I had an amazing
opportunity today to speak at the Oklahoma Institute
for Child Advocacy’s annual conference, highlighting the Kids Count data from the
Annie E. Casey Foundation. I knew about the
Casey Foundation and its work on behalf of our children.
There was a
legislative panel before the sharing of the Kids Count data, and our closing
remarks. Jason Nelson, Scott Inman, AJ Griffin, and Anastasia Pittman responded
to questions about child welfare, the foster care system, social services. I
found them all well informed and certain about their opinions.
I learned that
Representative Nelson will again introduce a voucher – scholarship – bill, as
he beats the drum for choice…but parent choice is not extended to third grader
parents. He decried HB2625 and again insinuated that children who didn’t pass the
test last spring cannot read. No mention of the fact the test is not a reading
test, and gives no grade level. No mention of the sliding cut score, or the
fact that third graders DO read…some not at level. He talked about his
conversations with us…he loves to ask us how much is enough in support of
public education. He says when he asks, people tell him it’s a trick question.
MY concern is his numbers. According to NPS, state support is $3000 per child,
which works out to $17 and change a day. He used a number of $7000 that the
state spends per child. I’ll be looking this over.
I will also be looking
for research that shows retention is detrimental to younger students. He says
everyone sending him links address older students. I found one link on my
phone, but will be looking for more.
During the question
and answer, I chose not to confront him. I was a guest and it was not the right
time or place to challenge him.
Inman was a fiery
supporter of poor kids and their parents – listing health care and the harm of
our current tax practices as harmful to our most vulnerable citizens. He got
the last word on the new tax law, and Griffin shrugged her shoulders and said
she wished he didn’t have the last word.
Following is my speech…with
additions (I cannot stop revising!!) in italics. I was thoroughly impressed by
this group and am eager to be more involved.
I want to thank the Institute for Child Advocacy for
inviting me to speak at your Kids Count Conference and talk about solutions to
the harmful high stakes testing culture in our schools.
My message today is change will be both relatively easy and extremely
challenging.
The relatively easy part is this: we need to put
standardized testing back in its proper place in schools. This will mean
repealing the high stakes currently attached to testing. Then the test becomes
one assessment among others. A snapshot that contributes to an accurate picture
of our students’ learning. High stakes changed the purpose of testing, the
amount of testing, and the reality in the classroom. Removing the high stakes returns standardized
tests to their proper place in schools: not any more important in our decision
making than other assessments and observations. Standardized tests have a role
in the classroom. The norming lets us compare our students with larger
populations. The criteria let us measure our students against standards.
Repealing the high
stakes to our standardized testing will mean fewer hours spent preparing for
tests…that is one of the greatest advantages. Since the tests would be no more
or less important than other assessments, teachers could add science and social
studies back into the curriculum. Art and music and PE wouldn’t be seen as taking
time away from test preparation. Students could play at recess, without
teachers feeling pressured to add more bubble-test practice. Teachers could
actually individualize instruction and teach to each child’s strengths.
Learning would once again be authentic and focused on students, not tests.(MAN,
should have thought of that BEFORE driving away from the Conference!).
Removing high stakes means choosing appropriate measures of
achievement, having results in time to adjust our instruction, communicating
accurately to families about their child, and forging partnerships to address
the child’s needs.
Starting with our third graders, students will be tested
with an appropriate reading test that clearly shows reading levels, weaknesses
and strengths. Everyone involved will understand the diagnostic purpose of the
testing.
Our current high stakes third grade test does not do this. It’s
a reading/language arts test. It does not give us a reading level…its
passing score, or cut score, can be changed every year, before or after the
test has been taken.
Last year’s third graders knew if they didn’t pass the reading/language
arts test, they would not pass third grade. The good-cause exemptions turned
out to be less helpful than we hoped. Students took the test, in fear of
repeating third grade.
One friend, a third
grade teacher, with a third grade son , learned her son accidentally skipped a
page in his test booklet. The mistake was found late in the testing, and he
could not be cajoled into redoing his work. He was completely
fatigued…finished. He failed the test and was required under law to take
another test in order to show he read at level.
High stakes required too much from this 8-year-old.
Another friend, also
third grade teacher told me of a mother how came to her door, with her
daughter. Both in tears. “She can’t fail this test. She can’t.” My friend’s
question: “Is this the way you want your child to start third grade?” The test
is not the culprit, sucking the joy of learning from our classrooms. It’s the
high stakes nature of the testing.
One of the indicators
in the Kids Count data was Adverse Childhood Experiences, such as divorce or
death, or the stress of illness. I have heard from researchers that the fear of
retention, and retention is as stressful for our young children as the loss of
a family member. We need to find ways to help struggling readers without adding
to their stress levels this way.
Then, HB2625 was passed, vetoed, and the veto overridden. I
was there on that override vote…I lobbied for it, and I celebrated. The new law
temporarily does part of what I’m proposing. But there are still high stakes.
Now a committee of parents, third and fourth grade teachers,
reading specialists will make the decision together about placement. Educators and parents will examine all the
data, not just one test score, and they will make a professional recommendation.
If the entire committee agrees to promote, that agreement must be ratified by
the district superintendent.
The new law will protect third graders for two years…but not
my second-grade granddaughter and her classmates. More work must be done. I’m
ready for this work.
We want all third graders to read, and make no mistake, they
do. Every one, except the most severely disabled. Do they all read at third
grade level? No. They began their formal instruction just a few years before,
at widely different levels of readiness, and they progress at their own rates.
The KIDS COUNT data highlights factors that affect achievement in our youngest
students, shows us why some lag behind. To require every third grader to read
at third grade level is an impossible goal. We need to help each child be a
better reader today than she was yesterday.
Putting standardized tests in their place is only my first
suggestion, and it’s much easier to implement than my second. We must create a
new culture of support and respect and partnership. Edgemere Elementary School here
in the city is creating that culture, transforming itself into a community
school with wrap-around services for families.
Edgemere
was mentioned by the speaker talking about health care…she said they were
working together. During the break, I met a man whose company was partnering
with Edgemere. It’s exciting to hear how this school is already finding fans.
We need to go no farther than Annie E. Casey publications
for recommendations. These are not as easy to implement as repealing high
stakes. They will be expensive; they will demand a systemic change. But our
children are worth this commitment.
From the publication DOUBLE JEOPARDY:
- · Aligned curriculum, standards, assessment for Pre-K through 3
- · Consistent instructional supports and learning environment
- · PreK for all 3-4 year olds, and full day K for all 5 year olds
- · Teachers with bachelor’s degrees, certified in early childhood
- · Small classes
- · Partnerships with schools and families
- · Address chronic absenteeism
- · Summer reading programs
- · Parent education
- · Access to affordable health care.
- · Support parents so they can effectively care and provide for their children
- · Increase access to high- quality, integrated programs for children birth-8 beginning with investments that target low income children
- · Develop programs and data systems to address all aspects of children’s development and
- · Support their transition to elementary schools and related programs
So, I propose we replace the culture that tests and punishes
with a culture that supports families and ensures our children enter school
ready and able to learn and grow.
Our students need us to take action. Now. A
No comments:
Post a Comment