February 20, 2008

Key Federal Test of Learning Is Too Narrow, Report Says

The key federal test of students’ progress in elementary and secondary schools offers “a distorted picture of achievement” and fails to fully examine how well schools prepare students for adult life, says a report commissioned by the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College of Columbia University.

The report, posted online today, argues that the National Assessment of Educational Progress focuses too narrowly on basic academic and critical thinking skills in measuring how well students are being educated. Moreover, the report says, the federal benchmarking test fails to gauge the long-term impact of education because it does not look at whether adults who were educated at elementary and secondary schools do things such as vote, read independently, or stay in shape physically.

The report calls for the federal assessment to expand its scope in Washington and 36 states with high concentrations of disadvantaged young people to look at eight broad areas: social skills and work ethic; readiness for citizenship and community responsibility; preparation for lifelong physical health; preparation for lifelong emotional health; appreciation of the arts and literature; and (for those not destined for college) preparation for lifelong work.

“With NAEP so redesigned, states may be inspired to hold schools and school districts accountable for the broader range of outcomes that Americans want from their schools and other institutions of youth development,” the report says.

The authors of the report are Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute; Rebecca Jacobsen, an assistant professor of education at Michigan State University; and Tamara Wilder, a doctoral student in Teachers College’s department of organization and leadership. —Peter Schmidt

Comments

1. Sorry Ricky, Rebecca and Tamara, I don’t give a flip whether students in question (or you for that matter) vote, read independently, or stay in shape. However I do care very much whether students can read, write, and do basic math.

   — formerly known as. . . .    Feb 21, 10:20 AM    #

2. Distorted is the wrong word to describe the federal benchmarks. Incomplete is more appropriate, inasmuch as most all school districts value and teach K-6 civics, recreational reading, and physical education.

   — marci    Feb 21, 02:55 PM    #

3. It can be argued that citizenship, recreational reading and being physically active are likely more a function of informal learning in the home, than whether or not the little darlings played dodgeball in school. If simply knowing about desirable behaviors caused a person to exhibit them, we would be mostly in great shape, and McDonalds would be in Chapter 11.

   — Jaye    Feb 21, 03:34 PM    #

4. Jaye, funny and right on target. It might also be argued that matters like whether or not one votes, reads, and does situps for fun are PRIVATE matters, matters not legitimately the concern of Ricky et.al. or of any governmental agencies.

   — formerly known as. . . .    Feb 21, 04:33 PM    #

5. ‘formerly known as…’ suggests that ‘It might…be argued that…’ these outcomes should not concern these researchers. Assuming that he/she is actually putting that argument forward, rather than merely suggesting that it might be made, my counter-argument is as follows: While I agree that individuals’ behaviors in these realms are their own affairs, it does not follow that researchers and society at large should not be concerned with those behaviors, in the aggregate. Levels of participation in political decision-making are certainly legitimate concerns of anyone who cares about our country’s well-being. And, besides the obvious aspect of human compassion for people who suffer from ill-health, both health-care policy and, ultimately, the amounts we pay for health insurance and care, are influenced by general levels of fitness and health. And people of good will across the political spectrum have expressed concern about the coarsening of culture that one might argue (which I would be happy to do) is in part influenced by individuals’ reading habits. Besides, reading can provide crucial information for wise decision-making.

   So, I must fundamentally disagree with the conclusion that ‘formerly known as…’ draws from his/her basic premise. These matters, while individually private, are certainly legitimate areas for social concern, research, and debate. One wonders why ‘formerly known as…’ seems to want to put these questions out of the sphere of public discussion (or at least, to deprive the public discussion of potentially important factual information).

   I agree with Jaye’s points that much learning happens outside of school, and that having information, by itself, is not directly linked to behavior. But it does not follow that schools should not concern themselves with their contributions to social outcomes. And, thoughtful and considered decision-making requires information as a starting point. Taking Jaye’s point to extreme, is he suggesting that no information about politics, health, or similar subjects should be part of the school curriculum?

   Perhaps the underlying concern being expressed by these individuals (which I share) is that public schools should not be in the business of manipulating or coercing students into espousing certain political beliefs. (But there certainly are legitimate values to be reinforced in a balanced and moderate way, such as honesty, not physically hurthing one another, and loyalty to country and community, which I argue are perfectly legitimate social purposes of public schooling.) Literacy, numeracy, and other basic skills are therefore, central, but not exclusive, concerns of public education.

   So I think that ‘formerly known as…’ confuses the issue of meddling in individuals’ lives, which I agree is to be avoided, with studying and discussing the social outcomes of schooling, which I think is an extremely important function of research in this area. And I applaud Richard, Rebecca, and Tamara for their contribution to this debate.

   — Bob    Feb 23, 05:06 AM    #

6. Very well stated, Bob; I think you hit the nail on the head. Just because we don’t want people to be coerced into making certain choices, our public education system should still have a stake in properly educating people so that they can make those choices for themselves. The possession of information cannot guarantee good decisions, but the lack of information certainly makes good decisions more difficult.

   — Erin    Feb 25, 10:58 AM    #

Previous: NCAA Punishes U. of Central Oklahoma for Rules Violations
Next: Investigation Finds That Columbia U. Professor Plagiarized Repeatedly