Back in July, the Obama Administration announced its plan to use stimulus funds to spur advances and innovation in education: $4.35 billion would go to states for educational programs that would address failing schools, improve access to charter schools and the like. But to be eligible for some of this cash, one of the first things that that the states have to do was prove that they have developed and implemented a thorough set of standards and assessments measuring schools' and children's progress.
Now, we're all about standards and assessments of programs: all day, every day, Po and I are reading scholars' analyses of programs and methods. So it may come as a surprise to some, that I'm not jumping up and down over this assessment requirement. It might seem a like a fairly unscientific approach. But my hesitation actually comes from the new analysis of the bill that I read from the National Academies of Sciences.
Good scientists that they are, the NAS scholars support the principle of assessment: in plain English, they want the money to go to programs that actually help our kids, just like you and I do. But there are a couple problems with the bill's requirements that they waived a red-flag at, which I think are worth considering.
For example, the Administration focuses on the National Assessment of Education Progress as a measure of states' progress. The NAEP is considered a great indicator of U.S. students' progress in academics, but, as the scholars pointed out, the NAEP only tests fourth, eighth and twelfth graders. And NAEP tests a broad base of knowledge that doesn't match any state's actual curricula.
If the states wanted to target the funds to kids in preschool, third, and sixth graders, their reform efforts may not be register on NAEP results as being effective. (Yes, I admit to cherry-picking those years to illustrate the NAEP gap – but preschool is considered the baseline for education. Third grade is considered a dividing line for reading ability. And transitions into middle school are notoriously difficult for kids.)
Hypothetically, say, Lincoln, Nebraska wanted to use stimulus money to focus on a third graders about the great philosophers of the 20th century. Even if this was incredibly effective – the kids not only mastered the subject matter, but they also learned critical thinking, higher-order cognitive skills and problem-solving – none of that would show up on the NAEP results. Furthermore, a handful of school level or program level improvements wouldn't show up in the state data.
To be sure, the Administration is allowing other measurements to be used – the NAEP isn't the only standard – but the point made by the NAS is that the focus on NAEP may lead to the programmatic version of "teaching to the test." Just as teachers focus on teaching kids the answers and questions they know are on standardized tests, states may focus on developing programs that relate more directly to the NAEP measures.
Another complaint by the NAS – the bill's provisions want data garnered from school and program testing to be available within 72 hours.
In four years of covering the science of kids beat, I can't think of a single scholar who would be willing to turn over any data that quickly.
But the NAS's complaint here is actually sort of the same as its issue with the NAEP assessment. To get that fast a turn-around, especially if you are testing a large group, you can ask only a certain types of question – e.g. multiple choice. Once again, improvement in higher order cognitive thinking, evidence of more sophisticated understanding of material, etc. can't be effectively measured in such a format. Which again would lead states to focus on programs that promise success in the tested format – and less interested in developing untested but essential skills.
The irony of course is that the intent of the Administration's proposal is to foster innovation and achievement in the nation's schools. That is unequivocally a laudable goal – but the NAS is cautioning that its use of testing and assessment could lead to just the opposite.
Innovation in schools is an incredibly complex task. There are millions of moving parts – the children just for starters – and it's extremely difficult to know when to start demanding results. I mean, cut a $4.35 billion check, it seems only reasonable to know that the money is being spent wisely.
But what works in the lab, even in pilot programs for thousands of kids, even when it's been proven time and time again in the research, doesn't ensure that something will work once it's a priority for millions of schools.
Both President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have recently been promoting longer school days and an increase in days of instruction – perhaps paid for by the stimulus package. The research I've seen supports their position, but every time I hear this point, I can't stop thinking myself from thinking about school classroom size.
Once researchers opined that kids learn more in smaller classrooms, there was a national rush to reduce class-size. But to get smaller classrooms, many schools were hiring untrained, inexperienced teachers. They didn't have enough actual classrooms for the classes, so the kids were put in make-shift temporary rooms. The budgets were strained – to pay for the new teachers and classes and materials – so the rest of the infrastructure suffered. All told, the scholars believe that any benefit the kids would have seen from smaller classes was completely canceled out by the inexperienced teachers and other changes made to shrink classes.
