SBLAC 4: Focus on the Mission

Think for a moment about the reason for testing. We would not want doctors practicing medicine without first passing the medical boards. We would not want a lawyer to represent us if he/she had not passed the bar exam. As menial as it seems, in most states drivers must pass a notional drivers test and vision exam in order to drive our streets and highways. We test our food, our drugs, and our automobiles for minimal standards. When they don’t pass, they’re not released to the public. Educators who oppose standardized testing are similar to automobile executives who would sell you a car that did not run, as long as it made it all the way through the assembly line. It sounds absurd. It is absurd.

The idea behind the assessments is to first determine the skills and knowledge that you want your people to possess. This “high-stakes testing” junk is not an answer and never should have been presented as such. State assessments are not a solution to the problem; they merely identify the problem. The assessment, then, is just the means of determining whether an individual has mastered the relevant skills and knowledge. Although I am quite stymied as to why this concept is so outrageous to many people, I am equally confused as to how a system can go from kindergarten through 12th grade and so completely disregard these known and published standards.

Yes, the standards we discuss in this case are published and posted. They are assumed to be common knowledge throughout the K-12 system. Every educator I know tells me he/she is familiar with them. But regarding the ILS, the sad reality is that the vast majority of high school freshmen do not possess the late elementary skills and knowledge that would put them in a position to begin high school. Perhaps this is because Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) only tests Goals 1, 2, 6, and 7. As even willing high school faculty struggle to teach high school standards, the sheer enormity of the task often relegates standards-based instruction to mere lip service. Winking and nodding our way through both ILS and CRS has become a way of life as teachers continue to teach their specialized content while sporadically invoking a college readiness skill here and an Illinois learning standard there.

The frustration associated with test failure rates when we have supposedly been teaching the standards via our content can only be imagined. There is a universal concern that something is wrong with the process because when we do what the education wonks say to do, we should be getting better results. It must be the assessment. These are intelligent kids whose skills and knowledge are just not captured in a multiple choice test. These are capable children whose potential and creativity are just not measured by the high stakes testing offered via the NCLB solution. How can we quantify a child’s intellect with something as impersonal as a two-day multiple choice standardized high-stakes test?

Quite frankly, how else could we quantify a child’s intellect other than via a comprehensive standardized assessment? Irrespective of the voluminous arguments to the contrary, children who possess the skills pass the tests. Regardless of the myriad conflicting explanations of why a “smart” student does poorly on a standardized test, the bottom line is that he/she simply has not mastered the skills and knowledge being assessed; which begs the question, “What have we been teaching the students?”

Lessons which have little or nothing to do with specific, measurable testable skills are the enemy of the successful student. Recalling our first assumption, a content-based curriculum is not a standards-based curriculum. Students are assessed on skills competency, on their mastery of established and published standards. When we create classroom activities that children like in order to hold their attention, we are giving in to future underachievement. Watching movies when we should be reading, drawing pictures and pasting fancy coversheets when we should be writing and formatting, or reminding students of previously covered material when we should be requiring them to search their brains for answers and problem-solving solutions are examples of teachers as enablers of mediocre students.

Children eat up class work until third or fourth grade. When the work gets tougher, when students begin to build upon previously learned material, there is no way to make it easier or less than what it is. There is a huge difference between being taught something new and learning to manipulate a previously learned skill. If we try to teach fifth, sixth, and seventh grade skills using first, second, and third grade techniques, we may have covered the higher level content, but the students haven’t mastered higher level skills. Instead of using apples and oranges, we’re simply using Jonathans and Valencias. If the child does not know that we’re not using Granny Smith and Navel or Golden Delicious and Persian, he/she is not building on previously learned knowledge, but rather learning new stuff. If the lesson does not carefully and specifically explain the skills that take you from an apple to a Jonathan apple and as opposed to a Granny Smith or Golden Delicious apple, then we are missing the point. Then our instructional method is not standards-based or skills-based, but rather, osmosis-based. Being in a room where educational-type things happen is often confused for having been taught something.

No one benefits when we tell kids a bunch of stuff and hope they figure out why we bothered. In the example above, early on a child can discern an apple from an orange. But what makes an apple a Jonathan apple? If confronted with a Jonathan, a Granny Smith and a Golden Delicious, we might select a Jonathan as the red apple from the other two which are green. But what distinguishes a Granny Smith from a Golden Delicious? There are discerning skills at work which the child should consciously bring to bear on the problem. Memorizing pictures of various types of apples does not help the child use these discerning skills in any other example. Why, specifically, are they different? What are the closer relatives and what makes them more similar? What are some of the things that make close relatives different? Higher order thinking is not about piling on more information and memorizing more detailed pictures. It’s about evaluating and analyzing the problem for patterns and possible solutions using ever more sophisticated skills. Benjamin Bloom told us this fifty years ago and all we seem to have now is that lame pyramid everyone in education seems to revere but does not understand.

Merely being in a classroom when the material is presented will likely not produce high academic achievement. The value of the metacognitive experience cannot be overstated with regards to a student having any idea what he/she is doing. We cannot create a metacognitive transition without forcing a new skill. The reading, the writing, the remembering are the tools. They are the skills we are trying to master and hone. But the content is relative. Remembering is a skill. What we remember from school is less important than the fact that we can remember, that we have the ability (the skill) to go back into the brain and consciously pull out problem solving skills and knowledge on command. We often spend eight to twelve years playing various games with content but completely miss the point about a standards-based education, the Rigor and Relevance Framework, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Worse, we usually disregard completely the skills that we know will be assessed in the end.

If we do not teach to mastery the skills and tasks that a child is supposed to master as he/she progresses through childhood, there is no conceivable way we can jump to the end of the development continuum expecting significant success. This is essentially what we are doing and only about 50% of our children meet our standard, nationwide. We do it year after year and blast the test for telling us our children do not meet the standard. “The test is biased.” “The test is faulty.” “The test is an outrageous affront to our children and our educational system!”

The fact that only 52% of Illinois children meet/exceed the learning standards and the education system is not considered an abysmal failure is what is truly outrageous. When we know what tasks the children are responsible for and do not teach it, that is outrageous. If we focus on content and creativity while our children cannot read story problems in math and cannot decipher a simple data presentation using an x/y axis or cannot write a short essay using proper form and grammar, that is outrageous. To know that half of our young adults do not have the basic skills we expect from them after 13 years of education and continue to teach the same material in the same manner is to stick our heads in the sand and admit there is nothing we care to do about it. Now, that is outrageous.

So what can be done about the situation? Essentially the only way to prepare children for a skills-based assessment is with a skills-based curriculum. It would appear that true standards-based instruction from the first grade on would be the logical solution. It should include the early sub-skills of the later testable PSAE skills (both ILS and CRS). If such-and-such is being assessed, then it only stands to reason that we teach such-and-such. But we don’t. We teach this-and-that. Think about it. We teach this-and-that but we assess such-and-such. Why don’t we teach such-and-such? If we tested this-and-that, then we would be okay to teach this-and-that. It is a mindless contradiction that educators refuse to teach what they will ultimately assess and that they insist on testing that which has not been taught. Many elementary teachers and administrators insist they teach what is tested. But the problem with their argument is that by focusing so restrictively on a handful of reading and math standards assessed on the ISAT, the grand expanse of skills assessed on the PSAE are left without subskill mastery. To say the Common Core State Standards will now take care of that, my response is “Hogwash.” We’ve had standards before. We essentially ignored them. If we continue a content-based approach to CCSS, we will get ILS-like results.

Honest standards-based instruction assumes very little. Every task, every skill is composed of sub-skills which are, themselves, composed of sub-skills. It is absolutely essential that we ascertain a child’s understanding of the prerequisite sub-skills before we introduce a new skill. For example, we must be sure a child has mastered the skill of fraction conversion before we try to teach him/her about algebra. By assuming that a child has the basic skills and knowledge to begin algebra instruction we often find ourselves as de facto educational entertainers just making conversation. Trying to make sense out of concepts for which the students do not possess the requisite skills is a task of Herculean proportions. And our track record of success reflects the depth of the problem. Ninth grade algebra has the highest failure rate of any general education topic in high schools.

More than two thirds of Chicago children do not meet state standards at the end of the 11th grade. Consider that this percentage only reflects the number of children who are still in school at that point. It should be painfully obvious that what we’re doing is not working. Educators often violate their own principles just to get students to do something resembling academic effort. Some teachers may have students turn in papers with atrocious English grammar promising not to count off for it. They just want the children to turn something in. As a group, we often reward every minimal effort, regardless how miserable. Yet we wonder why, after eleven years of this, the students cannot meet the standard. Clearly, a line must be drawn.