No More "Test and Punish Education": A Book Report From DISD Trustee Ranger

By Robert Wilonsky Fri., Mar. 5 2010 at 8:44 AM

Categories: Edumication News, The Unfair Park Book Club

Pin It

I've got a copy of Diane Ravitch's latest tome on my bedside table -- just haven't found the time or fortitude to plow through the Houston native and former secretary of education's "intellectual crisis" and subsequent "U-turn," as The New York Times put it a few days ago. Because, once upon a time, Ravitch was all for standardized testing and No Child Left Behind and crushing the spirit and soul out of children in public schools who are, at present, being tested to death. But no more, she writes: "Accountability, as written into federal law, was not raising standards but dumbing down the schools. The effort to upend American public education and replace it with something that was market-based began to feel too radical for me."

Carla Ranger, the most outspoken DISD trustee, agrees: On her Web site, which had become in recent weeks a press-release bulletin board, Ranger has a post titled "Destroying public education and leaving democracy behind," in which she writes that she absolutely shares Ravitch's concerns. She writes, in part:

Today, use of the word "reform" has become the easiest way to hide agendas that have little to do with improving public education and everything to do with undermining public education on the road to increasing privatization by placing public money under private control. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has become a red flag because it covers up what is sometimes an ideologically driven effort to weaken public support of public education. ...

I support public school education for all citizens who take advantage of it -- the good, the bad and the ugly. I support public democracy. I support public control of public education. I support human freedom that recognizes no limit on human possibility.

Speaking of public education, Ranger just posted a piece concerning last week's board vote that makes it difficult to pull items from the consent agenda so they can be discussed at length during meetings. Writes Ranger, "I believe in public discussion of important public matters. The vote last Thursday indicates there are Trustees who still want to make that more difficult."

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

Taking tests offer zero pedagogic value. Further, it is generally impossible to create a multiple choice test that is accurate. Very often, the test makers are unaware that they have made multiple answers acceptable. All studies indicate that the best learning is achieved by student centered curriculum. The student's interest may not jibe totally with the test. (further, let's not forget that we teach students made-up grammar until they get to Jr year of Senior high. They keep changing the terms and rules as they fear kids can't handle a whole manual of style) The problem is that the teaching profession requires intelligent, nimble minded teachers who are empowered with trust. We don't have that, we have a system that is heavy with administrators who demand expressly written curricula. How can such a detailed lesson plan allow the students to direct the flow and discussion, while channeled by the teacher. All the studies indicate that the best learnin' comes from the students engaging with something they care about, then showing them the grammatical rules to say what they want to say; the math to figure the needed figures what have you. But, that would require trust in teachers. However, we don't have that. What metric are you judged by ROB? Why do we think a metric measures anything worth a damn? It's well nigh impossible to cheat in philosophy, hell we seldom had tests--though the hardest test I ever had was a 50 question take home true/false test. But in an essay one is able to see if a student not only gets the essential ideas but develops ideas beyond those fed you. Engineers are a case in point of a people who get stuck in one metric and often can't see outside the box they were given or told to pick by their professor years ago. Much wisdom can be gained by the Socratic method, sadly, there is no time for that kind of inquiry in a world of testing and rote memory.
ROB, I don't know about the SAT, but I do know that the cheating rate for the TAKS is much higher than anyone would be proud of. I'm not saying that this is absolutely the answer to every problem in education. The fact is, no matter how good a teacher is, 3/4 of the child's day is spent outside of school. No teacher or school is perfect, nor will any education method or system perfectly accommodate every child. But still, our society right now treats testing as if it is the most important thing in the world. It's gotten to the point where we make our kids believe that if they don't pass the TAKS test they may as well just fall over dead. It's gotten so ridiculous. I didn't pass the TAKS test, and I'm sure you didn't either. It didn't exist for us. And yet, we both can live reasonably successful lives. Testing is not the end all be all of education. And shouldn't be the cornerstone of our kids lives.
Dallasm, of course in the real world people ask each other for help, but there's a difference between a competent person occasionally asking for help, or explicitly collaborating on a joint project, versus an incompetent person representing something that's mainly someone else's work as their own. Which one do you want to hire, and how do you determine which one a particular candidate is if all you have to go on is their claims of what they've done before? As for the claim that you can cheat any system, what do you think the cheat rate would be on the "portfolio system" versus something like the TAKS or the SAT? How do you cheat on the the SAT?
Gabe, I don't know how I feel about dropping the "schooling" mandate. I have no doubt that our schools would improve, and the top students would be able to move ahead faster. But, we then leave underprivileged children behind. Why should we care? Because if there is not a mandate for schooling then you can't hold people responsible for not knowing things. Like how to read a contract. Right now, everyone is expected to be able to read a contract because we have all been expected to achieve a certain level of intellectual ability. If not everyone is expected to have that, a lot would change. There are always unintended consequences. Also, crime in the city would increase dramatically. I would guarantee that. Everyday that DISD is out of school, crime jumps. Teen Pregnancies also jump. Rather, I would be for breaking public education up and providing different core tracks for students. Have a core track for business, for arts, for science and math, for retail and services, etc. A lot of schools are working on this idea. I think it has promise.
ROB, First of all, where did the idea come from that students should not ever have any help? That's not how my work place works. If I am having trouble figuring something out, I look it up. If I still have trouble, I ask my supervisor. No one gets onto me for asking for help. No one says, "Your supervisor helped you write this proposal, that's cheating." That's not how the real world works. Now, how would we know that some kids parents didn't do it all for them? The Portfolio would be a wide mix of in class, group, and home work. That's the best I can do. People will always find a way to cheat in any system, tests certainly don't stop that either. Travis, Dallas ISD does have a similar system to judge their teachers, it's called the CEI. I really disliked it when I was teaching because it put far too much emphasis on testing. Testing is not the be-all end-all of education like we treat it. Testing has major flaws and is certainly never really objective. The system you describe does not reward teachers for ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS TEACHER DO. Look at it this way, think of your favorite coach or teacher. Why were they your favorite? Were they funny? Involved in the school? Personable? Caring? Creative? More than likely, your favorite teacher was probably not your hardest, and you probably didn't learn as much "Curriculum" from your favorite teacher as you did from others. Would that make your favorite teacher a worse teacher than the others? Of course not. That is because there is far more to being a teacher than just drilling the TEKS. That's what society needs to come around and remember.
I highly recommend reading the work(s) of John Taylor Ghotto, found here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ He argues, persuasively I believe, that school should be made optional, not mandatory. He talks about the history of state-run schooling; as well as the difference between schooling (what the state does) and education (what people really learn). The two are not the same. I would add that more privatization is needed rather than federalization with fake free-markety principals.
When you go and interview for a job, how do they judge one candidate from another? Do they sit you all down and give you a test? No. Actually, in a lot of tech jobs, they do in fact give some sort of test, although it may be more like a series of puzzles or problem-solving exercises. Microsoft does it, Google does it, the company I work for does it. And you'd be amazed how many people with impressive looking resumes (and a portfolio of projects they've allegedly been responsible for) fall apart when you ask questions that they should be able to answer, based on their supposed past accomplishments. They may be misrepresenting how much of the work they were really responsible for, or they may have gotten really good at a niche skill but have let their general skills wither from lack of use, who knows. Anyway, tech jobs aside, let's say a student only has to produce a portfolio to get their diploma - how do you know that they did it without help, or that they did it at all? And how do you objectively judge a "portfolio of accomplishments?" Can you give an example or two of what would be in such a portfolio?
As a teacher friend of mine put it: "The most logical way to evaluate a techer using a test is to give a pre-test and post-test of the students I have. See how much World History they already knew, then see how much they learned in my class." "But at DISD that is just too logical. It would show that MOST teachers DO add to a child's education. However, when most of my 10th graders read at a 4-5th grade level, what level would I be considered successful? Does a teacher who brings a 4th grade level 16 yr old to the 7th grade level in one year merit more pay than someone who takes kids ON LEVEL and keeps them going?"
ROB, There are far better ways of measuring progress. For example, a portfolio. When you go and interview for a job, how do they judge one candidate from another? Do they sit you all down and give you a test? No. They look at your portfolio. What have you actually accomplished. Here is what I would do to fix the testing problem. The state of Texas has a huge list of "Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills", or TEKS. High School students would be given the list and instructed on how to use the TEKS to create a "portfolio" of accomplishments. When a student has built up their portfolio appropriately, the student is eligible for graduation. You don't have to "test" the kid with a make-it-or-fail test. That does no one any good, and proves nothing at all. A portfolio, on the other hand, teaches responsibility and organizational skills. It's just as objective as a test, but doesn't allow for the "Blow-off-the-school-year-and-hope-that-you-pass-the-TAKs-anyway" work ethic that the current system teaches.
Further, what the h*** is a test supposed to prepare the kid for? Here's an analogy. An overweight person is trying to lose weight. Once a week, they get on a scale and see how much they've lost. You wouldn't say, "what is standing on a scale preparing them for?" It's not preparing them for anything -- it's an objective meaasure of how much progress they've made. Now, it's certainly true that academic tests aren't as perfectly objective as weighing yourself on a scale, but that doesn't mean that the solution is to fall back to something that's totally subjective, like the teacher saying, "I think my students are doing great - some of them are a little slow, but they're working on it." If someone can come up with a better way of teaching students and measuring their progress in a way that can be fairly compared across schools and school systems, I'm all for it. But as much as I like Carla Ranger, comments like, "I support human freedom that recognizes no limit on human possibility," sound nice, but what is she actually suggesting?
My child is a sophomore in a public high school. I have been delighted to have run across as many engaging, energetic and approachable teachers and coaches as I have. Sure, the minefield is littered with "lump" teachers and administrators, just as it is with "lump" students. But there are good things happening at the ground level. I'm all for reforming the obvious problems like teaching to the test and those in the Admin building abusing their P-cards, but at heart, education is about relationships, ideological and human. Connected educators beget connected students.
I have a friend who calls the DISD's curriculum the "convoy method of teaching": The fastest boat in the convoy shall not go much faster than the slowest boat in the convoy. Now I get what he meant, having seen it firsthand: the elementary school curriculum keeps pace with what is on the test (ITBS or TAKS) for that grade level. Those skills tested are the minimum expectation for achievement. Minimum expectation = minimum curriculum. Pacing is the key word here. A kid who tests at the 80th+ percentile is still going to be moving through the curriculum at the same pace as a child in the 45th percentile, even if they are bored to tears. I've been told by Ross Avenue that the Curriculum Pacing Guide provides more in-depth work to higher-testing students, while still moving them at the same pace as their classmates, meaning that the whole class will be learning about subtraction at the same time, but those who master the skill early will get word problems instead of fact worksheets, i.e. a step-up in critical thinking skills. This is contrary to what is actually happening in the classrooms. The gen-ed teachers and principal at my child's school refuse to implement the tiered approach in the Curriculum Pacing Guide because it would "create two curricula".
The whole system needs to be upended completely. The system of students having set classes where they sit quietly at desks and listen to the teacher lecture doesn't work anymore (I would argue that it never did.) Further, the system of grading doesn't work. Why is 70% passing? Why not 100%, or 50%, or 75%? It's completely arbitrary. And no teacher anywhere can actually grade with 1% precision. Really, if I gave you two essays would you be able to tell which one is worth a 95 and which is worth a 93? NO! Grades are faked. At very best graders have a 10% precision. Further, what the h*** is a test supposed to prepare the kid for? Where in the real world are you give a pencil and a packet of random and unrelated questions, told you have to remain seated in an uncomfortable chair, that you only need to answer 70% of the questions, that this one thing represents everything you have done for the past 5 months, and you have 45 min. Oh and you can't use any outside sources or ask anyone for help. GO. The entire educational system is ridiculous and needs to be redesigned completely.
I understand the idea that the educational system shouldn't focus exclusively on testing, but at the same time, is anyone really surprised that students, teachers, and school districts don't like to be held accountable by standardized measurements? But I'll bet the teachers unions latch onto the stuff like... Nations like Finland and Japan seek out the best college graduates for teaching positions, prepare them well, pay them well and treat them with respect ...as long as it doesn't mean getting rid of mediocre teachers who are already in the system. btw, what does "test and punish education" mean? Students who flunk tests shouldn't suffer negative consequences? I don't think the Japanese school system is based on, "oh, you got a D, but that's ok, because you tried really hard!"