  
 |
| Current
Articles, Interviews and Commentary |
from
The Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2003
Schools Go AYP Over Test
By John Merrow
Just
as many Americans have physical exams every year, public schools are
about to undergo an "educational health exam," mandated
by the No Child Left Behind Act.
This exam, called AYP for "adequate yearly progress," indicates
what federal law now requires every public school to measure. And
although the rest of the world frets about SARS, educators in public
schools are even more scared of AYP — and with good reason.
Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress will be identified
as being "in need of improvement." Although the law never
uses the word "failing," the media and educators have already
adopted that adjective as shorthand for "in need of improvement."
Schools that fail to make AYP this time around — it is an annual
measurement — must provide transportation for pupils who want
to enroll in another public school. Fail again and schools must pay
for "supplemental services," including tutoring. And the
stakes only get higher.
Performance on machine-scored, multiple-choice tests in math and reading
is the sole measure of AYP, but just improving an overall average
score won't be enough to satisfy the federal government, which requires
progress by all student subgroups — including those of age,
race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. If any one group is not
moving up, the school will be labeled "in need of improvement."
In many areas, more than half of all schools are likely to fall under
this category. That's why in schools in poor areas, test preparation
(drill, drill, drill) now dominates the curriculum. Many of these
schools have already suspended instruction in such "nonessential"
subjects as art, music, physical education and foreign language in
favor of practicing for the tests.
Holding schools accountable is good policy. AYP, however, may do more
harm than good because it is narrowly conceived and poorly thought
out. A careful comparison with an annual physical exam may be useful.
Doctors gather information from at least three sources: observation,
the patient's self-reported history and laboratory reports. Enough
blood is withdrawn to allow for as many as five different analyses.
From these "multiple measures," a physician makes a diagnosis.
If a serious condition is suspected, more tests are ordered.
By contrast, schools will be judged on just one measure, scores on
multiple-choice tests in math and language arts. That "snapshot"
becomes the truth about student learning, and because teachers tend
to teach what's being tested, the curriculum is narrowed. As everyone
acknowledges, standardized tests have a sizable error range.
Unlike education, medicine accepts and adapts to instrument reliability.
My doctor takes my blood pressure twice, for example, because he knows
that the two readings will differ, perhaps by as much as 15%. If either
measurement alarms him, he'll wait 10 minutes and take it again. He'd
ask more questions and perform more tests to identify the problem
precisely before making a judgment.
The results of an annual physical are filtered through the indispensable
judgment of the physician. My doctor knows me and interprets the results
in light of my history, my family background and other specific conditions.
By contrast, teacher judgments have no role in determining AYP. One
could argue that AYP tests are designed not to help students, teachers
or schools but to catch them. It's a "gotcha game," not
a process to improve educational health.
With my annual physical, I'd know the results within a few days. By
contrast, schools won't receive AYP test results for months. By then
students will have new teachers and may even be in different schools.
To support the individual development of students, teachers need performance
results immediately. Though the federal law imposes sanctions on schools
failing to make AYP, it does not provide positive interventions early
on. Apparently, moving from diagnosis to treatment is not a priority.
Finally, consider how AYP and doctors approach sampling. AYP requires
schools to test 95% of students in grades three to eight in math and
language arts. This is unnecessary, time-consuming and expensive.
Just as pollsters measure just about anything by drawing a representative
sample (and just as my doctor draws a sample of my blood rather than
all of it), so too can the educational health of a school be accurately
measured by testing just a small portion of the student body. But
the Bush administration insists on testing everyone. It doesn't trust
samples, at least not in schools.
The idea of holding schools accountable is long overdue. For years
those in charge of public education have been willing to leave too
many children behind. Now they're going to have to scramble to do
a better job. But while they're at it, they ought to find better ways
to measure what they do.
|
|
|
|
Help
and Accountability for the Nation's Schools
Rod Paige
Secretary of Education
Washington
Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; May 20, 2003;
(Copyright The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 2003. All rights
reserved.)
Re "Schools Go AYP Over Test," Commentary, May 8: John Merrow
describes the "adequate yearly progress" measurement system
as an annual measurement, arguing that this "snapshot" is
prone to a "sizable error range." He neglects to mention
that when determining which schools are in need of improvement, states
specifically base their decisions on multiple years of data for the
reason that it is important to identify trends and not one-time snapshots.
Merrow also describes "machine-scored, multiple-choice tests"
as the only criteria by which schools will be measured. In fact, the
"No Child Left Behind" law explicitly requires officials
to include at least one other indicator (such as graduation rates)
when designing their state accountability plan, and they are free
to include as many other indicators as they deem necessary.
As for the idea that we should use sampling to measure AYP, every
child must be tested because parents must know how their child is
performing and teachers must be able to evaluate and address the education
needs of every individual student. Claims that testing forces teachers
to "teach to the test" ignore common sense -- if tests measure
reading and math, then what is wrong with a system that encourages
teachers to teach reading and math?
Schools deemed to be in need of improvement receive extra help from
the state to get back on track. Merrow is right about one thing: "The
idea of holding schools accountable is long overdue." By measuring
adequate yearly progress and making use of the tools and unprecedented
funding provided by No Child Left Behind, we're finally accomplishing
that goal. |
| |
|
