Summer is winding down, fall is in the air, and parents are frantically finishing up their kid's clothes shopping. Teachers are busy tidying up their classroom for yet another year of battle to stem the tide of teenage hormones long enough for their students to learn. If you breath in deeply, you can almost smell the crisp lead shrapnel being exfoliated from the millions of pencils being sharpened across the country.Yet all is not well in American educationland. Although America still continues to have the most dynamic economy and the most creative minds in the world, its students continue mired in the middle of the international pack . In typical American fashion there are literally millions of people out there that claim to know all the solutions. Buzz phrases for how to "fix" American school abound. These include: charter schools, homeschooling, balanced grading, proficiency based standards, merit pay, small schools initiative, courageous conversations, narrowing the achievement gap. The list goes on and on and on. And on.
In a future article I plan on laying out a comprehensive ten point plan that would fix education. It is unlike any plan seriously being proposed at the national or state level and shockingly it would work. Unfortunately I'm not yet making money off of this blog, so I will just have to give you, my dear reader, a snippet of the plan. Fasten your seatbelts, here we go...
We need to taking grading out of teacher's hands. Go ahead, blink a couple of times and re-read that first sentence; better yet, let me just rewrite it for you in italics so that it looks more important. We need to take grading out of teacher's hands. Still confused? Let me put it in bold and add an exclamation mark. We need to take grading out of teacher's hands! This simple yet elegant solution would solve many problems. It would make classes considerably more rigorous. It would make students want to work harder. It would make the relationship between students and teachers less adversarial and more collaborative. It would give students and parents much more information about the ability of their child's teacher. It would allow teachers to gauge their progress and let administrators know which of their teachers are improving, which are in neutral, and which are in reverse.
Okay so by now you're probably wondering, how could this possibly work? If a teacher doesn't give a student a grade, what's their role? Simple: to teach. A student would spend an entire semester or year with a teacher learning a subject. At the end of the class, the student would take a test. Their score on the test would determine their grade in the class. A high score on the test would equal a high grade. A low score would be a low grade. You get the picture. Historically Americans have been averse to this model. They've railed against standardized testing as being biased, or inaccurate, or racist, or just judging one type of learning. Images of faceless drone children filling out scantrons in dark depressing rooms comes to mind for many when it comes to standardized testing. Yet it doesn't have to be this way. In today's day in age, with today's technology and advanced educational research, a comprehensive final test can be so much more than a multiple-choice exam involving nothing more than wrote memorization. Let me give you an example.
Lets pretend that our imaginary class using this model is 20th century American history. The students would spend the first 7 to 8 months learning and preparing for their final. Along the way they would have lots of assessments--called formulative assessment because they aren't for a grade, but rather to let students know if they are "getting it"). They would get plenty of constant feedback from their teacher, but no grade.
At the end of that time they would take a national final. For decades students have been taking finals created by each state, which has led to a huge varience in expectations. For example, many Oregon parents in 2009 were probably estatic to learn that their student passed the state reading exam. Yet they probably would have been a bit less happy, had they known that in 2009, Oregon had the 49th easiest reading test for 4th graders. A national standardized test would ensure accurate and consistent data.
The national final in our mythical U.S. history class would consist of four parts. The first part would be simple comprehension in the form of a standardized multiple-choice test. Multiple-choice tests aren't perfect but they are the fastest and most economical way to analyze student comprehension. Grading a multiple-choice test can be done in literally less than a second (depending on the software). So, a student would take the comprehensive multiple-choice test and get an immediate score. If they like their score, then great, its locked in. Its theirs to keep. If they don't like their score, here is where the teacher comes back into the picture. The student would take the test back to their teacher. The two of them would analyze the test, find out where the student went wrong and assign an action plan to improve the student's score. In a few weeks the student would go back and retake the test. The test, by the way, would cover the same content but would involve a different set of multiple-choice questions. With today's technology, creating a unique randomized multiple-choice test from a bank of say 20,000 possible questions is very easy to accomplish. This would also eliminate cheating. If the student once again did not like the results he/she could try again. Once the student acheived a result they were happy with they could "lock it in." Since all students would have the option to retest this would not give any one student an advantage over another. Hard work and perseverence would win the day. (I'm sure there are some out there that would argue about equity and access of this model--I will get to that in a later article).
Part two would involve a written final. The process would be similar to the multiple-choice exam, except that students would make a copy of their written final and take it back to their teacher. The teacher would look over their essay and tell the student what grade they probably earned. If a student was happy they would "lock in" their essay grade. If they were unhappy they would cancel their first written essay final and do a retake. Once again this process would repeat itself until the student was happy. To ensure that the written test was graded fairly and accurately two things would have to happen. First off, the essay test would be shipped (or sent in cyber space) to two different graders. Both graders would be well trained in grading the essays and would use a standardized rubric that gave guidance for accurate scoring. Lets say that the essay test was graded on a 9 point scale. If one grader gave the test a 7 and the other gave it a 9 the essay would receive an 8. If however, one grader gave it a 6 and one gave it a 9, it would be flagged for a third "master" grader to look at. (A master grader would have a track record of excellence; a veritable grading black belt, if you will). The grade furthest from the master grader's would be cancelled out and the score would be based on the new average. So lets pretend the master grader gave it an 8, the score would be combined and averaged with the nine, giving the student a score of an 8.5. Consequently the graders would be receving carrots and sticks along the way. The grader that was aligned with the master grader would recieve positive marks in their portfolio, and the grader that "whiffed" would receive a negative mark. Bonuses and/or some type of reward/punishment system could be used to motivate accurate grading.
The third part would involve the student giving an extemporaneous speech about a topic in American history. They would would be given three questions, of which they would pick one. They would be given a limited amount of to prepare. Once they were ready, they would give the speech in front of a video camera. The purpose of the speech would be for the student to demonstrate that they understood American history, that they could think critically, and that they could articulate a point of view. Pretty advanced stuff! When they were finished they would get a copy of the speech and show it to their teacher. As with the written final, the teacher would give feedback and the student would have multiple opportunities to retry the speech. Consequently each speech would involve three new unique questions to pick from. The speech would ultimately be graded with a rubric in the same format as the essay final.
The last part of the final would involve a graded discussion. Students would sign up to participate in a group discussion. The discussion would be moderated by an adult and would be based on a list of possible topics given to the students in advance. All students would be expected to actively participate multiple times. High performing students would be able to demonstrate they understood the topic, argue persuasively for or against a point of view articulated by another student, demonstrate an ability to make connections, etc. Again, all very advanced stuff. At the end of the session each student would get a copy of the discussion and they would seek feedback from their teacher to determine whether or not they needed a redo.
So ultimately what would this type of test prove? It would demonstrate that the student understood the content, could analyze and write about the content, could articulate and argue persuasively about the content, and in a group setting could participate and collaborate in a group discussion about the content. That's pretty darn advanced stuff and allows for a ton of creativity and originality. Imagine that, a national standardized test that is rigorous and allows for creativity. And they said it couldn't be done! This is exactly the type of skillset that workers in the 21st century need.
The benefits to American education would be vast and multifacited. First off, gone would be the days where students in droves would sign up for the easy teacher that gave out A's like clowns give out balloons at a circus. Students wouldn't want to waste their time in a classroom with a teacher that didn't teach. There would be no incentive for the student. They would want to sign up to take classes from teachers that worked hard to get them prepared and had a proven track record. Students would want honest, constructive feedback and helecopter parents would quit sending teachers e-mails every five minutes asking them how come their brilliant son/daughter isn't getting an A. By the way, if you want to understand the problem with some parents these days, you've got to read this article: "How to Land Your Kid in Therapy".
The days of schools having 32 valedictorians would be long gone as well. Traditional grades could still exist, but in addition to each grade, students would have an overall score with much more precise results about what was learned. This would give better and more accurate information to colleges about each applicant, making the system more fair. (By the way, there are so many 4.0 students across the country that many of the Ivy League and upper echelon schools literally reject thousands of them every year).
So what about the teacher? How would this make him/her better in the classroom? Simple: every year they would get specific feedback about how effective they were based on the success or failure of their students. I imagine that many teachers, especially those at low performing schools, would worry that the system would be unfair and that they would be judged based off of the results of low performing students. Fortunately, educational analyticial data has continued to become more sophisticated, which has by in large alleviated much of this concern. "Value added" test results show improvement over the course of a year. So, if a student performed poorly the previous year yet improved to average the next year, the data would show positive growth. (Possibly even strong growth). Thus teachers working in chronically low performing schools would not be penalized; in fact, they would have more room to improve over their peers in education powerhouses. Educational analytical data is becoming more sophisticated every year and should be embraced by the teaching establishment.
The information gleaned from comprehensive, national standardized tests would be a goldmine for educational researchers. Over time they would be able to identify which methods got the best results, what type of teaching schedules were most effective (trimester, block, traditional), what teacher training got the best improvement, what type of administrators were most effective, which teacher colleges were producing the best and the brightests...The list is endless.
Would there be some kinks? You betcha! A few come to mind. The first, of course, being cost. How would we pay all of these professional graders? My best guess is that in the short run the state and federal government would have to cough up 10% in additional monies. Over time, however, I am convinced that the voluminous amount of data from the tests--and its defacto effect on teaching practices--would show where money could be saved. (Data is the key to life for social scientists!). A second kink would be the possiblity of instutional cheating. This past year America saw its biggest public school cheating scandal in Atlanta. The lesson from that scandal is that teachers are human, and when their performance is being evaluated by a standardized test, given the opportunity, some will cheat. And here you thought only Wall Street traders were corrupt. The key to avoiding this problem is to make sure that the tests are taken at a site off campus, with independant proctors. This would be costly and it would not eliminate cheating altogether, but it would significantly reduce it.
American education isn't broken. There are millions of success stories around the country, and this country is full of great teachers, with sharp minds and soft hearts. I've always believed that if a school has just one first generation college student from a broken home on the college track, then all students in that school have no excuse but to succeed. Yet the world is becoming more competitive and globalization has ensured that our students are no longer just competing against each other, or other kids in the state, or other kids in the country for that matter. American school children are in a fight to maintain the worldwide intellectual marketshare that has ensured American supremacy and greatness for well over a century. If we can learn to identify effective teachers, give them every reason to be rigorous, reward them for their effort, celebrate their victories, and give them constant feedback, they will ensure that the children of the 21st century are our greatest generation yet. Taking the grading out of their hands and allowing them to teach is one major step in this direction.
This is genius. Reminds me quite a lot of the model used for AP tests and the class materials therein, with the opportunity to improve that final 'locked in' score. Much better than arbitrary testing and the possibility of bias on the teacher's part. Cost for this would probably translate to a type of tuition more than current being implemented, but I think in the long run the advances and accurate data would be worth it. Which leaves me wondering... why haven't "they" thought of this (or something with similar values) yet?
ReplyDeleteSeriously? The last thing anyone needs is more standardized testing, state or federal. Way to teach to the lowest common denominator. I suppose creationism will be tested as well?
ReplyDeleteThere are countless negative effects of standardized testing and it is generally agreed to be a bad idea by education scholars. So why are they used? Well of course you need some measure of performance, but does testing math that should be learned in 5th grade and vocabulary tell you a damn thing about the cumulative knowledge of a child (referring to SAT)? Are those things even relevant to a potential employer? Of course not. A school should be evaluated on the success of its students in the job market or university.
If a standardized test is used for evaluation, you lose all diversity in curriculum across the entire test base. You're locked to teaching to that test. This is really the ultimate price as it now sets a baseline for teachers which would be inevitably too low for better students. These test are used because the SHIFT ACCOUNTABILITY. It is easy for each person down the chain to point fingers to the left "identifying" the problem. Unfortunately for you, this idiotic ritual puts schools budgets on the chopping block when it really was not a valid metric in the first place.
Now I do like your idea to take grading out of the teachers hands, but the only way I could see this being done well is to have another teacher in the school do all the grading, possibly anonymously. You would have to communicate your curriculum to the other person though, but this could potentially lead to useful collaboration.
I served on the University of Oregon Undergraduate Council which is just a handful of students and about 15 faculty. It controls all the aspects of undergraduate studies at UO from entrance requirements to new course approvals. One thing we spent most of the year working on was combating grade inflation. There were some very good ideas thrown around and eventually settled on. This will be in place at UO in the next few years. I think some of these ideas would be hard to apply to at a lower level than college, but it is food for thought.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/ucouncil/topics/universityMatters/topic_GradeInflation.html
You have convinced me that this education model would work wonders compared to the current system. It screams efficiency and encourages the modernization of the United States' increasingly antiquated infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't believe that it would be possible to switch to an education structure like this unless there was an obvious failure of education in America (it's not good, but it's still working). Finding supporters of this change would be very difficult. Everybody and everything from states' rights supporters to traditionalists to lazy parents/teachers to private schools would vote down this kind of change. I can guarantee that many republicans would denounce this by calling it "universal" education and comparing it to the despised universal healthcare bill.
I feel that it also shares some resemblance to the chinese educational system where a single standardized test (which can be retaken) determines where you go in life. I wonder if switching to this system might be somehow interpreted as a triumph of communistic ideals over capitalist ideals.
It's a bright, out-of-the-box solution, that's for sure. Just wanted to get my two cents in.
Well I can tell you that with the Common Core right around the corner a lot of assessment companies are gearing toward a more comprehensive portfolio type of assessment. Also there is a lot of talk about adoption of a European track model.
ReplyDeleteAfter experiencing the European model for sixteen years of my education and living in this culture for twenty one years(spent fifteen in graduate school here),I have to say that a new system of education in this country has to come at the price of a cultural change.I am afraid of loosing some of the democratic freedoms as culture change might unfold.
ReplyDeleteI can send you some journal articles on standardized testing if you want to read any. Having gone through the undergrad and graduate application processes I can't tell you how fed up I am with standardized tests. While most physics graduate programs require the regular GRE (and a physics GRE), they only use the latter as a portion of the evaluation and the former is just a statistic for graduate admissions office and not used at all by the physics department. Perhaps there is more weight to the general GRE in the humanities.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, you are sampling an infinitesimal subset of random knowledge that is completely irrelevant to the future of the subject. Now, sure you can extend this to a more specific subjects, as the AP tests do. These are not as bad as they are usually based on the curriculum of common introductory college courses, but once you have to broaden this it would just get unmanageable and degraded by the low denominator.
I like the anti-adversarial part. What about tests designed at the school or district level for the common curricula. This small scale approach to your idea would have the agility to adapt better to the needs of each school while involving the faculty in design?
Thanks everybody for reading the post and giving great feedback! I'll give quick hit responses to everybody's post.
ReplyDeleteStephanie: I appreciate the positive feedback. You're right the tests would be kind of modeled after the AP model. The difference being that students would be able to retake and retry. The technology definitely exists to allow for this.
Billie: You make some good, solid points, and as usual your writing is crisp and vivid. I agree that moving to this model would be a long shot; in America it usually takes a crisis to spur change. Having said that, education is the one area that politicians love to tinker with time and time again, making change like this possible but still a long shot. But that's the point of this blog, to try to show alternative viewpoints outside the mainstream that make sense. Who knows, sometimes the best way to spur change is simply to start the conversation.
Darren: Thanks for the feedback. I like that different assessments are being tried around the country. My biggest concern is that when assessments are done by the institution being judged, the assessors will inevitably "cheat"--unless they are being audited effectively by an outside institution. That's why I like the concept of taking grading out of a teacher's hand and moving it offsite to where he/she has no control. Thanks for the feedback and you definitely have the funniest Facebook profile photo I have ever seen.
Unknown: I don't know you, but I value your feedback and perspective. I suppose I need to do some research on how kids around the world that are judged by high stakes testing feel about the model.
Eric: I agree that the current format for standardized testing is rigid, laborious, ineffective and not always a strong indicator of ability. That's why I laid out a methodology that hopefully would still allow for creativity and simultaneously test skills needed in the marketplace. At the same time, since standardized testing would replace grades, it wouldn't seem like something that is simply "added on." My plan is not perfect and I value your feedback. I am interested in those journal articles you talked about if you want to send me an electronic copy.
Thanks again everybody for reading the blog. Enjoy the weekend!
-Adam Mahlum