My thinking on this issue, Lucas, is that we need to begin to challenge the rhetoric of accountability because it is this rhetoric that drives public policy, not public policy that drives accountability. We know there is no link between increased testing and improved teaching or improved learning. In fact we know that high-stakes testing leads to some very poor teaching practices, such as teaching to the test, and very poor administrative practices, such as limiting resources for students deemed difficult to teach. We know that high stakes testing merely provides the legitimacy for not talking about other issues, such as smaller class sizes, equitable distribution of educational resources, better teacher education, and the way in which middle-class White values produce and re-produce the normative structures and cultures of schools (including testing) that systematically marginalize minority students.

Perhaps more important, the rhetoric of "failed" accountability not only shifts the public debate away from these issues that truly need to be addressed , but also removes the very debate over performance itself away from the context of the classroom, away from where the focus should be. [We all know about the student who is in 4th grade, reading at level 1.2, who works very hard, has a great teacher, and by the end of the year is reading at 4.1, having made up nearly three levels of reading in one year, who then fails to achieve "proficiency" because s/he can not/does not score 4.4 or better at the end of 4th grade.] The rhetoric based upon her or his "failure" shapes public perceptions in a highly selective manner, further eroding public support for public education. Here in the District of Columbia, this rhetoric of failed accountability has all but assured the full privatization of the public school system, without any evidence that the wave of charter schools taking over education here or elsewhere perform better than the public schools, without any debate about the larger educational issues mentioned above, or without any debate over the value of public education in American society. I call it the "Katrina without the storm" model. So, I want the standardized testing people to begin to defend their testing, make them defend just exactly how efficiency models and high-stakes testing improve education. I have 50 years of data to back me up that they don't.

Thousands of kids in this country go to elite private schools where there is virtually no standardized testing other than college required PSATs, ACTs, SATs (and now with the California system and William and Mary no longer requiring these tests for admissions, perhaps those won't be all that necessary either). These students seem to do okay on the whole; certainly the public perception is that they do. So as an alternative to testing, let's begin to discuss how that happens, not because these schools are "private" but because of what takes place in the classrooms of these schools in place of standardized tests. Let's start asking why public schools can't produce the same type of education. After all, we are not just the richest nation in the world, but the richest nation in the history of the world. If we're so concerned about falling behind the rest of the world in terms of education, then we should begin to take seriously, and begin to discuss, seriously, exactly what it takes to produce a world-class educational system rather than simply hiding behind the rhetoric of pointing out that we don't have such a system--essentially doing nothing to make it better.

Lucas Cook wrote:
> I was thiking about what Brec Cook said about the higer drop out rates because of these high pressure/risk standardized tests (ST). It got me thinking about what could be done differently.
>
> I think many of us agree that ST don't work or at least don't test what they were intended to test. If this is so, and at least for the sake of this discussion let's say it is, what do we do instead?
>
>
> Ideas?
>
>
> The only ideas I have had so far are either a Comp style examination or a menu of different options for a exit exam/project/performance/something more in line with the student's intrests etc.
>
>
> Any other ideas?

It's interesting, Lucas, that you bring up the notion of public servant in relationship to "giving the public what they want as you put it." One of the insidious elements of the current technical-managerial form of accountability that I find particularly distasteful is how it seeks to transform the relationship between government and citizens from a political relationship to an economic relationship, viz. the state as a provider and the citizen as a consumer of public services. While it is highly democratic to demand that the public sector respond to the desires of the community, such a democratic value is not the same as a market logic which focuses on efficiency of processes. In the latter, there is no public discussion of what ought or ought not to be the outcomes of public education. You think it's valuable that someone with a High School Diploma can read and do basic math, should be "expected to have certain skills." I, on the other hand, am concerned with a system that privileges the cultural repertoire of one group over another, leaving marginalized groups with merely basic skills. My concern is with the current hegemony of the "rhetoric" of accountability that simply reproduces existing inequalities by converting already existing economic and social advantage into cultural capital (advantage), without having any public deliberation (democracy) over what the outcomes of education ought to be or over the larger political concerns of the just and equitable distribution of public resources. You and I, along with the rest of the citizenry, need to discuss these differences as part of the democratic process.

The current situation in the District is exemplary in the above sense. Currently, parents and students can vote their economic preference about the quality of their educational services, that is they can "vote" with their feet by leaving the public school system and moving to the Charter School system; they do not, however, have a democratic say about the overall direction of or content of what is available in the first place. More importantly, such a process only further erodes public support for pubic education. As such, I subscribe to the notion of teacher as cultural worker as opposed to public servant. I have a responsibility as a teacher to think about and engage the public debate surrounding education. In that way, I can be authentically responsible, both as a citizen and as a professional, rather than merely performing in what I guess I would find a rather limited, if not somewhat deceptive, manner by only giving the public a "feeling" of accountability.

Lucas Cook wrote:
> According to the 2006 (38th) Phi Delta Kappa (the latest one I had easy access to) 63% of people polled (65% of those with children in school) said that they favor have a required graduation exam.
>
> On the other hand the public is split (39 too much, 25 not enough, 33 about right, 5 don't know) on their thoughts of the amount of testing. But they agree in a vast majority that the phenomenon of "teaching to the test" will occur (67%) and that this is a bad thing (75% of those who said it will occur).
>
> In the end we are I believe public servants and as such we cannot deny the public in their will and wants. They want "accountability" or at least the feeling of a guarantee that someone with a High School Diploma can read and do basic math. I don't think that is a bad thing.
>
> Knowing that someone who has graduated high school can be expected to have certain skills is perfectly reasonable.
>
> I agree there are other issues out there, smaller class sizes yes of course thats important, and equitable distribution of resources are important issues.
>
> I think there is a way to satisfy the public need/desire for "accountability" and improve education. The public sees this accountability as a way to make sure we do not fall behind in terms of education. This perception I think is fueled by politicians and NCLB rightly or wrongly is another question. I personally think that the NCLB and politicians have overinflated the issue of the US falling behind in terms of education.
>
> Given my thoughts on teachers as public servants I still say that there needs to be some alternative to ST that will still give the public at least their felling of "accountability."
>
>
>
> Brec Cooke wrote:
> > My thinking on this issue, Lucas, is that we need to begin to challenge the rhetoric of accountability because it is this rhetoric that drives public policy, not public policy that drives accountability. We know there is no link between increased testing and improved teaching or improved learning. In fact we know that high-stakes testing leads to some very poor teaching practices, such as teaching to the test, and very poor administrative practices, such as limiting resources for students deemed difficult to teach. We know that high stakes testing merely provides the legitimacy for not talking about other issues, such as smaller class sizes, equitable distribution of educational resources, better teacher education, and the way in which middle-class White values produce and re-produce the normative structures and cultures of schools (including testing) that systematically marginalize minority students.
> >
> > Perhaps more important, the rhetoric of "failed" accountability not only shifts the public debate away from these issues that truly need to be addressed , but also removes the very debate over performance itself away from the context of the classroom, away from where the focus should be. [We all know about the student who is in 4th grade, reading at level 1.2, who works very hard, has a great teacher, and by the end of the year is reading at 4.1, having made up nearly three levels of reading in one year, who then fails to achieve "proficiency" because s/he can not/does not score 4.4 or better at the end of 4th grade.] The rhetoric based upon her or his "failure" shapes public perceptions in a highly selective manner, further eroding public support for public education. Here in the District of Columbia, this rhetoric of failed accountability has all but assured the full privatization of the public school system, without any evidence that the wave of charter schools taking over education here or elsewhere perform better than the public schools, without any debate about the larger educational issues mentioned above, or without any debate over the value of public education in American society. I call it the "Katrina without the storm" model. So, I want the standardized testing people to begin to defend their testing, make them defend just exactly how efficiency models and high-stakes testing improve education. I have 50 years of data to back me up that they don't.
> >
> > Thousands of kids in this country go to elite private schools where there is virtually no standardized testing other than college required PSATs, ACTs, SATs (and now with the California system and William and Mary no longer requiring these tests for admissions, perhaps those won't be all that necessary either). These students seem to do okay on the whole; certainly the public perception is that they do. So as an alternative to testing, let's begin to discuss how that happens, not because these schools are "private" but because of what takes place in the classrooms of these schools in place of standardized tests. Let's start asking why public schools can't produce the same type of education. After all, we are not just the richest nation in the world, but the richest nation in the history of the world. If we're so concerned about falling behind the rest of the world in terms of education, then we should begin to take seriously, and begin to discuss, seriously, exactly what it takes to produce a world-class educational system rather than simply hiding behind the rhetoric of pointing out that we don't have such a system--essentially doing nothing to make it better.
> >
> > Lucas Cook wrote:
> > > I was thiking about what Brec Cook said about the higer drop out rates because of these high pressure/risk standardized tests (ST). It got me thinking about what could be done differently.
> > >
> > > I think many of us agree that ST don't work or at least don't test what they were intended to test. If this is so, and at least for the sake of this discussion let's say it is, what do we do instead?
> > >
> > >
> > > Ideas?
> > >
> > >
> > > The only ideas I have had so far are either a Comp style examination or a menu of different options for a exit exam/project/performance/something more in line with the student's intrests etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Any other ideas?

Independent Advocate for Public Education

Annie E. Casey Foundation Annual Report - Kids Count

National Center for Children in Poverty

ASU Study on Alternative Teacher Certification Programs

CPRE unites five of the nation's top research institutions in an effort to improve student learning through research on education reform, policy, and finance.

A searchable site dedicated to reviewing books in education. Includes short reviews and extended book review essays on hundreds of books. Great place to contribute.

I posted a link of a Texas study that shows high correlation between high stakes testing and drop out rates. Perhaps we should think about conducting a similar study here in the District thru the urban collaborate research program. i suspect we'd find similar results and perhaps we could begin making some effort to move away from the insanity of this singular focus. bc

We might want to think about replicating this type of study as part of our Urban Collaborative research program. I suspect we'll find the same results. bc

High Stakes Testing Contributes to Dropout Crisis