Standardization Versus Standards In the name of objectivity and science - two worthy ideas - the testing enterprise has led teachers and parents to distrust their own ability to see and observe their own children, Ms. Meier points out. What we need are assessments with low or high stakes that place authority in the hands of people who actually know the students and that make sure that the community, the family, and the student have ways to challenge such judgments. BY DEBORAH MEIER ROPONENTS OF THE current 50-called standards-based reform, including state and national government leaders, business leaders, and editors of most of our leading newspapers, claim that the way to restore trust to public education is through objec­ tive tests. They argue that it is possible to design tests that can stand the weight of accountability, determine high-stakes deCisions, direct good teaching, and tell where everyone stands in relation to ev­ eryone else - and define what it meaJl$·to be well edu­ cated. The search for such a "goodlt test one that gets around the difficulties posed by the norm-referenced ones that have dominated the last century and can drive school re­ form ­ keeps us tied to a hope, however well in­ tentioned. One can see the appeal, however. Reformers of all stripes have always hoped there was a way to do this. De­ sign a test with norms based on what people should able to do, not just the of how they currently per­ form; it would be more like a driver'stest. Wouldn't it make aII our jobs easier if we cou Id fi nd a way to measu re every­ one against an absolute standard of what it means to well educated? Wouldn't this help direct the changes we want in schools (and society) and focus our attention on the acknowledged weak spots? Even if people didn't at first on our definition of the standard, wouldn't most people go along simply out of the desire to do well? DEBORAH MEIER is the MacArthur Award-winning founder of Central Park East School in East Harlem and of Mission Hill School in Boston. This article is adapted from her new book, In Schools We Trust: Creating Communities of Learning in an Era of Testing and Standardization (Beacon Press, 2002). The book is available in bookstores or by contacting Beacon Press at www.beacon.OIg.ph. 800/225-3362. ©2002, Oeborall Meier. 190 PHI DELTA KAPPAN Illustration: jim Hummel THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW WAVE OF TESTING IS NOT, REIVIEIVIBER, TO OBTAIN MORE DATA. THE PURPOSE IS TO CHANGE THE SCHOOLS. test would do the convincing. That's what standards-based reform is about - making change happen, raising our sights. The purpose of this new wave of testing is not, re­ member, to obtain more data. The purpose is to change the schools. We already have more standardized, objec­ tive, and centra Ily collected information about our schools than any country on earth. We have test scores of every sort, at every age level, broken down every wh ich way you can imagine - by race, class, gender, geography, and more plus data on attendance and dropout rates, much of which goes back half a century or more. (For example, we've known for decades that no neighborhood high school in the Bronx graduates more than 30% of its incoming ninth-graders.) But the problem is that such measures, while they spot where there's trouble, don't actually do away with the trouble. None­ theless, that seems to be the new idea: testing as reform, not for reform. The popular new drive to hold 's®ools and school re­ form accountable by means of test scores has many at­ tractions. It's built around the idea that the villains are mostly low expectations and a failure of will. Since both are indubitably factors in failure - and less onerous to tackle than poverty, for example this notion eliminates victimology. And it keeps us focused. Ordinary citizens, • I t, ,"_ _ff_ .,~.t,,- __ I_ JII\"'IWUI1i5IJOIt::1Il.:l CUIU lCell"", I lei";), u'1<- U.""I...tI .... ....,' •• ....,., ........_" • __ ' cal parent councils, teacher unions, principals, and local school boards have abused their powers here's a way to catch them. No more excuses. The more objective the "standards/' the more distant and scientific the results; the more universal the population tested, the less negotiable the consequences and the less room for argument, ex­ cuses, flexibility, bias, and compromise. In a society in \",hich adults often feel helpless to con­ trol their students or their children, even to know them, this approach has additional blessings. It appears to avoid NOVEMBER 2002 191 Ii the issue oftrusting anyone: one's children, their teachers, ing (SOL) in Virginia, to name a few. their schools or even oneself, It is, we are told, also From the viewpoint of the test-taker, these are very simi­ more like the merci less but efficient and effective market­ lar to the old tests, though generally they are much longer, place - with test scores standing in for the bottom line, From the viewpoint of the teacher, the big difference is And for this reason it also appeals to those who have the that these tests can be taught to openly. From the view­ most reason to distrust our schools: urban ITdnority fami­ point of the state, the scores are set not by the test-mak­ lies and those inclined to be suspicious of any public in­ ers but by political officials in state departments of edu­ stitution. Finally, we have a tool with teeth, one that offers cation. One might describe these as politically rather than both clear and universal goals' and direct observable con­ technically normed tests. For example, the weighting of sequences for not meeting them. subsections - how much each counts - and thus the ac­ The idea of holding schools accountable for test scores tual scores and what score constitutes failure, what con­ has its attractions, fits aspects of the national mood, and stitutes needs improvement, what constitutes proficient­ adheres to a long-standing American tradition of turning are in many states' not decided until after the resu Its are in to standardized testing as the cure for our ills. The trouble and state officials can estimate the impact of their deci­ is, as we keep relearning generation after generation, it sions. (But in all states pretests give a pretty accurate esti­ contradicts what w~ know about how human beings learn mate.) The meaning of a score on these new tests rests not and what tests can and cannot do. That a standardized with the neutral bell curve but with judgments made by one-size-fits-all test could be invented and imposed by the some politically appointed body - ideally in collabora­ state, that teachers could unashaniedly teach to such a tion with educational experts. test, that a II students could theoretically succeed at this The new tests are more like the ones teachers or aca­ test, and that it could true to any form of serious intel­ demic departments have long been accustomed to giving lectual or technical psychometric standards is just plain at term's end covering what they think were the key el­ impossible. And the idea that such an instrument should ements of their courses. When thex.are the ones to set the define our necessarily varied and at times conflicting def­ scores, teachers too are influencetrJby political factors­ initions of being well educated is worse still- unde­ who will blame them if the scores are too low, will they sirable. be believed if they are too highf?~'bat's the school's atti­ tude toward marking on a curveJt;Jhe technology is not necessarily dissimilar - teachers otten use multiple-choice THE SO-CALLED NEWTEST exams, for example. But unlike the designers of the new In the late Nineties, states sought to impose by way of state tests, classroom teachers and local administrators are tests newly designed state curricula - keyed to, or in folks close to the action, "interested parties" who can mod­ some cases interchangeable with, a set of agreed-upon ify their exams and scores based on their best judgment standards. This development made more obvious the es­ and who are aware of what'actually is happening in their sential contradiction between a testing system designed classrooms and schools. Of course, thei r very closeness is to be secret and normed to fit a bell curve and the pur­ the reason why, in today's climate, teachers are distrusted. poses of the new reform agenda, in which everyone was How different are these new tests to design than the tra­ expected to achieve success. The answer: a new kind of ditiona I norm-referenced tests? Largely, the answer is, not test, one that could be directly taught to, didn't require as a lot - except that the absence of the much-maligned bell much secrecy regarding content, and above all no longer curve complicates deciding what items to include and how required scores that distributed students along a prede­ to set expectations, scores, and cutoffs. Creating these tests termined curve. Everyolle is urged to adopt these new tests begins the same way as for any standardized test. Hun­ - although rank ordering and percentile scores are still dreds of teachers and expert academicians, under the di­ used. These tests are intended to show whether teachers rection of the (politically established) state education de­ and students are doing their prescribed jobs: teachers partment, develop their wish lists of things they believe all teaching to the test and students learning what's on them.