Harsh times lead to harsh choices.
On Oct. 11, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed bill SB 19, which lifts the California ban on using test data to determine educator pay and promotion. This move was initiated in an effort to make the state eligible for a federal funding program known as Race to the Top.
This board believes that using test results is a poor gauge of educational quality, especially as a means to push for improvements within school systems. However, stark financial conditions are compelling the state to make equally stark choices.
Race to the Top offers states an opportunity to avail themselves of federal funding for education and requires applicants to provide comprehensive plans to tackle certain reform criteria.
With the ban on using test data, California was unable to meet criteria that urged states to implement standards of assessment and improve the collection and use of data to measure educational levels.
The governor was placed in a situation with one clear route. Billions of dollars in federal aid, considering the poor shape of the state budget, is an amount too staggering to overlook. In fact, with priority funding given to high-need school districts within states, this program promises to mitigate the current budget shortfalls.
The issue lies not in the pursuit of increased funding, as this is a pressing state concern, but in the efficacy of current methods of assessment as a means to approach educational reform.
The federal government, as demonstrated by the terms of Race to the Top, advocates the use of testing to evaluate schools. This measurement will then be used to determine school funding and provide compensation for teachers and principals who are “highly effective.” The national government is employing a capitalist, incentive-based approach in reforming the educational system.
The rationale behind this evaluation is that teacher quality can be determined through student growth. We do not question that. We do, however, question whether standardized tests effectively measure student progress.
While certain exams could provide some semblance of academic proficiency, like competency in mathematics, this fails to be the case with subjects like literature and history.
Equation-based tests precisely gauge student performance because they’re predicated on set standards, but examinations are far too limiting in ascertaining broader subjects.
How can you gauge a student’s literary prowess with a finite number of questions? How can you know how much a student knows about the Civil War based on rough query?
This board also finds monetary compensation to top performers a dubious approach. While we do not make any claims of potential manipulation by educators, a financial incentive certainly urges them to focus on standardized tests, which are meant to gauge performance.
Although this might send a positive message in that educators might try to take more initiative in their roles, the emphasis on examination could act as a digression, if not a diversion, from the standard curriculum.
Teachers might, for example, choose to focus on certain aspects of education that play more into these standardized tests, which compromises students’ potential learning experience. Simply throwing money at educators and demanding vast reform is too unrealistic an expectation.