Accountability
Jennifer Booher-Jennings discusses one of the major dilemmas facing educators today in “Rationing Education In an Era of Accountability”. The dilemma that exists is between raising the percentage of students passing standardized tests (focusing on the “bubble kids”) and continuing to support struggling learners who won’t pass the test. Jenning argues that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has created schools that are neglecting the low-achieving, struggling learner and focusing resources on students who have the potential to pass the standardized test. Though this strategy works to bolster the percentage of students passing the test, below grade level students are not receiving the necessary support.
A quote caught my eye while reading this article. The quote was “To assert that students below the bubble are just too low-performing to help establishes that the only worthwhile improvement in this brave new world is one that converts a nonpasser to a passer.” Is this who we have become? I have mixed feeling about this statement. High stakes testing is all about Pass and Did Not Pass. Results dominate the cover of the newspaper and lead the local newscasts. Each school’s scores are scrutinized and each year we look at the data to see how we can improve. One way is through “bubble kids” or students who were within 5-7 points of passing. When I was in the classroom it sometimes seemed that the only improvement that mattered was one that impacted test scores. “Bubble kids” were identified for additional afterschool support until the start of ISTEP+. As a classroom teacher I found this practice disgraceful. Why wasn’t this opportunity offered to all students, not just bubble kids? But, as an administrator I understand the practice. The reality of the situation is we are just playing by the rules the law makers have established. Yes, additional review sessions are offered to student that are considered “bubble kids”, but low-performing students are not neglected. During the school year the below grade level students will be offered as much, if not more, support than many of the on or above grade level students.
Within the article, Jennings gives the impression that low-performing students are forgotten and do not receive the support they require. Jennings, at times, appears almost antagonist to data driven decision making arguing that data is an educator’s excuse for not supporting these learners and making decisions that let learners with serious challenges fall through the cracks. This is not true! Systems are in place to help struggling students and Response to Intervention (RtI) is a perfect example of this. RtI is an option for students who are significantly below grade level. It provides students with resources, intense targeted interventions, and an opportunity to eventually be on grade level. A key piece of this process is achievement data. Jennings argument doesn’t hold water if you look at the whole picture and not just the small piece she presents.
Each year I am continually disappointed when ISTEP+ results come back, because it is either Pass or Did Not Pass. Tremendous gains from year to year aren’t reported. I remember having a student in class who had never passed the ISTEP+. He was one of the hardest working students I’d ever had. The next year he improved his ISTEP+ score by 50 or 60 points, but still didn’t pass. The ISTEP+ proficiency report will never tell the whole story. It will never show that he made significant gains in each content area. It will just say DNP. Every day we receive students who are significantly below grade level, work with them and develop remedial skills they will need to be successful. Unfortunately, the ISTEP+ doesn’t recognize the academic growth that has taken place in our classrooms. They only report if the student is Pass or DNP.
In “Accountability, Yes. Teaching to the Test, No.”, Patricia Deubel looks at the positives and negatives of accountability in the classroom in regards to standardized testing. She discusses that before the accountability movement test score data was only used by administrators, but is now being used by teachers to improve instruction. In addition, with accountability has come a focus on curriculum and the development of curriculum maps. Deubel also states the current system is flawed. Districts are beginning to focus on subjects and content that will be tested instead of teaching all of the standards. She also argues that we use the most efficient and cost effective test instead of a test format that allows students to demonstrate their knowledge.
Deubel states in the article that “The accountability movement, in turn, has forced students to take greater responsibility for their learning – they are assessment users.” I am in full agreement with this statement. Students have a better understanding of their academic abilities and have more responsibility for their learning now than they ever have. I believe there are a number of different reasons for this change:
- Standards based report cards assess each standard individually instead of lumping them together with a letter grade, thus allowing students to identify strengths and weaknesses.
- More goal setting is taking place in the classroom which puts part of the responsibility in the hands of the student.
- Due to high stakes testing and the sheer number of assessment students are participating in, students have become keenly aware of the importance of each test.
Another important piece when discussing the role of standardized tests in school is how they impact instruction. Deubel asks the questions “If results inform instruction and tell the teacher that a student does not have basic skills in some areas deemed essential, isn’t that important to know for intervention to be provided?” Standardized tests should be used to guide instruction in the classroom. Taking it a step further, formative data (e.g. ISTEP+) should not be the only type of data utilized in the classroom. In addition, teachers need to use summative data (e.g. NWEA), benchmark assessments (e.g. DIBELS), formal and informal classroom assessment. Too often it has been my experience that teachers only look at one piece of data when making decisions about student learning. A single piece of data can be deceiving, because the student could have had a bad day. Multiple pieces of data can paint a very different picture. It can show instructional weaknesses, content that needs to be reviewed, and individual challenges.
One of the issues being discussed in the two articles is raising test scores vs. professional obligation. It is my belief that as long as we fulfill our professional obligation to the students the test scores will rise. We, as educators, need to continue building relationships with the kids, providing strong instruction, and supporting struggling learners with targeted interventions. If we do these things the students will be successful.
Deubel, P. (2008, April 10) Accountability, Yes. Teaching to the Test, No. The Journal. Retrieved from
http://thejournal.com/articles/2008/04/10/accountability-yes-teaching-to-the-test-no.aspxBooher-Jennings, J. (2007, June) Rationing Education In an Era of Accountability. Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 87, No. 10. Retrieved from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v87/k0606boo.htm
