|
|
A Cautionary Tale As the search for a new superintendent for Readington Schools ramps up in 2006, our school board members might want to be careful what they wish for. A nearby Hunterdon County K-8 school district that hired a new superintendent not long ago is getting exactly what it asked for, and the result is shocking yet still below the radar of most parents there. First, some background. In the world outside of Hunterdon County there is turmoil about the implication of school programs as they relate to class, to race, to household income and other individual factors. There are unanswered questions that have been raised by widely recognized experts about policies of student assessment and about government reforms such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and other state or national efforts. A December 27, 2005 New York Times article summarized the anxiety of middle class parents in New York City, noting: “In interviews and at public meetings, dozens of parents from the middle class and upper middle class have complained of an increasing focus on standardized test preparation and remedial work, of a decreasing focus on science education and the arts, of large class sizes and of the absence of a powerful mechanism for parental influence.” There is an odd history behind the strict focus on “measurable results” and similar ideology that is the basis of NCLB and of using standardized test scores to evaluate progress. It has been known for decades that test scores correlate with parental income levels, and it is easy to predict test scores based on zip codes. In years past, standardized assessments, “back to basics” programs, and a concentration on language and math programs to the exclusion of arts and science programs were prescribed as a means of bringing low income urban children up to speed with their higher income suburban peers. However, as corporate leaders took an interest in education and as workplace management theories of the eighties and nineties took root in the minds of those overseeing educational policy, the ideology of measurable results took a broader view. NCLB is the culmination of a decade of efforts to formalize this ideology in a program that applies to all public schools, not just struggling urban districts. Ironically, there is no evidence that the ideology of measurable results has helped urban students or middle class students in the long term. What was never shown to work for poorer urban students also is not proven for middle class suburban students. Concerns of the middle class and others about the ideology of measurable results and the push for scripted learning exist all over the United States, and, indeed, the world. For example, in Wales, Great Britain, these concerns led the Assembly there to scrap standardized testing altogether and to seek ways to widen access to lifelong education and to break down financial and academic barriers. That has led critics in Ontario, Canada to question their reliance on the ideology of measurable results because their school system is based on British standards. In 2003, Marita Moll of the Toronto Star wrote: “Everyone would like educational policy that improves services for Canadian children. But there is plenty of evidence that relevant data and good advice has not stopped governments in the past from ignoring the facts -- like the fact that high test scores usually match up pretty closely with students from high income families or schools serving high income areas…Large scale educational assessments should be seen as a power-shift in education -- from parents and the local community to central organizations and institutions who are disconnected from the local context. The battle between local and centralized decision-making in education is an old one, but the profusion of standardized testing gives the edge to central authorities. When educational services are centrally designed, delivered and evaluated, the local is pretty well out of the picture.” In an Oct. 25, 2005 opinion piece in the Toronto Star, Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink wrote: “...the most recent research in Britain demonstrates that the so-called British achievement gains, based on imposed short-term targets and aligned testing, are mainly an illusion — partly because test items just got easier each year…In addition, the strategy's overemphasis on the old basics of literacy and numeracy has narrowed the curriculum and short-changed British students on the new basics which they also need to compete in a dynamic knowledge economy: creativity, teamwork, multiliteracies (oral, written and visual), environmental responsibility, and ability to use modern technologies.” They finished their piece with the ideas that: "...our extensive involvement with educational systems in more than 40 countries worldwide, has convinced us that more sustainable educational policies preserve and develop deep learning for all students...It would be a tragedy if all of this were undermined by a temporary fixation with short-term achievement targets designed to give the government quick but misleading results within one election period...Our best way forward is not for bureaucrats to impose external targets in cultures of anxiety and fear that turn schools into little Enrons of educational change, prepared to do anything just to get the numbers right.” These thoughts were written about schools in Ontario, but they could just as easily be about schools in Texas, or New York, or Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Such thoughts are only one side of the debate, though, and there are many who are solidly behind the idea of “getting the numbers right”. In a K-8 elementary school district in Hunterdon County a school board recently hired a new superintendent. School board members there were very much concerned about “getting the numbers right” on state-imposed standardized tests. The person they hired is doing just as they asked. Dr. S, as we will call this new superintendent, spent his entire educational career—spanning over three and a half decades—in a large urban New Jersey school district. Not surprisingly, that urban district is no stranger to the issues of poverty and troubled students which are the hallmark of urban districts across the country. Also unsurprising is the response formulated in that district to deal with such issues, including a narrowed curriculum and a reliance on “measurable” results. Excerpts from internal memos written in 1999 by Dr. S underscore this reliance in that district: “Welcome to "From the Desk of ________". The math scores on the October HSPT are higher this year than last year. And I am looking for the April 1999 math HSPT scores to be even better. I am confident that the __________ Public School students will rise to the occasion and do well…” “…I am very excited with what I have seen from October to now in reference to our juniors preparing for the HSPT. I expect all juniors to do very well and our goal is at least 85% of the students to pass in April.” “The Math Retreat at _______________ (photos available) was excellent and I am sure that the retreat will help us reach our goal of 85 % of the juniors passing the mathematics section of the HSPT.” “Attention all juniors who will be taken the Mathematics portion of the HSPT on Wednesday April 7, 1999. Good luck!!! This is what all the hard work was for. I know that you are ready and when the scores come back to me in June it will reflect that you all passed. Remember... Rest well, Eat well, No Snacks, and No Caffeine... Finally, remember to do the open-ended questions first and Do Not Leave Anything Blank.” With the advent of the NCLB law, the focus on NJ ASK and GEPA test scores became laser-like in this urban district. Test data was virtually the sole consideration for educational quality. Consider this excerpt from a December 2003 interoffice memo addressed to Dr. S and others in a leadership position: “TO: PRINCIPALS, FACILITATORS, TEST COORDINATORS FROM: B___________ P_____________ SUBJECT: THREE-YEAR OPERATIONAL PLAN DATE: 12/11/2003 Deficiencies/Obstacles: The Department of Special Programs has developed Deficiency/Obstacle statements for total students, bilingual/ESL students, and students with special needs specific to your school based on available 2003 test data...NJ ASK4 statements have already been emailed to your school and a complete set will accompany this memo... Strategies and solutions have been developed for each area in which deficiencies/obstacles were identified. Presently, sample plans have been completed for Total Students for Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics - Chart A (NJASK 4, GEPA)…We are in the process of completing Chart B (English Language Learners) for NJASK 4, GEPA, and HSPA....Each school should choose a minimum of 5 additional strategies and solutions from the attached list to meet the unique needs of your school.” Two of the additional listed strategies foretell the kind of approach Dr. S would eventually bring to a small Hunterdon County district located far away in miles and culture from this urban district. One strategy was “ASK/GEPA PEP Rallies” and another was “Saturday GEPA Tutoring”. Suggesting a pep rally for a standardized test would sound comical if were not true. Similarly, turning a public school into a Kaplan Test Center on Saturdays approaches the unreal. Yet, after Dr. S was selected for his new position in Hunterdon County, this kind of strategy would be just the beginning. When interviewed by his new district for release on the district website and other forums, Dr. S said: “My vision is to make __________ School, which is a very good school, even better. This can only be accomplished by working with all stakeholders. I believe in Deming’s philosophy that ‘People do best when they know what is expected of them.’” The reference to Deming—a statistician who is renowned in certain business circles—was a dead giveaway to the philosophy that would soon become standard here. Dr. S put an even finer point on it, though. Noting that a primary goal of the district revolves around standardized testing, he pointed out: “Working together, there isn’t any reason why 100% of our students cannot achieve at least proficiency on the NJASK 3 & 4 (New Jersey Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) and GEPA (Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment)”. Dr. S had a clear mandate from the school board and he intended to make sure the goal was reached and that everyone “knew what was expected.” Teachers in this district chaffed at some of the draconian management techniques introduced almost immediately by Dr. S. They were not used to being treated like factory workers who were made to park in assigned spaces, to sign-in each morning and to sit quietly while a new superintendent showed them in their own classroom how they were to teach. The next steps, though, came as a complete shock. Given his mandate to raise test scores, Dr. S next instituted some “strategies and solutions” not normally seen in a middle class suburban K-8 district. In fact, they are not necessarily common in urban districts either. Under different management, a “homework room” had been implemented to help students in the district get the kind of one-on-one attention they might need. Staffed by a rotation of teachers, the homework room allowed sixth, seventh and eighth graders, especially, to get extra help on assignments and many students took advantage of the extra help. Dr. S saw fit to morph this program into a series of GEPA test-prep sessions open only to eighth graders. Students in other grades are out of luck, and students in eighth grade are on their own outside of the parameters of the GEPA test. With a stated goal of 100% proficiency, Dr. S has wasted little time actually going into classrooms and teaching in his own area of expertise—mathematics—with a particular concentration on how it applies to the GEPA test. Teachers throughout the district have been issued practice GEPA booklets to use during their daily lessons. A half hour period that was available after lunch for things like chorus, or band practice, or extra help has also changed. Now it is a mandatory period two or three days a week for eighth grade students to attend GEPA practice sessions in math, language and science. The integration of test-prep into the curriculum has now gone so far that GEPA practice tests are sent to language arts teachers for inclusion as part of regular student grades. What do parents think of this school district turned test-prep center? Many if not most parents are blissfully unaware of the extent that Dr. S has instituted the ideology of measurable results in this little district. Perhaps some parents are even happy enough to believe that the potential for improved GEPA test scores are worth a narrowed test-prep curriculum mirroring the direct criticisms of experts as far away as Canada and Great Britain. Certainly there has been no parental revolt. As educational experts, governments and parents debate in generic terms the effects of various philosophies of education, it is easy to lose sight of the condition of the troops hunkered down in the trenches. A Hunterdon County neighbor of Readington schools has quickly become a glorified test-prep center based on a couple of school board decisions that probably seemed mundane at the time. A mandate to use test scores as the arbiter of quality and a decision to hire a superintendent steeped in urban management mechanisms and an ideology of measurable results has substituted authentic learning for scripted learning. This is not PS 182 in New York City, or a neighborhood school in Newark, Paterson or Camden, but _________ school in Hunterdon County. When Readington school board members take up their search for a new superintendent in earnest, it would be wise to keep their relatively small decisions in the perspective of the wider educational debate. Getting what you ask for can sometimes yield surprising results. |
