assessing assessment

From reading Zhao's article "Playing 'Catch-Up' with Developing Nations Makes No Sense for the U.S.", I was left with some important thoughts about assessing the state of assessment in our country. I have always struggled with the ideas behind NCLB and all students "college-ready", and reading this article helped crystallize some of my feelings into more coherent thoughts.

Zhao says "There is a tendency to try to reduce something complex, like education, to something simple like a test score, and then use it to rank people and institutions." We definitely see this in our public school systems. How do we assess school effectiveness? Through AYP, based on SAT or state test scores. How do we rank students? By GPA, largely based on classroom tests, and SAT scores. Are these true measures of the school and student education? I believe not.

Even at its most basic, looking at a school's mission statement shows that there is much more involved in education than is testable. At my school, we focus on academics, but also civic and social expectations. We expect our students to learn how to set and reach goals, have civic responsibility, contribute to community, and work both collaboratively and independently. Are these testable? Can we have really successful education that doesn't show up on assessments? I believe so.

What this emphasis on testing and ranking leads to, as Zhao highlighted in China, is a lack of non-core curricular focuses. Chinese schools don't have art, music, or performing arts programs. Chinese students don't do much beyond reading and rote memorization. Our schools in this country might not measure up on tests simply because we include different programs and elective studies - does this mean we should measure up by getting rid of art and music? This question is being addressed in my school beginning with getting rid of advisory to provide more class time, since we continue to not meet standards. But, in the big picture, are students benefiting from increased focus on assessment and the loss of programs and opportunities - I believe not.

Zhao speaks, as few can, about comparing education in different countries. He begins by discussing what it was like growing up in China. There was such a competition for educational advancement, it was all about the test. While education was assessment-driven, other needed aspirations were highly underrepresented. He says "China has an overproduction of college students and it needs more students with vocational-technical skills." He even says that while he is valuable here in our country, they type of knowledge he has would get him nowhere back home - he knows nothing useful, when it comes to living in China.

Is this what is happening due to NCLB? We are trying to make all students college-ready, but is that appropriate? Don't we need other types of adults in our future communities? Some students really need life skills, or basic survival as an independent adult instruction. Some students need programs that address vocational-technical skills. I feel very lucky to work in a district that has a technical school option, but what about smaller districts that do not have those opportunities for kids? We are pushing students to be college-ready but not world-ready.

I see this in my district as well. We are a multi-high school district, and one of our schools is a coastal, Downeast, struggling high school. Their population is small, and the community is very vocational, especially with the fishing industry. Students and teachers, as well as the surrounding community, struggle with the federal and state legislation imposed on them because it simply is not appropriate. As Zhao says, what we should be doing is "stimulate local innovations and identify different models hat would work in different situations." For students in this community, it would be much more appropriate to be learning material that will prepare them for what they are really going to be doing - in many cases, this is fishing. Most won't go to college - or will attend community college - is that such a bad thing? Of course, going down this road brings up many questions - college-ready doesn't necessarily mean they have to go to college, does it? What about those students who want to pursue higher education? Should they be tracked? How can a small district afford to diversify? And so forth.

Needless to say, I do have problems with the high-stakes testing for both students and schools. As an educator, I feel it ties my hands and keeps me from teaching more, and teaching better, because we are focused on the test. As a parent, I worry - what if my child is a poor test-taker? She's only three, but if she can't measure up on paper, does that mean she is doomed to remedial studies despite being very intelligent? Is that what this heavy emphasis on testing is doing to our kids? Will she begin to feel dumb if she doesn't assess well? I think Zhao makes a great argument for the United States to begin looking at what we do well, instead of trying to test how we measure up. China, a developing nation, is trying to move away from their current assessment-drive model in many cases, so why are we, a developed nation, moving towards that model? It is backward - let's start assessing the true meaning and power of assessment.