Miriam K. Freedman, whose work I've covered in N2P before, has a great website and a new article at the Hoover Digest about the fight for high standards. It's phenomenal, and you should all read the whole thing, but if you don't have time, here are a few of my favorite spots:
High-stakes tests, which affect a student’s ability to earn a high school diploma, are now in place or on the drawing boards in about half the states. Often controversial, they have spawned “test boycotts” and lawsuits...But a strange thing is happening: As we get closer to having the graduation tests “count,” many leaders have blinked, with the result that standards are compromised and test results invalidated...
Where is the outrage over the need for valid tests? Inconsistency in test administration has real consequences. As is becoming increasingly obvious, confusion and inconsistency are leading to a loss of credibility in the standards movement. But why is it happening—why are some blinking?
Word choice is telling. It used to be that a student “earned” a diploma. Now many speak of a student being “denied” a diploma. The first is about standards; the second, about rights and lawsuits. Our evolving language—unfolding daily in the press—tells the tale.
...consider the 2001 settlement of a lawsuit against the state of Oregon by Advocates for Special Kids, represented by Disability Rights Advocates (DRA). The suit alleged that Oregon’s test for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) discriminated against students with learning disabilities when it tested them on basic skills such as reading, writing, and math. Note that the test was not a diploma test. When I first heard of this allegation several years ago, I dismissed it. The basics are discriminatory? They can’t be serious! Common sense and the law say otherwise. But life is full of surprises: Oregon settled the case...
Recently, I asked a friend whose learning-disabled child had a very hard time learning to read, “What do you think of state policies that allow a child to take a reading test by having the test read to him?” Her quick response was, “A cop-out. My son would never have learned to read if that was the law then.” Indeed. Yet some states allow students to use any accommodation on the state test that they use in classes. Thus, a reader (someone who reads material to a student) can be provided on the reading test, a calculator for the math calculation test, and so on...
Yogi Berra is reputed to have said, “If you come to a fork in the road, take it.” We’re at that fork in education reform. Many are going in the front door, loudly supporting high standards—until someone threatens to sue or someone might actually be denied a diploma. At that moment, the back door of retreat and erosion flings open and we quietly sidle out. Sometimes, we even call something “reading” when it’s really “listening,” and we report scores with questionable meaning without so indicating. We’re on a very slippery slope. Although intentions may be good, the response is misguided...
Blinking at standards fails the public when, as the going gets rough, we quietly alter tests and standards. Such compromises have a crippling ripple effect on education reform, leading to cynicism and loss of faith in the entire venture. Such compromises are not legally warranted. For the sake of our children and for America, we must not blink.
Posted by kswygert at August 12, 2004 11:49 AM