When ESSA, The Every Student Succeeds Act, passed and the president signed it, we knew it would happen: States would take the flexibility now afforded to them under federal statute to backslide on accountability.
But—maybe naively—I didn’t expect it to happen so quickly, before the rule-making around ESSA’s accountability provisions have even been finalized. We’re seeing it across the country, from Illinois to my state of Rhode Island, which has done an about-face on high school assessments over the past few months.
Commissioner Wagner is in a tough position as he works to transition to the new federal law (ESSA), appease unions, respond to parents’ concerns about over-testing, dispel “teaching to the test” narratives, support the Governor’s push for free PSAT/SAT testing, and actually ensure that Rhode Island’s kids learn to read and do math.
We all know that excellence is hard to achieve when we are trying to please everyone and I fear that again, Rhode Island students will take it on the chin while adult squabbles and short-sighted thinking rule the day. Apparently we prefer a reputation based on denial and avoidance to one based on truth and what best serves students long-term.
On base, fewer math and literacy tests are great. If I were a high school student, I’d probably love it. The problem is that, as a high school student, I wouldn’t be aware of how my inability to show high school proficiency could impact my future goals, aspirations, and dreams.
Whether I wanted to go to a four-year college, a two-year college, the military, or study a trade, a diploma that doesn’t ensure I’ve mastered high school skills is likely to derail my plans. And by then, it will feel too late. By then, I’ll know the adults failed me.
Governor Raimondo supports the decision, despite her usual push for us to be more like Massachusetts, a state that is #1 in education and requires students to pass a test in order to graduate.
“While the PARCC assessment remains a vital measure for school accountability in Rhode Island,” she said, “we want to be sure that we strike a reasonable balance with the amount of time dedicated to test-taking and we don’t want to overtest our students. … Even more importantly, teachers, parents and students will know how our students are doing and how best to help them be prepared to compete in the global economy.”
Others in the education space see it differently:
“If you aspire to be Massachusetts, then high school graduation requirements are going to have to have some consequences,” he said. “If there are no consequences for students, teachers or the system, we end up with improved graduation rates but we haven’t measured whether they are living up to the standards.” Tim Duffy, Exec. Director of RI Assoc of School Committees
Chariho School Supt. Barry Ricci applauds any reduction in testing, but he doesn’t want the state to abandon tying a standardized test to graduation. Without that incentive, he said, high school students will not have any reason to take the test seriously. “I don’t want to give kids the message that we’re lowering the bar,” Ricci said. (All quotes from Projo, July 19)
During the winter of 2010 during a mass teacher firing, the City of Central Falls made national headlines as a tale of adult interest versus student need. During the national discussion, then Secretary of Education Arne Duncan fixated on the number 7—or the percentage of students proficient in math in the one square mile city. He was right to be outraged by such a failure on the part of adults to get students where they needed and deserved to be. Knowing that 93 out of 100 students were not able to do math at grade level is a clarion call—and Central Falls has definitely taken up the mantle in recent years.
But Rhode Island still has whole urban schools and cohorts of students in suburban schools whose proficiency rates remain in single digits. Or, in some cases, whole suburban schools: In my hometown of Cumberland, our high school math proficiency rate mimics those of Central Falls (albeit on the decidedly more rigorous PARCC exam compared to our old test, NECAP). At Cumberland High School, 7 percent of students school-wide are proficient in math. 7 percent.
While the Secretary of Education is unlikely to weigh in this time, the rest of us need to do so. Instead, we run from it, as the Rhode Island Department of Education’s recent decision to limit high school assessments shows. Instead of addressing the news head on, we let our own aversion to accountability drive us. And again and again, our students pay the price. Our economy pays the price. Our whole state pays a price.
2 thoughts on “Little Rhody Runs From the Truth and Eliminates Annual Testing after Grade 9”
You argue, persuasively, that the test-based accountability strategy your state and the nation have used for 15 years has failed to make many students proficient in mathematics (for example, at Cumberland High School); so why do you want to continue with that failed approach to accountability?
The problem is that, as a high school student, I wouldn’t be aware of how my inability to show high school proficiency could impact my future goals, aspirations, and dreams.
I’m sure most kids are aware of their limitations, but when it comes to PARCC (or NECAP), what’s the “awareness” generated from anything other than not proficient? Does anyone – even parents – sit down and assess your weak in quadratic functions so you’ll never become a rocket scientist?
While the argument the PSAT/SAT are not great predictors of college success, at least most students know (or can be told simply) here’s where you fall in the college admittance spectrum. Students who might not otherwise take the PSAT/SAT might at least discover college is a possibility if they take those tests.
Honestly, if we are talking about “mastering high school skills”, which is more important – recalling the formula for the volume of a cylinder to solve a test problem or the ability to use all the tools I would have available to me in “the real world” to solve a series of math, literacy, or science problems derived from real world application? They are not totally mutually exclusive (you can write some good application math problems), but why don’t we assess students on the process of solving a problem instead of their low level (in the age of google) skill of immediate factual recall?
Yes, schools may be doing that internally with formative and summative assessments,but it’s the standardized test that gets reported, gets used to measure the school, and for some to obtain a diploma. Would you rather be assessed on your blog under the scenario where you get a topic, are giving 30 minutes to write a post on it with no outside resources..or one where you can research (still with time constraints) as you write?
Maybe instead of looking at this as backsliding, we should view it as a chance to pivot and move in a direction that truly assesses understanding and application instead of primarily recall of facts, formulas, and procedures.