Volume 7 Number 1
High Standards for All
In the spring of 2000, Alaska administered its first round of a graduation qualifying exam to all 10th-graders. The results were devastating. More than one-quarter of students statewide failed in reading. More than half failed in writing. Two-thirds failed in math.
Reactions were strong. Teacher Susan Stitham, who chairs the Alaska State Board of Education and Early Development, complained that the testing timeline was "just plopped" on the schools. "Nobody ever said, 'When can you be ready? or when can the kids be ready?'" she told Education Week. Noting that the first wave of students taking the exam are "guinea pigs," state Deputy Commissioner Bruce Johnson said, "We don't want to duck the accountability issue, but we want to be fair" to all kids, including those with disabilities. Governor Tony Knowles summed up the situation by calling it "neither acceptable nor fair."
The following January, the Alaska board of education unanimously recommended postponing further initiation of the test until 2006. The legislature voted to hold off until 2004.
"The testing issue is the hottest pancake on the griddle for the state legislature," says Richard Smiley, head of assessment and testing for the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Nationally, 18 states require students to pass exit exams to graduate, and six others will soon follow. Although Alaska is the only Northwest state so far to raise the stakes as high as students' diplomas, the others are hotly debating the issues. The conversation about testing to standards and holding teachers and schools accountable for the results stirs up strong emotions. But the topic cannot be ignored, as it sits at the very center of the standards movement. Educators and policymakers are searching for answers that ultimately may decide the success or failure of standards. Critical questions include:
Oregon and Washington have established "benchmark" exams — tests that gauge whether students are reaching grade — level achievement targets tied to state standards. Strictly speaking, these tests are not "high stakes" — that is, tests that determine important outcomes: whether a child passes or graduates; whether an educator gets a raise or promotion; whether a school gets a bad rating, gets "reconstituted," or, in really extreme cases, gets shut down. But because newspapers publish the results and because those results are used to judge teachers and schools, many feel they have become so de facto. Oregon, which jumped into standards in the early 1990s, instituted benchmark tests in 1996. But it has no plans to make the 10th-grade Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) a requirement for a diploma. Washington is introducing its benchmarks gradually. Not until 2008, when the first cohort of kids has passed through all of them, will its 10th-grade Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) become a graduation requirement.
The region's maverick is Montana, where resistance to standards is still strong at all levels of the community, says Tom Rogers, director of educational accountability at the state education department. Despite that resistance, standards have been developed and are up on the education department's Web site. In another move toward standardization in this strongly local-control state, students will take the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in grades four, eight, and 11 for the first time this year. "Some people in Montana think the Iowa Basic is a high-stakes test," notes Rogers, adding that the last legislative session adjourned without an allocation of funds for the test.
Idaho, another state with a deep commitment to local control, has taken the surprising step of mandating a research-based reading program that includes student assessments, teacher training, and interventions for struggling students. Idaho educators predict that standards in other content areas aren't too far behind. (See "Birth of a Standard" on Page 12 for an in-depth look at the challenge of implementing Idaho's new legislative initiative.)
Across the region, politicians, educators, students, parents, and the public are finding the reorientation of school systems to standards a complex and thorny process. For example, tests must be aligned with curriculum in order to have validity. That is, the tests must measure students' mastery of content they actually had an opportunity to learn. Also, standards typically require the mingling of subject matter. Reading and writing standards, for instance, are being integrated into math and science curricula. Yet few teachers in those disciplines have been trained to teach skills that were once the exclusive domain of language arts teachers. Professional development is critical if teachers are to become comfortable and effective in these new roles. But in an increasingly money-strapped field, training is often unavailable.
The fact that Oregon's CIM is not a graduation requirement has created a whole different set of problems. Student Slavak Drofyak, a senior at McKee High School in Salem-Keizer, argues that the CIM is superfluous. "It's dumb; we don't need it," he insisted one day last spring when make-up CIM tests were in full swing. "They've said we need this to get work, but employers around Salem don't care about it. Half my class is down at McDonald's, instead of taking the test."
With or without teeth, how high should testing standards be set? Should they be high enough to prepare students to perform ably in the global economy? Or should they be aimed at minimum competencies? In the aftermath of Alaska's disappointing test results, many concluded that the standards were set unfairly high. "NEA-Alaska believes all students should have the opportunity to meet standards, and the diploma ought to mean something," says Rich Kronberg, president of the teachers union. "However, the intent of the law was to test basic skills, and at least in the area of math, the tests that were developed may have gone beyond that."
Others fear that the standards will dip so low that they become meaningless. While educators — and jurists — agree that students should have multiple chances to pass the final test, some standards proponents fear that tests will be watered down to ensure students' success. Students typically take a standards-based mastery test in the 10th grade to allow them enough time to try again if they fail. In a recent opinion piece in The New York Times, Kate Zernike points out that if the tests are given in the 10th grade, they can reasonably measure only material taught through 10th grade. And in some states, the level is set low even for 10th-graders — closer, according to some estimates, to an eighth-grade level, Zernike asserted in her op-ed piece, "Why Johnny Can't Read, Write, Multiply, or Divide."
In McKee High School's airy, two-story cafeteria, a handful of students bend, frowning, over make-up CIM tests. Senior Tiffany Graves has already graduated, but she has returned to take her math test yet again in hopes of finally passing it. "I don't even remember how many times I've taken it," she says. Near her, junior Corrie Gowan is also taking the math test — for the fifth time. It's been two years since she's been enrolled in math, and she doesn't look very hopeful.
Many educators, parents, and assessment experts wonder, Are these tests the best way to measure student accomplishment? The number of educational organizations answering "no" is growing. In the April 2001 report, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, the National Research Council states that tests used for "accountability purposes" typically "do not chart students' progress over time or provide adequate insights into students' thinking strategies." The council goes on to argue that many existing tests "focus on discrete bits of knowledge and skill rather than complex aspects of student achievement."
In 1999, the National Council of Teachers of English weighed in, declaring in a resolution that: "Raising test scores does not improve education. Therefore, the use of any single test in making important decisions … is educationally unsound and unethical."
Critics have arisen within the region as well. "Like SATs, (high-stakes tests) tend to become one data point used to evaluate what happens over 180 days with 90 staff and 2,000 students," says one Oregon high school math teacher who asked to remain anonymous. The superintendent of Oregon's Hillsboro School District, Joseph Rodriguez, says, "Testing compares last year's performance by one group of students to this year's performance by another group of students taught in many cases by different teachers." Jean Ward of Bonney Lake, Washington, co-founder of Mothers and Others Against WASL, recently told Northwest Education magazine: "These tests are of no benefit to my child, or to the teachers. They are just a raw score, with no feedback. And we don't know what's on those tests. I'm hearing about kids getting sick with anxiety around these things, and for what?"
Washington's Vancouver School District has been particularly critical. "We have a real philosophical disagreement with the state," says Teri Cassidy, the assistant superintendent of learning improvement. "Our mantra," she says, "is that we believe in the success of each of our diverse students, and in personalized instruction for each." In 1995, two years before the state adopted standards, Vancouver adopted performance standards based on gains (rather than benchmarks), which rely on multiple measures of student performance through a portfolio of student work. A computer system stores data (available to students and parents) on each student. "We personalize the delivery of instruction by screening (diagnosing and getting baseline data), prescribing, and intervening, facilitated by the data warehouse, which holds and updates the information on each student," says Dr. Tom Cone, Vancouver's assistant superintendent of special education and learning support.
The Tacoma School District has also carved its own approach, creating more — but kinder and gentler — high-stakes testing than the state. Students there are evaluated in fifth and eighth grades to see if they are ready for promotion based on a score composed of standardized tests, report cards, and classroom assessments. Students who fail benchmarks but perform well in other areas may be promoted. "If kids don't meet the standards, they discuss the course of action with the principal, their parents, maybe their teacher," says Joe Willhoft, who directs research and evaluation for the district. "Together they decide whether promotion, remediation, or repetition is best."
Home-grown alternatives such as the Tacoma and Vancouver School Districts' approaches are producing good results, although they struggle to survive under the burden imposed by WASL. These districts' philosophies and programs are a good fit for new findings in cognition and measurement research described by the National Research Council in Knowing What Students Know. The report calls for shifting resources away from high-stakes, large-scale exams toward in-class assessments by teachers, and the use of portfolios. The report praises advancements in technology that make possible the tracking over time of all areas of student proficiency, much as Vancouver does today.
Salem-Keizer evaluation and assessment coordinator Charlene Hurst believes that benchmark testing is good for kids. "In the elementary schools, 95 percent of students used to get A's and B's because they were graded on effort," she says. "When they hit middle school, they failed. We weren't doing them a favor. Now we have consistency. Also, educational reform brought in more complex material: algebra, geometry, probability and statistics in elementary school. These kids are better prepared for the world."
But walk the halls of many Oregon schools, and you will find teachers struggling with the effects of benchmark testing. The sheer time consumed is one consideration, says a math teacher. Not only is there a full week for the testing, but test prep takes an "enormous amount" of instructional time, she says. "They pay me to watch students take tests when they should be paying me to teach," she notes.
A biology teacher remarks: "The goals are noble, but if the people who thought it up had to cope with testing on top of the workload we already have, they might rethink it," he asserts.
Teachers also feel they must make time to accustom students to the kinds of tests and ranking they will experience. "Principals are encouraging teachers to return to multiple-choice test formats," reports Linda Christensen, coordinator of language arts for Portland Public Schools. "Some teachers are scoring elementary school kids on how well they tie their shoes so the kids learn this grading concept. What does it do to children to educate them this way?"
The effect of high-stakes testing on curriculum is the topmost concern to many parents and teachers. "Our curriculum is totally whittled down to various tests, not just the CIM," says Jessica Dayson, English teacher at Salem's McKee High School. "There's never time to breathe."
Scott Evers, chairman of McKee's social studies department, and history teacher Dan Gordon bemoan retiring popular and valuable classes such as "Advanced Placement Social Studies" and "American History Before 1880" to make way for classes required for CIM.
"Everything feels test-driven," admits fifth-grade teacher Barb Parker at Scott Elementary in Salem-Keizer. Her principal agrees. "We don't even do an assembly anymore without asking if it will help with the benchmark tests," says Heidi Litchfield.
On the heels of reductions in the arts caused by funding shortages, Alaska's Rick Kronberg worries about curriculum being further eroded by over-attention to tests. He worries, too, about the effects of schools being "held accountable" for poor scores without being given adequate resources. "Schools here will be given one of four designations on the basis of test scores: distinguished, successful, deficient, or in crisis," he says, referring to a new federal "designator" system linked to federal dollars. "If they are found deficient or in crisis, who will want to teach there? Teacher turnover and shortages are already a problem, especially in rural areas. This has the potential to make things worse." Educators in other states report that pressure put on them by the publication of results makes it impossible for them to do anything but teach to the tests.
Most educators, however, voice concern about quite different populations: students with learning disabilities, limited proficiency in English, and/or different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. In the first round of the exam in Alaska, special ed students, for whom no different provisions had been made, fared particularly badly. In May, the legislature, after pushing back the date for the next round of high-stakes testing, created new guidelines allowing Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to develop alternative assessments (to be approved by the state board) for their students who fail the exam once.
In Washington, IEP teams decide whether students should be given alternate assessments and whether accommodations should be made, but alternatives are allowed for only a small percentage of special ed students. In Oregon, a Disabilities Rights Advocates suit resulted in a ruling mandating the use of aids such as spell-checking software for special-needs students.
Students with different cultural backgrounds and little English, especially recent immigrants, pose another type of problem. "Many simply do not perform well on high-pressure exams that focus on memorization," Monty Neil, director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, told USA Today in 1999. "Minorities whose parents do not speak standard English … are at particular risk, because the fast-paced exams fail to assess their learning accurately." At Fort Vancouver High School, more than 300 students from Russia and Ukraine are enrolled who have had little formal schooling in any subject, let alone English. These students, as well as immigrants from Mexico and a mixture of other countries, are exempt from the WASL for one year after arrival in the United States. "Three years would be more realistic," says Claire Smith, director of the English Language Learner Program. "Research shows students generally need about seven years to approach the level of their peers. It isn't fair to evaluate these students the same way."
Other teachers are concerned about students who are simply slow learners. Fort Vancouver math teacher Lorraine Pishion worries about her students being tested on algebra in the WASL. "Half my kids are below that level," she says. "Some of them will never get to algebra or geometry. Should they be denied a diploma because of that?"
At Salem's Scott Elementary, Barb Parker talks about her students who fail benchmarks one by one, year after year. Unlike the high school exit exams, benchmark tests typically are one-time opportunities for kids. "What does it do to their self-esteem and their chance at an education?" she asks. "Two weeks of half-day summer school isn't going to fix this problem."
In theory, one of the purposes of benchmarks is early identification of students who need extra help. But without funds, the theory cannot become reality. In Alaska, a task force convened by Governor Knowles found that the state would need to earmark $100 million over five years to help all students meet standards. At the most recent legislative session, progress was made in this direction with the allocation of $24 million for this year's standards remediation.
Oregon faces the same funding challenge. "Remediation is a huge concern in Oregon," says Hurst. "Some districts have focused support intensely in that area; our district hasn't had the funds." Money for remediation has not yet been allocated at the state level in Washington, but there, as in Alaska, funds may be raised locally by levies. This gives more prosperous areas a better chance at achieving additional funding, but often increases inequities between localities. In Oregon, levies for school funds other than construction are no longer allowed, and funds for schools — particularly those for "extras" such as extended-year remediation classes — have been particularly tight in recent years.
"Will these kinds of remediation make the difference anyway?" asks Christensen. "We don't really know."
If students and educators in the region feel overburdened by testing now, they are only likely to feel more so in the future. President Bush has made annual testing of grades three through eight the cornerstone of his education policy. Federal funds would be tied to the test results. Students attending low-scoring schools that fail to improve scores for three years would be able to use their share of federal funds to attend other public schools.
Advocates claim that high-stakes tests are a valuable tool in raising the educational level of all students. Many educators, however, differentiate between tests and the standards themselves. Despite generally strong support for standards, a growing chorus of voices is questioning the wisdom of high-stakes tests.
Here in the Northwest, as in the nation at large, the next few years will be crucial in showing which view is closer to the truth. 
|
This document's URL is: Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: Northwest Education | People | Products & Publications | Topics © 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Date of Last Update: 10/24/2001 
|
