A teacher spoke of a high school where students roam the halls, sometimes threaten other students and are pretty much left alone by the administration because they have neither the environment nor the funding to address the situation. Classroom teachers would rather let these students roam the hallways because the alternative is to bring them into classes where they will disrupt other students.

A recent news item indicated we will offer $30,000,000 to Turkey in exchange for its support in a possible war with Iraq.

It IS NOT my intent to take a position with regard to whether we should go to war with Iraq. I have a position and I make that position known in other forums, but it would detract from the singular point I want to make if I were to turn this column into a debate on foreign policy. Let’s assume war with Iraq is necessary.

My point is that when we feel it is essential to our country’s future to spend $30,000,000, we find the money.

Our schools are critical to the future of our country. How much money would it take to enable that high school to provide additional personnel or an alternative program for those students who are roaming the halls? How much money would it take to enable all our schools to provide a clean, safe environment? How much money would it take to provide incentives for educators to work in schools that can’t afford to attract and keep them?

It is sickening to see the impact of the sinking economy on our educational system because there aren’t enough courageous people to stand up and fight for our children.

It is sickening to know that most politicians reading these words will agree with them, but will explain (often apologetically) that they are powerless to change the system.

These are the times that call for profiles in courage to step forward.

Schools need to know their income five years into the future so that boards and administrators can plan effectively, not retroactively, and so that teachers can focus on the classrooms not letter writing campaigns. Legislators have it within their power to offer economic visibility for educators so they can plan effectively.

Too many things outside of the classroom get in the way of those trying to work within the schools.

Next week, I will begin a prolonged dive into the issue of high stakes assessment. But we need to realize it won’t matter what we do with assessments if we don’t stabilize funding for schools.

How can we justify asking that education be spared the bullet biting that is being required of most other aspects of society? That’s easy. Education is our future and it is our security. The unions, the commissioner, and all of us need to go beyond the usual strong lobbying that bemoans educational budget cuts and then makes do with less draconian measures than are initially proposed. School policy makers need to be guaranteed a reasonable increase in funding over a multi-year period, then legislators need to work around that guarantee and make cuts elsewhere.

Why not? We do this with fuel prices. We pay what we have to and make cuts elsewhere. We do this with national defense. Well, educating our citizenry is national defense.

My proposal is that state legislatures guarantee a minimum level of funding for schools and stand by it. This addresses two issues:

· Schools need a certain amount of money to fulfil their mission as articulated by society.

· Stability of planning is critical. Each year we waste countless days, weeks, and months of the time of professional educators due to the economic gyrations they have to do to guess how much money will be available and then adjust when the real figures are released.

Unfortunately, politicians accept it as part of “the game” that there will be screams about budget cuts, some money will be restored to the proposed budget, and then everyone will get by.

The politicians provide inadequate funding, and keep everyone guessing how much funding will be available. How many people could run a business successfully if they were jerked around the way politicians jerk around the people trying to provide quality schools? There is a real irony here. The politicians control the purse strings and generate much of the uncertainty that precludes effective long range planning, but who do the politicians want to hold accountable? Think about it: under the guise of accountability, the politicians make the decisions that severely limit the opportunity for educators to be effective, and then they go to the voters on a platform of holding the schools accountable for the results.

Before you can hold someone accountable, you have to provide a level of resources, and stability for planning, that allows success to be possible.

Our children deserve better. As adults, we need to advocate better for the resources to make our schools successful.

We are in the process of finalizing facilitators and teams for the summer “constructivist” conference; if you are interested in sending (or bringing) a team, or in facilitating, please let me know, NOW!

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

We want students to demonstrate competence with critical thinking skills. Therefore, let’s model this as we engage in debate about high stakes testing. The critical thinker does not limit her critique of a work of art to the observation, “This is good,” or “This is bad.” Rather, the critical thinker says, “Overall this is good because (cites evidence), however, this could be improved and that could be done differently.”

It is not enough to praise high stakes testing as the key to accountability, nor is it sufficient to say it shouldn’t exist. Therefore, the issue IS NOT “Should there be high stakes testing?”

The issue is, “What should be preserved in the way we assess students, programs, and schools, and what should be changed?”

Let’s start with a definition: A high stakes test is an assessment of what a student knows, can do competently, and/or understands which is used to affect the student’s grade, promotion, or graduation; or it is used to assess a program or school in a way that may affect its future.

I begin with the premise that there will always be high stakes assessments. Society will demand it. Don’t we need some kind of basis for comparison between students with an “A” in one district and students with a similar grade in a school in another part of the state or nation? Don’t we need some basis for comparing the success rate of schools?

The essential questions are:

· What kinds of high stakes assessments do we need?

· How often do we need them?

· What else should be done in concert with high stakes tests?

· How should the results be utilized?

In New York State the escalation of high stakes testing began with the addition of 4th and 8th grade assessments in English and math, now being joined by other disciplines. Some educators in other states have lauded New York State’s system of regent’s exams because they provide a basis of comparison for students in different schools.

I have heard from many New York State teachers about the ramifications of the 4th and 8th grade assessments:

· Teachers in several districts have cited evidence that their administrators are reacting to these assessments by requiring that everyone teach the same way and that they teach the same topics at the same time. This inhibits those teachers who spiral their curriculum, team, and/or utilize interdisciplinary approaches.

The irony is that these are the very strategies that can be most effective in helping students hone their ability to think critically. Since the new assessments are, supposedly, being designed to encourage critical thinking, it is counter productive if some administrators standardize teaching in their districts to the detriment of those teachers who are most effective in challenging students to think critically.

However, I’ve also heard from several cutting edge teachers that the new assessments are having the positive effect of motivating some of their peers to become more learner centered – particularly the ones who would not otherwise choose to change. Why? Because standardized assessments, more and more, are requiring students to address data based questions and other questions that require critical thinking skills that can’t be taught from the front of the room. Therefore, on the one hand, the standardized assessments are legitimately criticized for not being challenging enough for critical thinkers. But, on the other hand, they are heading in the right direction by being more challenging than they have been in the past. In short, the direction in which standardized assessments are changing is faster than resistors would like, yet much slower than research-based, progressive educators would prefer.

· In the category of mixed bag: math, social studies and science teachers indicate that standardized assessments in their disciplines are becoming as much an assessment of reading skills as of subject area content. Is this good or bad? It is bad if a student who understands the math or science is precluded from demonstrating this knowledge because of the nature of the question. However, it is good because it is creating an environment where a growing number of teachers in a variety of disciplines are willing to support major initiatives to see that every student can read and write.

· Also, in the category of mixed bag, in New York State each district is required to have an AIS plan (Academic Intervention Services) on file with the State. Presumably this is in recognition that if we are going to raise the bar then we are going to have less people going over it unless we increase the level of support they receive. This is good because it has motivated districts to increase their support services for students in need. It is bad because the state has not matched its effort to increase its standardized assessment process with a similar effort to increase the resources behind its AIS initiative.

· Surveys have revealed that some teachers in New York State do not want to teach 4th or 8th grade because of the pressure of the assessments.

· An administrator recently told my university students that he feels the assessments are terrific because of what they tell administrators and teachers about their students and their school.

· There seems to be widespread agreement, and concern, about the impact of high stakes assessments on students with special needs. Is this issue being addressed with sufficient priority? Is it being addressed effectively?

Over the next few weeks I intend to address each of the four questions I have posed (above) and perhaps some others. If there are other questions you think should be addressed, I welcome hearing from you. I may print your feedback or questions. If you send me information or a question, please indicate if you do not want your name used if I reprint your message. If you do not indicate that I should withhold your name I will assume it is OK to credit you.

Next week: What kinds of high stakes assessments do we need?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Among the reasons for protesting standardized assessments are the nature of the assessments and the way the results are utilized. In this article, let’s address the nature of the assessments.

Standardized, high stakes assessments are justifiably criticized for favoring students whose multiple intelligences are mathematical-logical or linguistic.

If a student can read and write well, that student has a huge advantage on a standardized assessment, even if that student can’t think as well as other students, and has less aptitude in mathematics, science, social studies, music, art, physical education or common sense. And if a student with reading and writing ability also has a talent for memorization, standardized assessments may become a piece of cake compared with the struggles they cause others.

This is why there are studies dating back more than fifty years that demonstrate little correlation between someone’s grades in school and success in life, whether measured by happiness, salary, job satisfaction, or societal contributions. Think about it. Don’t we all know people (many people) who have used artistic or musical talent (or ability in math, science, social studies, technology, or physical dexterity) to wonderful advantage in the real world after struggling to get Cs and Bs throughout their scholastic careers? Don’t we joke about those “A” students who pile up one degree after another without ever finding success as measured by any reasonable standard? Don’t we lament the doctors or lawyers who doubtless got straight As to achieve their position, but totally lack interpersonal skills, common sense, or the ability to translate academic knowledge into professional competence?

Before anyone hollers, let me add a disclaimer: there are many people, doctors and lawyers included, with strength in mathematical-logical and linguistic intelligences, who were straight A students and who are highly, and justifiably, successful in life. It is not my intent to knock those people who have been able to excel in the traditional school system as measured by standardized tests. I am simply pointing out, as many people have been doing longer and louder than I, that the standardized assessments currently in vogue are an invalid gauge of ability for many of our students. The lack of validity is even more dramatic when we throw into the mix the cultural biases that cause discrimination against minorities and the poor due to the focus on the importance of linguistics in determining one’s likelihood of doing well on a traditional standardized assessment.

I suggested last week that there is a place for standardized assessments. I suggested that society demands, and will always demand, some way of assessing student knowledge and competence against a uniform standard.

However, short answer tests sprinkled with occasional essay questions is not the way to do it and it is because standardized assessments consist primarily of short answer and essay questions that there is currently an uproar as the nation continues to increase the amount of standardized testing. In short, those who are protesting do so with good reason.

Articles in Education Week, Kappan, Educational Leadership, and other periodicals which publish the latest research have been telling teachers, for decades, that to be effective in the classroom requires multiple forms of assessment. This can include portfolio assessment, teacher observation of group and individual work, selected student responses, contracts with students, q and a, conferences/interviews, “at-a-glance” assessments, checklist notations, rubrics, other scoring guides, rating scales graphic organizers, mind maps, concept maps, audio tapes, video tapes, short answer tests, essays, and a variety of other assessment strategies.

If teachers are now being trained to utilize a variety of assessment strategies in the classroom, why are standardized assessments no less in need of this variety of approaches for their validity?

The answer given by people who defend the current system of standardization is usually that to change the current system is too expensive or complex, and would require teachers to utilize skills that not every teacher possesses.

These are irrelevant arguments. The cost, complexity, or teacher expertise involved in changing the system is in no way relevant to whether the current system is valid and reliable. (These may be legitimate arguments for going slowly as we change the process, but the fact that bringing about change may be difficult is in no way a validation of the current methods of standardizing assessments.)

If our criteria for a valid assessment is its simplicity and economic viability, why not throw student papers down the cellar steps and give the highest grade to the paper that lands the furthest away? This would be quick, economical, and would not be dependent on a high level of teacher training and experience. The current system of standardized high stakes assessments does not have a high enough level of validity and this is not altered by the fact that it might be more expensive and time consuming to replace it with a more valid system.

I hold these truths to be self evident:

· The only way to give every student the opportunity to demonstrate what she knows and can do is to utilize a variety of assessments and to make sure that the sum total of the assessments answer the question “Is this student able to demonstrate competence with the information and skills required by the standards?

· Short answer and essay questions can provide some information about what a student knows, but any single method of assessment is limited in what it can tell us about a student’s ability to think, to perform, and to act with competence. Therefore, the only valid and reliable method of standardizing an assessment process would be to utilize multiple forms of assessment.

I am not suggesting that we ignore the arguments of those who point out that too rapid a shift to multiple assessments which include performance based assessments might be expensive, and time consuming. I am not suggesting that we ignore the argument that even if we had a system of multiple assessments ready for implementation, there are too few administrators and teachers with the experience and training to implement it effectively.

I hear the defenders of the current system of assessments when they say that standardized assessments are, at least, more effective in assessing critical thinking skills and performance than was the case ten years ago. This is true, even though the current system is not beginning to approach what it must become.

So where are we and what am I proposing as the next steps?

We are in a situation where our nation, in its clamor for accountability, is using inaccurate and unreliable measuring instruments (short answer and essay questions) as the vehicle. It is not sufficient for those who protest the current system to ignore the public’s demand for accountability. This is why the protesters are not achieving the response for which they are striving. The current system of standardized assessments is viewed by its proponents as a system of accountability. To expect that the current system will be set aside without having an alternative to replace it is unrealistic.

It is a political reality that the public must see in place a system of standardized assessments that can be utilized to hold students and schools accountable. If the public is not offered a valid and reliable system that can be designed and implemented in a reasonably cost and labor efficient manner, it will continue to rely on the current system regardless of its unreliable, invalid and discriminatory aspects.

How do we create a valid, reliable, cost and labor efficient system of multiple assessments as a replacement for the current system?

In 1993, at the request of an about to retire assistant commissioner of education, I served on a committee whose task was to design a process for certifying teachers as competent to teach the math, science and technology standards in New York State. Initially, the 34 committee members were gravitating toward a process of university course requirements – if you accumulated an extra 12 hours of course credit you received a piece of paper certifying you as an expert in the new math, science and technology standards.

I proposed that, instead, the committee should create a performance based assessment process. The extremely talented Sara Schwabacher of New Visions in New York City, and two others, agreed and joined me as volunteers on a subcommittee to design a performance based assessment process. It took us several full day meetings, but we were able to complete our work. Our assessment process included carefully worded rubrics, use of video tapes, and an interview by a committee. While we did not build in university “seat time,” as the method of assessment, our proposal included oversight and accreditation by universities, but based on multiple assessments as part of a process that was directed by universities and involved multiple stakeholder groups.

The assistant commissioner who recruited us was supportive of our proposal but retired shortly thereafter and his replacement did not choose to continue the work of the committee.

My point is that a system of multiple assessments can be designed, implemented and STANDARDIZED. It requires thinking out of the box – a term we all love to use, but seem to shy away from when we are asked to actually do it in an important situation that has consequences.

Will it be easy to design a system of standardized multiple assessments? Do we have a teacher and administrative force skilled and experienced enough to administer such a system if it were designed?

The answer to both questions is “No.”

What, then, do I propose?

The vision of a system of standardized multiple assessments, primarily performance based, must be put forth by those in positions of leadership. If they won’t or can’t do it, then those who are protesting the current system must do so if they want to turn windmills into realistic targets.

The vision of what a good standardized system would look like must be accompanied by a five or ten year plan for achieving it.

· The plan must be specific and realistic.

· The plan must have action steps and a process for assessing whether it is being followed.

· In short, the plan must specify what must be done and how we will know if it is.

· The plan must contain a state wide professional development component.

· The plan must have a meaningful component for providing support to those students most in need.

· The plan must identify who will do what, when they will do it, and how we will know if it has been done well.

· The plan must have a challenging, but realistic price tag.

Every state and the nation, as a whole, have the capability to design standardized systems of multiple assessments that are applied only minimally (as needed), are economically practical, and take into account the current level of skills and experience of our nation’s teachers and administrators. However, if proponents of standardized, high stakes, short answer/essay assessments continue to ignore the protestors and if the protestors continue to ignore practical realities (economic, political, and professional), it will simply forestall the day when our children are liberated into a system of less stressful, more meaningful, valid, and reliable assessments.

Our system for assessing future teachers increasingly relies on videos of their performance, increased field experiences with professional observations, and other performance based assessments. Aren’t the same factors which are motivating us toward multiple forms of assessments for future teachers just as relevant when we consider how we should be assessing the achievement of our students?

Next week: How often do we need standardized, high stakes assessments?

We are in the process of finalizing facilitators and teams for the 2003 summer “constructivist” conference; if you are interested in sending (or bringing) a team, or in facilitating, please let me know, NOW!

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

The series on standardized high stakes assessments will resume in a few days.

The goal of the classroom teacher must be to make students think. If students are not forced to think, they will not learn. They may memorize, but they will not understand what they have memorized and, hence, they will not develop the competence that is necessary for successful application.

Are we in agreement thus far?

If the challenge for a teacher, staff developer, or parent is to make each person in the audience think, then another goal must be to know (assess) whether each person is thinking.

When I am in front of a classroom full of students or a workshop audience of adults, I try to continually remind myself:

· Don, when you are talking, how do you know whether anyone is thinking about what you are saying? Occasionally, a response from one or two people may give evidence of thought, but what about most of the people? Yes, you can test them afterward, but even if they answer all your questions, does your test indicate that they necessarily gained their information from you? Does it tell you whether they can apply what you said?

· Don, when you sit passively in an audience, how much of the time are you focused on what the speaker is saying? How often do you look around and notice that many people, like you, are watching other people or watching their watches instead of listening to the speaker?

· Don, when you are directing things from the front of the room, how much time do you have to work individually with people, or to work with them in small groups where communications can be tailored and effective?

· Don, even when you have people actively engaged, individually, or in small groups, have you put them in a position where they have to blindly follow your directions, step by step, or have you challenged them to solve a problem, accomplish a task, or engage in a process in which they have the responsibility (and flexibility) to decide how to achieve the desired result?

· Don, how often do you give the people who are artistically or musically inclined an opportunity to demonstrate what they know in ways other than written or oral expression?

· Don, let’s discuss, again, what happens when you are in front of the room addressing a group. When you are in front of your students talking, some of them may be thinking about what you are saying, but there is on-going evidence – if you will just look around the room while you are talking – that many have tuned you out. Yes, Don, you are speaking words of brilliant wisdom, and you are being dynamic, and exciting and utilizing every public speaking strategy you ever learned, but look around you. Some students are focused elsewhere, one student has closed eyes, two students are discussing when they will meet to study algebra, several students are so intent on taking notes on everything you say that they have no time for thought about what they are writing, and four more students obviously are not being attentive to anything you are saying. Even the few students whose eye contact and body language are positive could as easily be thinking about what they did last night, or hope to do tonight, as about what you are saying.

Don, the other night when you conducted a workshop, even your wife Susan was talking to her friend Janet about which restaurant to enjoy for dinner just when you were making your most important point of the evening. Face it Don, when you talk, not even EF Hutton listens (and with the stock market tanking what else have they better to do).

· Don, the next time you are in front of a class (or any group), here’s what you need to do:
-define the objective (the task you want everyone to address)
- check for clarity
-offer as many options for demonstration of competence as possible
-offer as many resources as you think they will need
-inform them of your accessibility (when, where, and how, they can seek your assistance)
-set up sufficient check points so you will know if they are on track in time to guide them in the right direction if they are not
-do all of this in a few minutes
-then, sit down and shut up (or walk around, but stay out of their way) as they engage in a well defined task

Don, if you build a good playing field

with a clearly defined task, options, adequate resources, and methods of assessing their progress

then when the students need you they will come.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

I had intended to write more about the issue of high stakes testing. Instead I am going to conclude this series with a proposal so I can move on to other issues where positions of both sides do not appear as frozen. I’m not sure there’s much I can write that isn’t being written on an almost daily basis. The arguments are all out there, on all sides of the issue. I fear that too many people have stopped listening to anyone except those who are already in agreement with their points of view. In the interests of the children in whose behalf we are engaged, I urge us all to recognize that reasonable people can disagree. With regard to the issues involved in the debate over high stakes standardized testing, there are needs being successfully addressed by the current system and there is damage being done.

This is not an easy issue despite the assertions of people on both sides that only their position is rational. I have heard highly regarded teachers credit standardized assessments for motivating resistant colleagues to change their pedagogical practices. I have seen schools which have been shaken out of their complacency by low test scores begin to implement reform initiatives that are long overdue.

At the same time, students with special needs are often harmed, not helped, by the emphasis on standardized assessments; some administrators are misinterpreting the standards based movement and using it as an excuse to impede teachers from engaging in interdisciplinary activities and other strategies designed to challenge students to think critically. Schools that are already implementing the multiple forms of assessment that all schools should apply are being held back. Schools are being held accountable for results beyond their capacity to control, yet too little is being done to provide them with the resources necessary to accomplish that for which they are being held accountable. We’ve raised the bar for all students, yet New York State’s Academic Intervention Services (AIS) process, intended to give students the additional support necessary to leap over the higher bar, receives far fewer resources and attention than the standardized assessments that are being designed to sit in judgment.

On the one hand, AIS has generated some increased support for students in jeopardy of falling through the cracks. On the other hand, the support generated by AIS is insufficient to the task. It is not encouraging districts to do the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that is necessary if we are to have any chance of preventing scores of students from being left behind. There is still no rubric from the State to let districts know what a good AIS process should do. Too many districts have added one program or one teacher and called it AIS instead of seeing AIS as an initiative that requires a multi-pronged approach.

As the economy continues to tank, many districts are making program and position cuts that will negate whatever value they have been receiving from their AIS initiative. AIS is not achieving its potential for providing the support necessary for every child to clear the higher bar.

In other words, there are at least four consequences of the movement toward significantly increasing the reliance on standardized high stakes testing:

• It is successfully moving some schools and individuals that have been resistant to change toward sound research based practices;

• It is holding back those schools and individuals who have been leading the way toward higher student achievement;

• It is leaving significant numbers of students behind;

• It is funnelling resources toward raising the bar of accountability for students and schools at a much more rapid rate than it is improving the support system that is needed to help students get over a bar that is higher than the bar they haven’t been able to leap in the past when it was lower.

The essential question in the debate over high stakes standardized assessments is not: “Should we eliminate standardized high stakes assessments?” The essential question needs to be: “How can we improve the current system of standardized high stakes assessments so that it addresses the concerns of those who are opposed while continuing to address the concerns of those who defend it?”

If this is the essential question, than our attempt to improve the current system needs to address the following corollary questions:

• What major, drastic changes must be made in the nature of the standardized assessments so that they are more accurate reflections of student performance?

• Must we have a high frequency of standardized assessments to give us the information we need?

• How can we diminish reliance on standardized assessments for the purpose of school accountability and, instead, use entirely different measuring instruments for holding schools accountable?

• How can we offer schools the resources they need to be successful BEFORE we hold them accountable for the results?

• How do we build in greater flexibility in allowing waivers of high stakes assessments for those schools which can meet criteria for providing alternative, locally designed, means of assessment?

• How do we alter the system to provide more support and less criticism for students (and schools) identified by assessments as in need?

WHAT IS MY PROPOSAL?

A vision needs to be developed for addressing all of these questions. There needs to be a set of beliefs, a vision, a statement of objectives, and a strategic plan. There needs to be a three, five, or ten year plan.

In summary, you cannot realistically expect the public (in my opinion) to abandon the use of standardized high stakes assessments as the primary method of accountability for students and/or schools, unless you simultaneously offer an alternative that addresses the needs the current testing system was designed to address. It's that simply stated.

HOW DO WE CREATE AN ARTICULATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE VISION AND PLAN FOR ASSESSMENTS?

• In the ideal, a leader with clout (in the commissioner's office or the legislature) will propose that such a vision and plan be created, will suggest a schedule of full day sessions to design the vision and plan, will invite all invested stakeholder groups to send representation, and will arrange for skilled planning, facilitation and follow-through in a manner that will be perceived as impartial by as many participants in the process as possible.

• If no one in the commissioner's office or legislature can be found willing to offer such a proposal, and with enough clout to pull it off, than any concerned organization can put forth this proposal and seek to bring into the process as many interested parties as possible.

There must be a vision that addresses the legitimate concerns that have led to the current system while simultaneously addressing the legitimate concerns of those who would abandon the current system, if there is any to be any hope of making major inroads in what we are now doing. As I have said, people will not abandon a current system (no matter how badly it appears to work) if they do not feel there is a reasonable alternative.

If no one else comes forth to take on this task, I will ask the Institute Board of Directors to consider creating a forum to design an alternative vision and plan, and to invite every organization with a stake in the outcome to send representatives. If I propose this to the Institute board, and if they support this proposal, then we will go ahead with the design of a vision and plan with as few or as many organizational representatives as are willing to join us. I am convinced (which doesn't make me right, just insistent) that a vision and plan is needed and someone has to put it forth. As I wrote a few weeks ago:

The vision of a system of standardized multiple assessments, primarily performance based, must be put forth by those in positions of leadership. If they won’t or can’t do it, then those who are protesting the current system must do so if they want to turn windmills into realistic targets.

The vision of what a good standardized system would look like must be accompanied by a five or ten year plan for achieving it.

• The plan must be specific and realistic.

• The plan must have action steps and a process for assessing whether it is being followed.

• In short, the plan must specify what must be done and how we will know if it is.

• The plan must contain a state wide professional development component.

• The plan must have a meaningful component for providing support to those students most in need.

• The plan must identify who will do what, when they will do it, and how we will know if it has been done well.

• The plan must have a challenging, but realistic price tag.

Every state and the nation, as a whole, have the capability to design standardized systems of multiple assessments that are applied only minimally (as needed), are economically practical, and take into account the current level of skills and experience of our nation’s teachers and administrators. However, if proponents of standardized, high stakes, short answer/essay assessments continue to ignore the protestors and if the protestors continue to ignore practical realities (economic, political, and professional), it will simply forestall the day when our children are liberated into a system of less stressful, more meaningful, valid, and reliable assessments.

It is time that we abandon giving disparaging labels to those with whom we disagree and recognize that some of the people who disagree with us may be as caring, intelligent, and concerned as we. Reasonable people can disagree, but reasonable people find a way to reconcile their disagreements.

Our children have the biggest stake in how we resolve the national debate over standardized high stakes assessments. More important to our children’s future than what we decide, is the way we decide it. If we teach our children to think critically, they can survive any form of standardized assessments, or they can survive the total elimination of high stakes tests. However, they will learn more about critical thinking by what we model than by what we teach, how we teach it, or whether we test it. There are too many people on both sides of the testing issue who, uncharacteristically, are falling into the trap of thinking it has to be their way or the highway. Don’t be one of these people, regardless of the side of the issue you favor. Our children deserve better. They need good models of critical thinkers. Critical thinkers do not have a one dimensional view of an issue.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2003, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.