Testing Our Schools explores the closely intertwined issues of Standards and Accountability. Standards are necessary, of course, and so is accountability, but are schools being backed into a corner? If they continue to live by test results, will they die that way? 'High stakes tests,' 'multiple test measures,' multiple opportunities to take tests– How these issues are resolved will shape the future of American public education.  This site shares multiple perspectives and views education policy from the presidential administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. 

References:
www.pbs.org/merrow/ 

 


Comments

Rodney Trice link
03/23/2009 08:55

Thanks for sharing the link. I believe high stakes tests are here to stay. Politicians, irrespective of party, have much to gain for holding students "accountable."

Reply
sweber
03/23/2009 18:31

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. There are standards for building bridges and highways, standards for safety in industry, standards for the field of medicine and even standards for the food that is served in each school cafeteria.

I agree with you that standards are here to stay. While I frequently write about national standards on www.k12curriculumdevelopment.com, I don't know where I stand on the issue of national standards. NAEP currently assesses random groups of students and then the media shares the results (which are usually poor) with the public. In some states the state standards indicate that a skill or concept should be taught in a different grade than the grade students participate in the NAEP exam. The public usually sees the headline about our nation's low scores in math or U.S. History. If national standards would mean providing every student with a guaranteed and viable curriculum, then I would strongly support national standards and limited national assessments. Our students need to be prepared to compete for jobs in a global economy and a fifth grader in St. Louis should not experience a completly different curriculum than a student in Atlanta.

I hope that this site will continue to grow and that educators in other countries will share their perspectives on national standards.

Reply
Robin Cochran-Dirksen link
05/27/2009 08:07

In SD we have a test called the D-Step that determines our alignment with the state curricular benchmarks. Here are a couple of alarming problems with it:

1. It is not tied to NCLB, nor is it something that students have any level of accountability for; it does not determine whether they move forward to the next grade level and it isn't a measure that would be meaningful on a transcript for acceptance into a university. Many students tell me it's a joke becuase it doesn't "count for anything".

2. The content standards are extremely vague. I can only speak to the science standards, that are aligned with content standards that were approved by the state in 2005 and didn't enter the classroom until 2006-2007. (The next review cycle would have new standards active in the classroom in 2012.) We need to do a better job at identifying content that is truly relevant for our discipline. For example, cell reproduction should really include stem cell function, cellular cloning, mechanisms of cancer, rather than just mitosis and meiosis.

3. There are no accountabilty measures in place to ensure teachers are implementing the standards. Perhaps, that is a union issue. Obama may be right when he says we need to remove persistently ineffective teachers, and pay teachers more that produce more student learning and teach hard to fill subjects. Merit pay might be an answer.

There are huge problems with science education in our country. The science standards that we adopt must address why U.S. students are not choosing to enter the science professions. (See Rising Above the Gathering Storm). I have my own theories why this is so, but as a classroom educator no one really cares that I think.

Reply



Leave a Reply