Principals Oppose Judging Teachers by Test Scores

An interesting movement is afoot with the news around "The Letter," a formal letter written to the New York Legislature which opposes the use of standardized test scores to evaluate teachers. It's been signed by nearly 1,400 principals and thousands of educators, and it is an argument against perhaps the most dubious of reforms to grow out of No Child Left Behind.

Apparently, in New York, legislation will now require that between 20-40% of a teacher's evaluation must be based on standardized, state test scores. This is, of course, part of the accountability movement. And it's really a simple argument to make. If students aren't performing well on these tests, then the teacher is clearly not effective. However, such conclusion really aren't, and shouldn't be, so "clear."

The predominant problem for such evaluations is the idea of a "snapshot" being able to accurately judge a years worth of content, curriculum, technique, and educational experience. Additionally, the issue of student motivation is key when these are state tests - ones for which students have absolutely no skin in the game. If the tests are not for a grade and they are not used by colleges, many students have no incentive to do well. Occasionally, even state mandated ACTs have no incentive because students may not have college plans.

Teachers in Colorado should be even more interested in this, as Senate Bill 191 has now designated standardized test scores comprise 50% of a teacher's evaluation by 2014. This will be particularly problematic, as currently the state does not have a testing system for the subject areas of 70% of teachers. How do you standardized test the art, music, gym, language, and elective teachers? And if you can't, how can you fairly evaluate all teachers.

It's certainly a problem.

History is so ... Past

Some patriotic Americans are, at least for the next day or so, going to be completely outraged over the news that American students' lowest scores on the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) are in history - with fewer than 15% of seniors proficient. Certainly, these numbers are sad, disappointing, even pathetic. But, like all research, the numbers need a bit of qualification and perspective.

I continue to challenge the emphasis of judging our schools and society by arbitrary standardized tests in which the students have no stake - keep in mind that NAEP tests are voluntary, students are asked to miss class to take them, and many students don't even bother to finish. Thus, the top students are often not taking the test - and that may be because, at the high school level, they are busy in their AP Comparative Government, US History, Comparative Government, and European History. These classes are incredibly rigorous, and the numbers of students in them grow each year.

Secondly, history is an incredibly vast subject - especially at the lower levels - where the entire history of the world is covered over the years with great debate over what should be taught. I'd also argue there is a literacy issue, as social studies textbooks are among the most convoluted and poorly written of the content area books. Students are often (way too often) not taught the skills of accessing the knowledge of history, but instead lectured on vast amounts of content which is often out of context for them. And the idea of "history" versus the concepts of "social studies" are at odds for time. Beyond that, few state tests even evaluate social studies, so there is even less incentive for kids to retain the knowledge.

Don't get me wrong - I am truly saddened by the numbers. But I don't see it as the end of American civilization .... or history.

Is Discrimination Standardized

One argument against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor centers around her ruling in the New Haven firefighters case - when she supported the city's decision to throw out the results of standardized test for promotions when only white firefighters passed. The white firefighters sued - and were eventually supported in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Thus, the big question is where the discrimination is happening .... and there are obviously two camps on this.

Mike Littwin of the Denver Post asks some good questions in this article:

This is not a new story. For whatever reason — skewed tests, too many failing schools, too many single-family homes, continuing effects of segregation, some other explanation short of a bell curve — blacks do not score nearly as well as whites on standardized tests.

If standardized tests play a key role in getting into college, in getting into law school, in becoming a lieutenant in the fire department, what are we, as a society that values opportunity, supposed to do if too few blacks and other minorities qualify?

One answer is to do nothing, except quote the Rev. Martin Luther King's line about the quality of our character — as if King wouldn't be on the side of affirmative action.

Another answer is to recognize the problem — as, say, the U.S. Army has done — and find a way to pick out otherwise qualified applicants.

New Haven clearly hadn't offered a test that was meant to discriminate. And yet, the test left the city, one with a majority-minority population, with a new class of nearly all white officers in its fire department. How do you resolve discrimination that isn't exactly discrimination?

There is validity to both sides. The white firefighters certainly don't deserve to have their results invalidated - we can and should be sympathetic to their cause. However, isn't there some pretty obvious problems with a test that seems to be systematically prohibitive to minorities.

Herein lies the problem with discrimination, affirmative action, and the use of standardized assessments.