In 1983 the U.S. federal government issued a comprehensive report of the state of public education in the United States. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform presented the shocking results of the study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. Among its findings was that there were an appalling number of functionally illiterate high school students, plummeting student performance when compared with students in other industrialized nations, and low standards at all levels of education. In short, the report concluded, "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people". Since that jarring report American education has attempted time and again and again and again to reformat, restart, re-imagine, and reform American public education. In the 40 years since the publication of the findings education has scrambled looking for the antidote to remedy the seeming collapse of American education and in the mean time looking to respond to the critics of public education who often view it with great contempt. In short, over the past 40 years not much has changed; scores remain fairly constant where they were in 1983, reformers and "education advocates" continue to look for the silver bullet, and critics remain convinced that public education in an enemy of American society. Now, exacerbating this situation, the Trump Administration is attempting to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education. Because, somehow, getting rid of the agency specifically tasked with improving American education will somehow improve American education... absurdism abounds in Washington D.C.
However, I believe that American education is not as circumspect as many would have you believe and that the real problem is, at best, misplaced. The problem with American education is not who is in the school classrooms or the students themselves, the real issue with American education lays with those who proclaim the problems and then attempt to remedy them. To rephrase an old adage: Those who can teach, do. Those who cannot, reform.
The Snake Oil That Is Testing
"Accountability" is a big buzz word in the education world (eduspeak is full of buzzwords). One of the ways devised to hold educators, students, and the education system as a whole accountable is through standardized testing. The idea being that all students will take the same test and then we can see where students have learning deficits, what schools are excelling and which are not, and, in many cases, see which teachers are skilled at their jobs as well as see which teachers are not as skilled. Noble idea to be sure, however, upon closer inspection the reality of this notion is far removed from its grand premise. The entire argument that standardized testing is a good or fair measurement of student progress and/or ability is truly one of the great fabrications of our time. To fully understand this, we only need to look at the purveyors of these tests. In the interests of simplicity we will focus on Pearson, which is the largest and most used educational testing company in the world, but there are a number of other educational testing companies out there whose methods and purpose are very similar.
Pearson creates a number of educational tests for all levels of education and contents. The most used test is the PARCC test which is administered to a wide variety of grade levels throughout the United States. These tests are purported to measure mathematical skills, scientific understanding, critical thinking, analysis, as well as the comprehension of students. The claim is that these tests give districts, schools, parents, and teachers a clear indication of how our students measure up against other students around the state or nation as well as showing how many students are performing "at grade level". All of this is, in a word, hogwash. Supposedly this is determined by how many students score above the "cut score". The cut score is the minimum score a students needs to achieve in order to show proficiency. Guess who determines the cut scores? The same testing company that created the test. The test companies do claim that the cut scores are created by educators who employ complex mathematical algorithms to determine the cut scores. While it is true that educators are involved in this intricate process of determining "cut scores", it is ultimatly the testing company, or the state, or the individual school districts who determine this cut score. Moreover, these scores change every year and very often the formula used to determine these scores change as well. Why is this done? It's a pretty simple answer: Money.
Testing companies receive millions of dollars from states and districts to create and provide these tests for their students. So, testing companies want a test that shows rigor and some degree of intellectual challenge, but at the same time have enough students pass the test that it seems to show that educational systems are not failing. If the cut scores are too low, then obviously the test does not have enough rigor (another favored eduspeak word) and the state or the district will look for another, more challenging test perhaps from another testing company. However, if the cut score is too high and not enough students perform well, then there will be a fear among states and districts of a political backlash because obviously our schools are not educating our students properly forcing the testing customers to find a new test, perhaps with a new testing vendor. Therefore, the cut score must find the perfect balance- enough students pass the test that it seems to be a fair test, but enough don't pass the test so that it seems to have rigor. To further complicate the process of cut scores, states or districts- depending on who is administering the test- can adjust the cut scores above or below the recommended cut scores so that the results meet their desired outcomes. For instance one study found that in 2010 nearly 50% of all 5-8 students in Kentucky passed the reading comprehension test, while only 30% of all 5-8 students in New York passed the exact same Pearson created reading comprehension test. Does this mean that the education in Kentucky is better than in New York? Or that students in New York are not as smart as students in Kentucky? Of course not. Kentucky lowered the cut scores to benefit them while New York increased the cut score for their own benefit. Scores are manipulated to reflect whatever outcome is necessary.
To say that standardized testing is far less about improving education and far more about money, here is an even more insidious example. Let's say that students are not performing as well on these tests as we would like. Too many are falling below the cut score- which we know to be arbitrary at best- or there is a large number who are "line dwellers", meaning the students are just above or just below the cut score. Is there anything we can do to help these students? You bet you sweet #2 pencil there is! There are a number of ready made interventions and curriculums to help these students...for a price of course.. And guess who makes these products? The exact same company that writes the test! This is a scam of monumental proportions. Pearson will enter into a contract for millions of dollars to create a test that they can guarantee a certain number of students will not pass and then create a curriculum that they can sell to states or districts to help students perform better on a test that, again, no matter how well students actually do, a certain number are guaranteed to fail. This isn't about improving education, it's only about using education to make money at the expense of education.
Side note on "data" (another favorite eduspeak word). Data can be useful and helpful, but in fields such as education, data can also be very inefficient. Data is cold, impersonal, rigid, and unfeeling. In short data lacks soul. And truly effective education relies on soul and warmth and compassion all of which data does not have. Test scores don't tell the story. Not the real story. The real story of teaching requires a soul, a heart, and compassion all of which test scores lack.
Reforming the Reforms
Education has a commitment problem. Anyone who has been in education for any length of time knows this to be true. If education were a man, it would be the type of man that women hate. He's really interested early on and enjoys your company, but never is willing to really commit to the relationship because of a belief that there will be something better and new to come along. And once something new and more interesting comes along, he moves on. This is the uncomfortable truth about education.
Education is in constant search for that one elixir, that one silver bullet, that one reform, that one program, that one curriculum that will be the answer to fixing whatever is wrong with education. Every few years the school year will begin with the introduction to a new, shiny program replete with its own vocabulary and acronyms (eduspeak LOVES acronyms, the more the better) that promises to right all the wrongs, fix all the failings, and forever change the way we teach and students learn. Educators are promised this is a long-term commitment, that we are in this for the long haul. Then a few years later, perhaps less than a few years later, educators are confronted with a new, shiny program with its own acronyms and vocabulary that promises to be the new savior of education and, we are assured, this is here to stay...until it is inevitably not.
However, if you find a program that you really like, worry not because in a few years it will come around again just with a different name and new acronyms...because we all know different names and acronyms makes everything work better. This is why educators such as myself and others who have been in this profession for the long haul derisively roll our eyes and sigh a heavy sigh when the next program is introduced, we know its not for long and we've probably seen the exact same thing before. Cynicism in education is a learned response.
One of the key issues with educational reforms is that they are almost all created by people who have not been in the classroom for years- if ever. Their ideas usually sound good in theory, but as is often the case, theory fails when confronted with the realities of life, or in this case, the classroom. One only need to look no further than the current educational gods: Robert Marzano and John Hattie. In many educational administrative circles their reforms are religion and their studies are the Bible. It is very difficult to go to an educational conference or training without hearing, "As Marzano states...", "Hattie says...", "Marzano wrote..." or sometimes you are blessed with the educational holy binary "Marzano and Hattie agree..." Marzano and Hattie are no doubt brilliant people who have the time and financial backing to conduct lots of studies, however, do they have the classroom experience to give credibility to their findings? For me, the answer is, no.
Robert Marzano claims to have taught English in "New York City schools" from 1967-1968, despite the fact that he graduated from college in 1968- not sure how that works. Then in 1969 he went to Seattle where for two years he was the English Department Chair at an elite private school. Hardly real classroom experience but for many administrators he only speaks the gospel.
John Hattie, who holds an impressive number of degrees, has a very thin classroom resume as well. According to his own Curriculum Vitae, Hattie only spent a total of two years as a full time classroom teacher, once in 1972 and then again in 1974. The last time Hattie was in the classroom I was three years old. Ironically my age at that time would be one more year than his entire classroom teaching experience. And yet, Hattie is seated at the right hand of educational theology.
It is a foundational belief of mine, that people who have been out of the classroom for more than 5 years should not be making suggestions about how to improve education and teaching. If we want true, sustainable, and impactful changes to education it must come from those who are in classroom on a consistent basis, who know the realities of today's classrooms and its students. Ask those who are doing the work, how to improve the work.
It's Not As Bad As It Seems
We have heard it time and again: American students are lagging behind students around the globe. Or another very popular refrain: Students today just aren't as smart as when I was in school (or X number of years ago). Both are popular beliefs and both are inaccurate.
The United States is the only industrialized country that tests ALL of its students. In many parts of the world students with learning disabilities or students learning the native language are not tested, in the United States for the most part, they are. In most industrialized nations only some of the students will go onto high school- or secondary school. In many industrialized nations secondary school is for those who can or want to go onto college, others go to schools that prep them for careers after school, sort of like a trade school. Therefore only those who are college bound are tested. In the U.S., all students- those going to college and those who are not- are tested. Knowing this, it only stands to reason that scores of American students would be lower than those of their global counterparts.
As for the argument that students are not as smart or as high achieving as they were X number of years ago is also something of a fallacy. If we were to compare the textbooks and lessons for students 100 years ago, we would find that what students are learning today is far more complex and rigorous (there's that great eduspeak word again). Furthermore, it seems to be quite a generational phenomenon to view the younger generation as somehow intellectually inferior. We can look at articles from any time period of the past about the intellect of the young people of the day and most of them will call into question the intellectual abilities of the younger generation. Today is no different and make no mistake when our students today become the adults of tomorrow, they too will make the same accusations.
To be sure, education in the United States can be better, it can be improved, and we should work to do just that. However, we can't just rely on numbers and graphs to guide us. We can't continue to look for the answers from a vending machine of solutions wrapped in fancy names but regurgitating old solutions. Nor can we take as the gospel solutions from those who haven't been in charge of a classroom for years. Those who are in the game and play the game know the game better than anyone else and those are the ones who can make the game better. Those who are in classrooms know best how to improve education. If we truly want to improve education in this nation I propose a novel idea: Provide the materials to teachers, get out of the way and let teachers do what they went to college for, what they were hired to do, and why they have always done; TEACH!
