The meaning of accountability
Ideally, accountability holds people responsible for their actions and provides an impetus for improving them. Those laudable and egalitarian virtues undergird the accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind. But how can accountability exist -- a system that shows us where schools are failing to properly educate kids and a system that accurately diagnoses the problems to be addressed in coming grades -- when the sole metric of determining achievement is cripplingly flawed?
At this juncture, I speak of the faults of (predominantly multiple choice) standardized testing not solely in their inherently fact-based, low-level nature or their ease of manipulation -- two criticisms which certainly stand on their own merits -- but rather in their inability to reasonably act as arbiters of success and failure. Put another way, when students can pass a reading test without actually knowing how to read, it's time to reconsider the test.
Something that caught my eye about the recent EdTrust report on high-impact high schools was their finding that, "Roughly three in four students at high-impact schools report reading books in their English classes, while only 62.2 percent of students in average-impact schools reported doing so." These alarmingly low numbers are not realities isolated to seven high schools; according to data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, nationally in 2002, 15% of 12th grade students reported that they "never or hardly ever read other than textbook for English class" and another 22% only did so a "few times a year."
Stop for a moment and consider that 37% (the lost third?) of students in American high schools aren't reading books in English class. Right off the bat, that should tell you that our accountability system isn't working. I think most people would agree that it's hard to become a good reader -- much less a critical, deep reader -- when you don't read books. The short stories and poems found in the Elements of Literature textbooks simply cannot formulate the same level of skill as delving closely into novels. And, when a fifth of 12th graders do "little to no" pleasure reading, there are tens upon tens of thousands of students who are simply not getting exposure to books. Perhaps it's no wonder so many adults are turning out illiterate.
But this is more then a broad failure of accountability, it's a specific malaise found in how we're measuring, in this case, reading skill, but really any skill. In Idaho this year, 82% of eigth graders passed the Idaho Standards Achievement Test. In Idaho this year, a quarter of the kids "never or hardly ever read other than textbook for English class" and another quarter did so only a "few times a year." 50% barely reading books ... 82% passing the reading exam. The problem is, all anyone sees is the 82%, and so students who aren't actually good readers, and who especially aren't likely to be good critical readers, are advanced to 9th grade with teachers, parents, the district and the state all thinking both students and system are hunky-dory.
It isn't isolated. My own state of Virginia has three-quarters passing rate on the 8th grade reading Standards of Learning exam while 40% of students are in the few to no books category. Think it doesn't matter?
Average 8th grade reading NAEP scale score by frequency of reading outside the textbook in English class, 2005:
Never or hardly ever (20%) -- 250
Few times a year (22%) -- 260
Once or twice/month (27%) -- 267
At least once a week (28%) -- 266
Standardized tests don't pick up this subtlety. A 4-paragraph, boiled down, a/b/c/d reading comprehension passage doesn't tell you whether Johnny has been reading books in English class or whether he is is a deliberate, thoughtful reader. What we're holding people accountable for and what we (should) want to be holding people accountable for are wildly different things, and much of the discrepancy can be traced to the incredibly blunt instrument of standardized testing. And then we can start talking about how easy it is to manipulate the tests, a practice in which states regularly engage.
A common response to this general position is that standardized tests aren't perfect, but there are better tests and worse tests. I posit as irreconcilable the disconnect between what standardized tests can assess at their highest bound and the rigor and detail with which we need to be assessing in order to achieve our accountability and diagnostic goals.
Accountability is good. Accountability is crucial. The problem is, the current system is doing a stunningly poor job of holding anyone accountable for anything meaningful.
At this juncture, I speak of the faults of (predominantly multiple choice) standardized testing not solely in their inherently fact-based, low-level nature or their ease of manipulation -- two criticisms which certainly stand on their own merits -- but rather in their inability to reasonably act as arbiters of success and failure. Put another way, when students can pass a reading test without actually knowing how to read, it's time to reconsider the test.
Something that caught my eye about the recent EdTrust report on high-impact high schools was their finding that, "Roughly three in four students at high-impact schools report reading books in their English classes, while only 62.2 percent of students in average-impact schools reported doing so." These alarmingly low numbers are not realities isolated to seven high schools; according to data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, nationally in 2002, 15% of 12th grade students reported that they "never or hardly ever read other than textbook for English class" and another 22% only did so a "few times a year."
Stop for a moment and consider that 37% (the lost third?) of students in American high schools aren't reading books in English class. Right off the bat, that should tell you that our accountability system isn't working. I think most people would agree that it's hard to become a good reader -- much less a critical, deep reader -- when you don't read books. The short stories and poems found in the Elements of Literature textbooks simply cannot formulate the same level of skill as delving closely into novels. And, when a fifth of 12th graders do "little to no" pleasure reading, there are tens upon tens of thousands of students who are simply not getting exposure to books. Perhaps it's no wonder so many adults are turning out illiterate.
But this is more then a broad failure of accountability, it's a specific malaise found in how we're measuring, in this case, reading skill, but really any skill. In Idaho this year, 82% of eigth graders passed the Idaho Standards Achievement Test. In Idaho this year, a quarter of the kids "never or hardly ever read other than textbook for English class" and another quarter did so only a "few times a year." 50% barely reading books ... 82% passing the reading exam. The problem is, all anyone sees is the 82%, and so students who aren't actually good readers, and who especially aren't likely to be good critical readers, are advanced to 9th grade with teachers, parents, the district and the state all thinking both students and system are hunky-dory.
It isn't isolated. My own state of Virginia has three-quarters passing rate on the 8th grade reading Standards of Learning exam while 40% of students are in the few to no books category. Think it doesn't matter?
Average 8th grade reading NAEP scale score by frequency of reading outside the textbook in English class, 2005:
Never or hardly ever (20%) -- 250
Few times a year (22%) -- 260
Once or twice/month (27%) -- 267
At least once a week (28%) -- 266
Standardized tests don't pick up this subtlety. A 4-paragraph, boiled down, a/b/c/d reading comprehension passage doesn't tell you whether Johnny has been reading books in English class or whether he is is a deliberate, thoughtful reader. What we're holding people accountable for and what we (should) want to be holding people accountable for are wildly different things, and much of the discrepancy can be traced to the incredibly blunt instrument of standardized testing. And then we can start talking about how easy it is to manipulate the tests, a practice in which states regularly engage.
A common response to this general position is that standardized tests aren't perfect, but there are better tests and worse tests. I posit as irreconcilable the disconnect between what standardized tests can assess at their highest bound and the rigor and detail with which we need to be assessing in order to achieve our accountability and diagnostic goals.
Accountability is good. Accountability is crucial. The problem is, the current system is doing a stunningly poor job of holding anyone accountable for anything meaningful.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 19, 2005 at 1:51 AM.
|
