interview on Educationnews.org with Reid Lyon. If you’re bothering to read anything on RF, then you have to know who Reid is. I won’t try to summarize the interview, for I couldn’t do it justice. Instead, I’ll just forward the link.
Be warned, it is long. But it is chock full of good information and good opinion. Definitely worth the read. And it begs the question — what is the other $140 million set aside for RF assessment/evaluation being used for?
http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largest-concerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html
Happy reading!
Who’s on Deck for EdSec?
This month, Washingtonian Magazine did a two-page spread on who Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would select for their Cabinet, should they take ownership of the big desk in the Oval Office. Lots of interesting names to ponder and fuel cocktail party discussion.
But one thing troubled Eduflack greatly. There is no mention of the U.S. Department of Education. After all of the money and attention spread by Ed in 08. After the dogged pursuit of the issue by Richard Whitmire and EWA. No mention of who would lead federal education in this NCLB 2.5, merit pay, voucher/charter whack-a-day world.
So Eduflack is going to take it upon himself to fill the Washingtonian’s holes. Let’s set aside the campaign advisors that Alexander Russo so kindly provides on his Campaign 08 wiki. Let’s forget the whispers Eduflack has heard over the last year, mentioning everyone from UFT/AFT Randi Weingarten to Eduwonk Andy Rotherham to even NLNS CEO Jon Schnur. All good fun, yes, but who do we really think will be heading ED in a Democratic administration?
Eduflack’s narrowed his choice down to a top three … and a dark horse.
Candidate A – NC Gov. Mike Easley. Gov. Easley is one of the top education governors out there. He gets it, and speaks passionately about key issues, particularly school-to-work concerns. Sure, he is a lawyer by trade, but not everyone is perfect. One could see him in the Secretary Riley model, a strong southern governor who knows how to lead and motivate. The downside, as a NC governor, he will always be in Jim Hunt’s shadow on education issues. And he has endorsed Hillary in advance of the NC primary, which could hurt him with Obama later on.
Candidate B — Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Cut from the same cloth as Easley, Granholm is smart, articulate, and a true motivator. She’s also made major education moves in Michigan, from PreK programs to instituting a comprehensive reform to high school graduation requirements. The downside, we still time to see the effectiveness of her reforms and Michigan’s test numbers are still waiting to see the Granholm bounce.
Candidate C — NYC Chancellor Joel Klein. He has the results, he has the national recognition, and he is ripe for a new challenge. What more is there to do in NYC. He’s won the Broad Prize and test scores are up. NYC is now the model for urban reform. Let’s see what he can do on the national stage under a reauthorized NCLB. The downside, another lawyer who may try to run ED like he ran his department at Justice. Who at ED is up for that?
The Darkhorse — Rep. George Miller. We seem to look to governors to serve as EdSec. Just look at Lamar Alexander and Richard Riley. Many would say the superintendent experiment with Rod Paige didn’t work (Eduflack doesn’t believe that. In fact, Eduflack finds Paige to be one of the brightest, thoughtful educators he has had the pleasure of working with (post ED). It’s unfortunate that DC saw an overly scripted EdSec, courtesy of DPC, and not the real and true Paige. Paige has gotten a raw deal these past few years, in my opinion). NCLB needs reauthorization. ED needs someone who understands Congress. Who better than a co-author of the original NCLB law, an ed reform champion, and one who has stood up to the status quo. Let’s give the keys to Miller and let him enforce the spirit of the law he helped write in 2001. The downside, of course, is why would he want to give up the Ed Committee Chairmanship to run a tough agency during a difficult time?
Let’s see Washingtonian and the whispering class chew on these names for a while, and see what they think. If not these four, then who?
And don’t worry, Senator McCain, Eduflack has a few names for you as well. As you confer with Lisa Graham Keegan on ed issues, try floating names like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (if you don’t choose him for VP) or Congressman Buck McKeon. Heck, in another year, Paul Vallas may be ready for another challenge too. He could be McCain’s token Democrat in the Cabinet.
RF: Read All About It
Today’s big education news story seems to be the IES study on the effectiveness of Reading First. For those who have missed the IES announcement of the study, or the USA Today or NY Times piece, or the countless blog entries, the good researchers over at IES determined that Reading First has been ineffective, to date. Looking at elementary schools implementing RF programs, the researchers found that teacher behavior has changed, but student performance still has not improved.
Some are already questioning the methodology, asking if the type of poor-performing school studied by IES impacted the outcome. And more criticisms are sure to come.
Ask Eduflack, and he thinks it is still too soon to know the true effectiveness. If you ask a good educational researcher, they’ll tell you it typically takes at least five years to see the effectiveness of a reform. RF was signed into law in 2002, with state grant applications soon following. That means the earliest checks were likely cut for the 2003-04 school year. So if we’re lucky, IES has looking at year three, maybe year four of implementation. So let’s give it another year or two before we eulogize Reading First.
The bigger issue, though, is the implications of the study. Many will use this to reinforce the IG findings and to validate the attacks that RF has faced from the beginning. Think about it — if the implementation was bad, the awards were skewed, and the impact non-existent, the law must be no good. Right?
But we’re truly missing the bigger picture. The IG investigation and the recent Sol Stern/Fordham Foundation report have reached similar conclusions. RF is a well-intentioned and well-conceived program. The flaw was in the implementation. The feds, the SEAs, and the LEAs have not followed the true letter or spirit of the law. Some cut corners. Some skipped sections of the law. And some simply didn’t understand it.
Read Stern’s report closely. Talk to the brains behind the law — the Reid Lyons and the Bob Sweets of the world — and they will tell you the same thing. The law is strong. We need to better enforce it. We need to better follow it. We need to better live it.
Instead, we let the status quoers use RF funding to support non-SBRR programs. We let schools continue so-called balanced literacy programs. And we failed to ensure that “what works” was really getting into the classroom.
I’d still like to believe that RF can be saved. We have the technology to rebuild her. If the IES study tells us anything, it is that we need to enforce RF with greater fidelity. We need to follow both the letter and the intent of the law. If we don’t, we may hasten the death of RF and the implementation of SBRR. And that’s no good for the teachers who have already changed their practice and for the kids who need to be reading at grade level.
The Measure of a Student
State assessments are always good as an educational conversation-starter. We like to talk about high-stakes tests, teaching to the test, and whether such exams are a true measure of learning in the classroom. Like it or not, we take such exams seriously, seeing them as a measure of the student … and the teacher.
Earlier this week, Eduflack was told a story of a Northern Virginia student and a Northern Virginia teacher. The student is your typical pre-teen boy. He’s smart, but he lacks focus. From an immigrant family, his parents are limited in their English language ability, so many notes and instructions home fail to have maximum impact.
This week, the student took a practice test for Virginia’s SOL in history. Regardless of the reason, he only got about 60 percent of the questions right. He should be doing better, particularly after nearly a year studying the subject in class. The teacher was naturally worried, so sent a note home.
The note was classic passing of the buck. The teacher informed the parents of the poor performance on the practice test. Then the teacher informed the parents that the student had a notebook full of study materials he was required to bring home every night. The teacher reminded the parents he is to “study every night.”
At face value, the conversation seems pretty basic enough. Yes, parents need to take responsibility for their children’s performance. Yes, parents need to make sure their students are studying and successfully completing their assignments. And yes, parents should care about their children’s achievement on state assessments.
But there are two other issues here. The first is shared responsibility, the second the intention of state assessments. Teachers administer pre-tests so they know where their students stand. Such tests allow teachers to administer targeted interventions to address student learning needs. It allows for adjustment in classroom instruction, letting teachers see what lessons have sunk in and what lessons have not.
Students succeed in the classroom when parents, students, and teachers all take responsibility for learning. Teaching is not merely assembling a notebook of study materials. Requiring a notebook go home each night doesn’t translate into learning. Such materials are designed to enhance classroom learning. They can’t replace instruction.
Which gets us to the larger point — the intent of state assessments. In Virginia, we assume the SOLs will measure what a student has learned over the course of the academic year. While some may say teachers teach to the test, SOLs (or similar tests in other states) are not meant to be an exam we cram for. To suggest that SOL success comes from students studying sample questions at home undoes the intent and purpose of the state assessment.
It’s no wonder people have such issues with state assessments. It cheapens the value of the test when teachers give the impression and all-nighter will result in passing marks or students will learn through notebook osmosis or when parents think the responsibility is all on them to prepare their kids for the state exam. At the end of the day, state assessments should never be the vocal point of the classroom. The academic year should be about good instruction. If teachers teach well, students will succeed. And they will achieve on any independent exam the state or nation want to throw at them.
I wish my young friend luck on his history SOLs. And I hope his teacher experiences success with applied instructional methods. It’s good to encourage parents to get involved, as long as the teacher shares the responsibility, instead of passing potential blame.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 