A report in Saturday's paper said that Alabama basketball coach Mark Gottfried has had his contract extended five years and it "rolls over for an additional year if Gottfried gets 19 wins this season."Not only are we making the NCAA tournament, but our players are graduating,' Alabama athletic director Mal Moore said in a statement."

In other words, the coach gets a year added to his contract if his team wins 19 games, and it's a nice extra that his players are doing well in school.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the extra year on the contract were linked to student performance in the classroom?

Do we wonder why university coaches feel a pressure to win that, sometimes, leads them to bend the rules?

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 want to belatedly compliment Superintendent Bill Cala for calling statewide attention to the problems created for educators by late state budgets. Bill took the kind of risk, last spring, that more of us need to take if we are to serve the needs of our children.

In this space on July 9, 2001, I wrote:

Even legislators who support education fail to grasp the impact of a late State budget. They seem to feel that as long as districts eventually receive a reasonable amount of state funding, what's the difference if the amount is known in April, July, or September?

Yet, those of you in the trenches know that positions are eliminated, programs are cut, valuable people switch jobs and are lost to their school district, teacher center, or BOCES, and a myriad of other decisions, often irreversible, are based on the uncertainty created by the lack of a budget.

University students spent a week at our 2001 summer conference documenting the devastating (and irreversible) impact on school districts that resulted from the state budget that wasn't decided until August of that year.

I am using this space, today, to put the focus on aspects of accountability that are largely ignored: legislative accountability; state education department accountability; taxpayer accountability; my accountability; your accountability.

High stakes testing (given a boost by "No Child Left Behind") has become a good idea run amok. Yes, we need high stakes testing, but not in the quantity it currently exists, not in the format that exists, and not with the emphasis on accountability that currently exists. I will say more about high stakes testing next week. For now, let's stay with accountability.

High stakes assessments are being used to hold schools accountable - which means school boards, administrators, and teachers. The results of the tests are highly publicized and this often turns taxpayers against teachers, teachers against administrators, etc. - in other words, the very people who need to work together to raise student achievement are often pitted against each other as people strive to find the answers to low test scores and to escape being the scapegoats.

It's time some sanity was brought to the efforts to raise student achievement. You can't hold a teacher accountable for student test results if he doesn't have the resources, support services, collaboration from certified colleagues, administrative support, and parental communications required to be successful with all students.

You can't hold an administrator accountable if she doesn't have the resources, board support, and empowerment required to be successful facilitating a staff of talented professionals.

You can't hold a school board accountable if local financial resources are drained by state and federal mandates while state and federal governments reduce the funding they make available.

When Bill Cala insisted that his district would not present a budget to the taxpayers for a vote until the state passed a budget that would let us know how much funding we'd all have to work with, he was doing something that every superintendent might have done, but none can be blamed for not doing because of the risk involved. I did not view Bill's actions as being a slap at the New York State education department and I hope the New York State commissioner didn't view it that way. I would hope the commissioner would have been applauding because the goals and efforts of the commissioner's office are threatened by late state budgets and inadequate funding. It may be too much to hope that the commissioner would publicly assail the legislature for the hypocrisy of claiming to want improved student achievement while throwing a monkey wrench into educational planning with annual delays in its own budget, but, hopefully, the commissioner was cheering Bill on, behind the scenes.

The issue IS NOT the late state budgets. And I am not directing this column toward New York State - I am speaking of every state and just using New York as one example. Late state budgets have a major impact on educational planning and success. Late budgets are symptomatic of the lack of legislative support that creates an almost impossible environment for many schools to have a hope of being successful.

We have schools with conditions no legislator would allow his own child to endure for five minutes. We have leaking roofs, schools that are too warm or cold (sometimes alternately), schools with uncertified personnel, schools with grossly inadequate support services and no way for teachers and administrators to handle students who are discipline problems. Students who are discipline problems don't get the help they need, and teachers and administrators don't have the resources to prevent problem students from interfering with the education of other students. Special education mandates (most of them necessary) are expensive, and too little funding exists to support them.

It is time for those of us who are not working directly in the schools to come to the rescue of those heroes - the teachers, administrators, paraprofessional staff, and students - who do. We all need to be accountable. Instead, we have some legislators (not all) and some commissioners of education (not all), and some taxpayers and community members, who want to look at test results (which often lack validity) and hold schools and the people in the schools accountable for the results.

John F. Kennedy asked us all to look inside ourselves in order to improve our country and our world. We must all look insides ourselves if we want to raise student achievement.

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.

Our country is blessed with many caring and talented professional educators who are trying to make sure that no child gets left behind in our effort to raise student achievement. The problem with our educational system IS NOT the few rotten apples that exist in any occupation; the problem is the leadership that doesn't take advantage of the talented and caring people already engaged in the educational process.

The nationwide debate over high stakes assessments is taking us away from what should be our major focus - improving the capacity of the qualified people in our schools to raise student achievement, nurture life long learners and provide an environment for students to learn to be good citizens.

Here is a simplified assessment of the high stakes testing issue, as one person views it:

Some sort of high stakes assessment process needs to exist and will exist as a basis for comparing student accomplishments in different schools.

The current system, in most states and the nation, needs to be revamped, drastically. We need to move toward a system of multiple assessments of student performance. The research, knowledge, and capability exist to create such a system.

High stakes assessments, if they exist, must be, primarily, for the purpose of improving student instruction, not for the purpose of school accountability.

An article syndicated through this Sunday's New York Times quotes Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center, a non profit group established by President Ronald Reagan to monitor and prevent school crime, as saying, ¡§We know significant crime and violence continue in many schools around the country. . . so it's been surprising to see states set the water mark for "dangerous" so high that few schools are even listed.¡¨

Reflect on the significance of this statement.

If a school is unsafe (and the director of a group established by Ronald Reagan is saying that many are) is it realistic to hold it accountable for improving student performance? Yet, peruse the list of schools, nationally, that are on needs improvement lists and most likely you will find a school that is either unsafe, unable to attract and maintain qualified administrators and/or staff members, or a school that is seriously deficient in one or more of the other conditions demonstrated by research to be required for providing an appropriate education for students. This is where our focus needs to be, rather than on using standardized assessments to hold schools accountable. Our focus, as a nation, needs to be on making sure that every school has the capacity to provide a quality education for every child. Only if we help schools build the capacity to leave no child behind can we accomplish anything by seeking to hold them accountable.

(In fact, show us a school that is deficient in a major condition required for school success, and we can show you a school whose students will perform poorly on a high stakes assessment. You don't need to administer the high stakes test to establish which schools are performing poorly - just look at the capacity building conditions. However, too many politicians and other state and national educational leaders would rather focus on the results of high stakes assessments because then they can blame the local school, personnel, and community for poor student results. If we focus on capacity building conditions for raising student performance, we might see that some communities, because of the economic and/or academic level of its citizenry, simply don't have the same capacity as other, wealthier communities. This might suggest an increased emphasis on distributing resources, human as well as economic, more equitably among communities.

It is a public disgrace that so many schools lack the capacity to properly educate students and so little is being done about it by people in positions to provide the financial and political support necessary. The disgrace is because the problems are so obvious and, yet, there is little focus on implementing the solutions. As one example: if a school is unsafe, we should do whatever it takes to remedy the situation immediately. It shouldn't remain unsafe long enough to be put on any kind of a list.

This is not just a problem of schools confronted by the challenge of violence. Small, rural schools, perhaps without much of a school safety problem, are often unable to hire and keep good administrators. Some schools literally go years replacing one interim administrator with another interim administrator as they struggle to attract someone who may then move on within a year or two of taking the job. How can relatively small districts hope to continually attract quality administrators when their location is often considered a disadvantage by prospective candidates who can, also, get more attractive salary offers closer to a larger population base? Administrative turnover is a huge problem that confronts many of our schools in this country. When there is inconsistency of administrative leadership, it creates an ever-changing learning environment in which neither students nor teachers can become comfortable and achieve to their potential.

This is the kind of problem that needs a greater focus from our leaders. We need to focus on the problems of school safety, administrative turnover and other easily identifiable conditions for school success (such as parental involvement and support). The financial cost of helping schools build greater capacity for improving student performance is not so great that these problems cannot be addressed if we focus on them with a determination to bring about change. This is why I am becoming increasingly critical of the emphasis on high stakes, standardized assessment. The national debate is taking our energy away from the capacity building conditions for school success, where it should be focused. Instead, the emphasis on high stakes assessments is nurturing the false impression that there may be a link between student success on standardized tests and school accountability.

What I am suggesting is that even if high stakes assessments were valid and accomplishing their purposes, it is questionable whether they would be worth the time and effort they are diverting from the problems of enabling every school to have the capacity to raise student performance.

My proposal for education reform is simply stated:

Shift the focus of educational leaders and professionals to assuring that each school has the capacity to provide a quality education for all children. Let's leave no school behind!

Continue staff development initiatives toward preparing teachers to utilize the kinds of authentic performance based assessments that are required to make assessments of any kind (high stakes or otherwise) valid and reliable.

Change the current system of high stakes assessments to a system that is performance based and reliant on multiple forms of assessments. This should include more liberal use of waivers of standardized assessments for those schools which can demonstrate they have an alternative process which is at least as valid and reliable as the standardized assessments they are being required to use.

Politicians and educational leaders are so busy promulgating standardized assessments and defending their tests against a barrage of criticisms that they are not matching the effort to assess with an equal effort to see that every school has the capacity to educate.

If a school is unsafe, of course student achievement will lag. If administrative turnover is high, it is difficult for a school to maintain a consistent quality of programs and initiatives.

If salaries and working conditions are substandard it is nearly impossible to hire and maintain a qualified teaching staff.

New York State created an AIS (Academic Intervention Services) program which is designed to improve the capacity of schools to identify and support students in need of special assistance; in other words, AIS is designed to see that No Child is Left Behind. All schools are required to have an AIS plan, some have taken this initiative more seriously - and have had more success - than others. However, the State has not put the same effort and clout into monitoring district compliance with AIS requirements that it has with standardized assessments. How many states have focused as many resources and initiatives on equalizing the ability of all schools to improve performance as they have on holding schools accountable for the results? Does anyone really believe that the No Child Left Behind legislation will do as much to see that every school has the capacity to provide an appropriate education for every child as it does to make the public aware of which schools are not performing at what is deemed a satisfactory level?

There is ample research indicating the conditions necessary for a school to have the capacity to enable students to improve performance. Our leaders need to follow a simple sequence of steps before trying to hold schools and school personnel accountable for the results of student achievement:

1. review the capacity building conditions required for school success

2. determine which conditions are influenced by the academic and economic level of a community

3. provide governmental support and assistance to create a level playing field for those communities which lack the economic and/or academic levels of its citizenry necessary to provide any of the capacity building conditions

4. once a level playing field has been created, and all schools have the capacity to provide quality educational environments, then we can look at holding the people in all schools accountable for the results of student achievement.

Until there is a level playing field for all schools, let's hold politicians and critics of education accountable for joining with us to help schools build the capacity for improving student performance. Let us leave no school behind.

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.

At the conclusion of this article, I will offer examples of authentic tasks being undertaken by undergraduate students at St. Lawrence University. I decided to focus on the college level for my examples because of the considerable feedback I receive from college professors whenever I address strategies at the university level. However, it is equally as easy to create authentic tasks at kindergarten, middle school or high school, and in any discipline. If you doubt this, I would be happy to get together with you (or work through e-mail) and we can design authentic tasks for your class.

When students are engaged in an authentic task, they are better motivated and they are learning in a context that replicates how they will use information in the real world. At the Institute for Learning Centered Education, we refer to our approach to learning as "Authentic-Task Constructivism."

We believe that learning can be most effective when it occurs through an effort to accomplish a task that the learner perceives to be authentic. Whenever possible, we try to enable students to meet standards through engagement in an authentic task. As a teacher, my thought process, when I design a lesson, is to begin with the question: "What kind of task can students work on that they can only accomplish by satisfactorily addressing some of the course standards?"

What is an authentic Task?
Fred Newmann of the University of Wisconsin has defined an authentic task as having a purpose beyond the teacher for a grade. In other words, there must be an audience.

The audience can be classmates, another class of students, a principal or teacher, or parent invited to hear a presentation or view a display. When students in Carthage High School conducted an environmental study of the environment around their school and presented their findings to the board of education, the board was the audience that provided a purpose beyond the teacher for a grade. When fourth grade students at Peru acted as mentors for second grade students as they all worked on publication of a booklet on Native American culture, each class had an audience (the other class) for its work. They also had the parents and others who would receive their publication.

When first grade students are informed that their posters will be displayed for parents to view at open house, they now have an audience beyond the teacher for a grade. Pen pals (or e-mail pals), legislators, and community organizations often become the audience for student work.

Authenticity is relative. What you find authentic, may be irrelevant to me. Therefore, it is important to offer students options to increase the likelihood that every student will find either a task, or an approach to accomplishing a task, that is either interesting or perceived as relevant to the student. The chance to put together a portfolio explaining the causes of the civil war, through pictures and clippings, may be attractive to the artistically inclined student, but tedious for the linguistic or mathematically logical individual. Working with photography may appeal to a student who just received a camera as a birthday gift, but may hold no interest for another student.

The key is to offer options, but make sure that whatever options are selected by a student will require the student to address the standards that are the focus for the activity. The beauty of authentic task constructivism is it allows for the student to address standards that are important to her without compromising what the teacher feels needs to be learned.

I teach a beginning education course at St. Lawrence University. It has taken me five years to reach a point of reasonable satisfaction with the method I use to generate authentic work from my students, but this semester seems to be working out the best. Fifty four students in two classes are each engaged in an authentic task (see examples below) that will account for 30 percent of their grade for the course. Some are working as individuals, some in pairs and some in groups as large as eight, depending on the nature of the task. Each will be individually assessed and held accountable.

Since examples are often the best way of generating an understanding of a concept, I am going to share, without further comment, the tasks that I offered my 54 students. I also encouraged them to propose their own tasks if they didn't want to select one that I was offering. My criteria for accepting a student's proposal was simply whether I felt it would force the student to address, in a meaningful way, some of the standards that would have been addressed if she had opted for one of the tasks I had offered. The last six tasks (below) were proposed by students and, I think, are far more challenging than what I had offered. The first 14 tasks were from a list of options I had provided:

A PORTFOLIO PRESENTATION. (3 students collaborating): Prepare a presentation, for students taking an education class for the first time, on the portfolio that will be required as they matriculate toward an education minor. This will require an interview with the department chair, a review of several pages of information, and a dress rehearsal presentation to a panel of education department professors in early December. Students accepting this assignment must be prepared to make the same presentation to education classes early in the next semester. You will receive credit in a future education course.

CONDUCT RESEARCH FOR A SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT. (2 students): Write an analysis of this question posed by the superintendent of a local school district: "Is there a relationship between social emotional support and student performance on standardized testing." Begin by speaking with the superintendent to understand exactly what she has in mind. Your report will be forwarded to the district and made available to others who may have an interest. Your assessment will be based on how well your work meets the expectations of the superintendent as she defines them for you.

PORTFOLIOS TO DISPLAY FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS. (3): Put together a display of different types of exemplary K-12 portfolios in different disciplines and at different grade levels.

COLLABORATE WITH A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND CONDUCT A STUDENT-RUN CLASS. (4 students): Conduct a student run class and prepare a write up of a student run class for a booklet. Also, assist two other people with editing of a booklet on student run courses. (Set up an appointment to review guidelines for a student-run class.

EDIT SUMMARIES OF STUDENT-RUN CLASSES (2): Take primary responsibility for editing of a booklet on student run courses.

CONTRIBUTE TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR A BOOK THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED. (8 students): Assist instructor in gathering teaching strategies for a book by collecting effective constructivist teaching strategies from classroom teachers.

PRESENT TO CLASSES IN LOCAL k-12 SCHOOLS (8 students): Participate in "Bridging the Gap," a series of presentations to students in local schools, and participate in whatever meetings are necessary to prepare for these events. You will be expected to put together constructivist presentations for students at any grade level, on any topic requested by the teacher.

INTERVIEW A COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION. (2 students who live in New Hampshire): Interview the New Hampshire Commissioner of Education about a pilot program in 20 schools relating to performance assessments, and then interview some of the teachers involved in the program and write a description of the program and an analysis of its purpose and what the participants think about it.

CONSTRUCTIVIST GRADUATE SCHOOLS. (2 students): Review catalogues and other sources of information and put together a summary of graduate school opportunities that focus on constructivist theories of learning.

CATALOGUE VIDEO TAPES FOR USE BY TEACHERS. (2): Select tape excerpts: review a library of tapes the instructor will provide, and/or any other tapes, and compile a reference list of excerpts that can be used for education classes or teacher workshops. Excerpts should be no longer than ten minutes. Minimum requirement, 50 good summaries.

MATH MADE EASY - IS IT CONSTRUCTIVIST? (2): Write an analysis of "Math Made Easy" and explain whether it is a constructivist approach to student learning, with detailed rationale for your conclusions, and at least six well researched citations. Also, design three poster boards for the summer conference. Models from previous conferences are available. Each must reflect constructivism in every day life.

DESIGN POSTER BOARDS FOR CONFERENCE DISPLAY. (2): Design twenty poster boards for the summer conference. Models from previous conferences are available. Each must reflect constructivism in every day life.

THE PHONICS GAME - IS IT CONSTRUCTIVIST? (2): Write an analysis of "The Phonics Game" and explain whether it is a constructivist approach to student learning, with detailed rationale for your conclusions, and at least six well researched citations. Also, design three poster boards for the summer conference. Models from previous conferences are available. Each must reflect constructivism in every day life.

ANALYZING MIDDLES SCHOOLS AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING. (2):
Write detailed analyses of:

• a brief report on cooperative learning which addresses five major questions generally raised about the process. Instructor will provide the report).

• and a paper and tape about how middle schools should function.

NOTE: These next six tasks were proposed by students and accepted by the instructor:

ANALYZE AND ASSESS THIS UNIVERSITY'S INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY. Prepare a written description and analysis of St. Lawrence University's efforts to improve its focus on diversity. The analysis will be based on interviews with at least 25 people representing all groups involved or potentially impacted by this initiative.

AUTISM - WHY ARE DIAGNOSES PROLIFERATING? IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS? An analysis of autism and Asburger Syndrome - why are the diagnoses proliferating and what are the implications for educators? Also, update the Institute index of newsletter articles.

SCIENCE AND MATH LESSONS. Creation of a lesson in science and a lesson in social studies using the "Two-Step" format from the about to be published book by Flynn, Mesibov, Vermette and Smith.

EQUINE STUDENT-RUN CLASSES. Conduct a student run class and prepare a write up for a booklet. Also, assist two other people with editing of a booklet on student run classes. The classes will relate to training and/or care of horses.

WRITING A PAMPHLET

Create a pamphlet detailing the educational resources available to students by the various theme cottages. Some potential cottages include: pink triangle, WRC, LaCasa, BWR. Then I will submit these to admissions for inclusion with information for new students.

DOES THE UNIVERSITY DO ENOUGH FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES? Analysis of the university's efforts to support students with disabilities.

Check out the website of The Institute for Learning Centered Education: www.learnercentereded.org

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 jigsaw is a teaching strategy that puts students in the position of teaching each other that which we want them to learn. In past years, I’ve written articles detailing how to structure a jigsaw, and citing examples of effective jigsaws at all grade levels and in all disciplines.

Today, I want to describe jigsaws that were used within a week of each other during three staff development sessions. As you read these three examples, keep in mind that research indicates we learn best when actively engaged with information. This is true whether our goal is to understand, apply competently, or simply to memorize. Teaching others is one of the best forms of active engagement we can create for students.

JIGSAW ONE:

Step 1: Teachers were divided into home groups of five per group.

Step 2: Each teacher was given a sheet of paper which had a one sentence synopsis of each of five behaviors of constructivist teachers. The behaviors were selected from a book entitled, “The Case for Constructivist Classrooms,” by Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks. In each “home” group, the five people were asked to each select a different one of the five behaviors to study. (An example of a behavior employed by a constructivist teacher is “Constructivist teachers allow sufficient wait time after posing a question.”)

Step 3: “Expert” groups were created. Each “expert” group consisted of the person from each “home” group who had selected the same behavior. They were given a copy of the description of the behavior as it appeared in the book and they had twenty minutes to read and discuss what they felt were the important points to be shared.

Step 4: Participants returned to their “home” groups, and each had four minutes to share what she felt was important from the behavior she had read and discussed with the “expert” group.

JIGSAW TWO:

Step 1: Parent advocate Roberta Stillin-Dowman and Niagara University Professor Dr. Helen Snider compiled five articles documenting research about parental involvement and support.

Step 2: Staff was divided into five “Home” groups and given a single sheet of paper with a one sentence synopsis of each of the five articles. Each member of the group was asked to select a different article, based on the synopses.

Step 3: “Expert” groups were created. Each “expert” group consisted of the person from each “home” group who had selected the same article. They were given fifteen minutes to read the article and discuss what they felt were the important points to be shared.

Step 4: Participants returned to their “home” groups, and each had five minutes to share what he felt was important from the article he had read and discussed with the “expert” group.

JIGSAW THREE:

I conducted a web search and downloaded four brief articles, each reflecting a different aspect of de-escalation – i. e. 1) ground rules for discussions, 2) conflict resolution techniques, 3) escalation words, 4) de-escalation strategies. Then we created “home” groups and proceeded exactly as in the two previous examples.

In each of these three jigsaws, there were similar results:

· As I worked the room, it was evident that participants were taking their work seriously and dialoguing on topic.

· Discussion of what one person was sharing often led to people bringing in their own experiences and creating meaningful dialogues about related topics.

· Everyone was ACTIVELY engaged. As Paul Vermette would say, “You could see them thinking.” Often you could see and hear what they were thinking.

· I had several opportunities to clarify points, or discuss issues with individuals or small groups while others were occupied, on task, within their own groups.

· Participants were not limited to the information shared in the handouts provided by the staff developer, nor were they limited to what the staff developer could share. The jigsaw was the catalyst for a great deal of expertise being shared by participants with each other.

When a jigsaw works as intended, it is apparent to any observer that there is far more engagement of all, or most, of the students than is the case when someone presents from the front of the room. The results we observe at staff workshops are no different than what a teacher experiences when students are actively engaged in well structured group work.

A jigsaw can be used with kindergarten or university graduate students. It can be structured to last twenty minutes or three weeks. The teacher adjusts the complexity and amount of information to be shared based on the time she wants to devote to the jigsaw and the age and developmental level of the students.

For further information (and classroom examples) about jigsaws, carousels and other teaching strategies for the constructivist classroom, check the Institute web site (address below), and go to “Newsletter Archive;” access Volume 1, Article 17 and Volume 1, Article 42. (Incidentally, the index on the website that enabled me to quickly locate these two articles on “jigsaws,” was created by St. Lawrence University students Steve Coffin and Erin Lloyd as their authentic task for an education course last semester.)

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 following was written by Pat Flynn in response to recent articles in this space about high stakes assessments and accountability:

By Pat Flynn

Outcome-based education called for students to demonstrate by performance that they understood a body of knowledge. When outcomes-based education grew into Standards-based education the content that comprised that body of knowledge and the level of performance that constitutes demonstration were spelled out as content standards and performance standards.

The assessment of these content and performance standards was then the issue, for without assessment the standards are meaningless. Furthermore, without assessment the level of acceptable performance could continue to be manipulated, resulting in students from under-funded and under-supported schools receiving a diploma that signified a very low level of student achievement; in essence the absence of standards allowed schools to defraud students. In this sense learning standards are a safeguard to equity.

Unless there is some statewide way to judge whether a student has met the state’s learning standards, there is no way to prevent this fraud from continuing. The recent lawsuits of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity succeeded only because they were able to hold schools to a reasonable standard of education where those standards were spelled out and uniformly assessed.

All the proposals that have surfaced thus far regarding alternative assessment in one way or the other attempt to lower or eliminate one of the learning standards that have been set for high school graduation. (Keeping in mind that the elementary and middle level state assessments are designed to be consistent and aligned with the graduation assessments.) It is one thing to challenge the relevance of a particular standard or to challenge the way it is being assessed. It is quite another to call for the lowering of that standard under the banner of justice.

The technology needed to develop assessments that are alternatives to the Regents exams is available; it needs only to be creatively applied. This is where much effort is needed.
During the interim, I propose local panels be established who would be empowered to create alternative ways of meeting the state standards for individual students who have repeatedly failed their exam. Such panels to consist of at least the following: representatives of the school administration, at least one of the student’s teachers (if a particular exam is at issue the teacher of that subject area), representatives of local businesses and whomever else the community feels represents the standards of the community. These panels would not only establish local alternatives for individual students to demonstrate understanding but also the standards that students must meet regarding attendance, deportment and the like to qualify for consideration by the panel.

This would not only maintain the achievement level students must demonstrate and the practical underpinning necessary for equity but also give local districts experience in developing community assessment standards. These community panels would be monitored by the current state assessment panel to see how the process is working, provide assistance and to cull useful ideas.

Input standards are essential and it is ridiculous to continue to operate unsafe and/or impossibly intellectually or emotionally toxic and/or misled schools. But the answer isn’t to eliminate or deregulate the assessments that safeguard the education every student deserves in order to have a chance to be a productive and participating citizen.

Pat Flynn has retired as an associate of the division of research and educational services for the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT). He is also one of the four designers of the annual summer constructivist conferences which began, in 1995, at Grand Island, New York and continue at St. Lawrence University. Currently, Pat is an educational consultant, and is also an advisor to the Institute for Learning Centered Education.

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.