The opt out movement is hitting fast and hard. Scores of parents in NYC are saying no to what they consider to be unnecessary standardized testing. There are a multitude of reasons to opt out. Some are opting out because they feel the tests are merely political and don't serve a serious pedagogical purpose. Others are opting out because they feel the rigor of the test is too high and won't accurately assess their child's intelligence. And some are opting out in solidarity with teachers who will now have 50 % of their rating determined by how their students perform on the exam. All in all, there are plenty of reasons to opt out. The issue is how quickly we are forgetting why these exams are so important for some of the most vulnerable students in the city.
Unlike most places, New York City has a high school system that requires students to apply to programs within high schools in order to determine where a student will attend. This has taken what should be a smooth and seamless transition from adolescence to young adult hood into an incredibly stressful and confusing process. While some programs have alternative criteria, the bulk of programs choose students based on grades and standardized exam scores. For a student who is exceptionally bright and did poorly in school, the state exam could be your saving grace. Zone schools which exist to protect those students who truly have no other options are plagued by discrimination based on income disparity. It should be no surprise that the poorest neighborhoods are home to the worst zone schools. Students in low income neighborhoods even at the young age of 6th grade are aware of their need to "get out" of their current school system and into one of the more prestigious options New York City has to offer.
For this reason many of these poor students can't afford to "opt out." Especially when the convention for students who opt out hasn't been determined. Will a high school judge a candidate without standardized test scores in the same manner they judge a candidate with standardized test scores? The answer is probably not. Especially if the student comes from a school in a poor district because regardless of what high schools claim in their selection process, many of them are privy to which schools produce the best quality of students and which schools simply don't. Furthermore, huge high schools might not even bother to look at students without test scores. It's much easier to organize students by 4s, 3s, and 2s and just take from the top till you reach capacity.
Some parents may be wondering, "should I opt out my child if I know they are going to perform poorly on the state exam?" One might consider this question to be "gaming the system", but when we are dealing with a high school process that in many ways is more complicated and difficult than the college application process, every little bit helps. The answer to that question is really determined by you and your child. Where do you want your child to attend and do you think that high school will be uncomfortable admitting your child without state exam scores to evaluate?
The reality of education is it is far easier to obtain a 90 or above average in the classroom than it is to even perform on grade level in the state exam. Furthermore, with the introduction of the ICT classroom setting in many schools, the mean level of rigor in the classroom has been brought down due to the lack of students being able to perform at such a high level of rigor. For example, if my child was bright and hard working there should be no reason for them not to score a high 3 or even a 4 on the state exam. Why don't we see many students scoring 4s from poor districts? The quality of their peers is significantly lower, making many of them perform at a low to medium level of rigor. When the exam comes they perform exceptionally well on most of the material, but due to their unfamiliarity with difficult material, they tend to be unable to reach the upper echelons of standardized testing scores.
So back to the original question. If I was confident that a high school would not penalize my child for opting out of the state exam, then I would definitely have my child opt out. There is a higher likelihood my child performs better in the classroom than the state exam, which allows my child to be more competitive in the high school application process. But that is a big if and I doubt many high schools would go in blind. In a way this would actually hurt the quality of education because when the state exams become pointless, the level of rigor needed in the classroom has a huge variance. Teachers are not bad, they just respond to external stimuli. Teachers love their students and so if it helps their students to create grading schemes that allow for an average of an 85, then that is what teachers will do. Good teachers will still have high level work, but will also have safety nets so that their scores don't dash the ability of low performing students to compete in the high school process.
Where does this leave us? To test or not to test? I'm unsure of what the answer to that question should be but in the spirit of not only being a nit picker, let me provide an alternative to the current system. First, we need a standardized test score that measures two things:content mastery and intelligence. The reality is we want schools to choose students in a holistic manner. Not all schools need the "smartest" students. Intelligence is not always a good measure of whether a student is the right fit for a school. Some high schools might have great vocational programs built into their schools. These programs don't need the most "intelligent" students. Instead they need students who have mastered a specific bulk of content. The standardized exam should be able to provide that information. A 2 on the state exam could be describing a student who is proficient in content or a student who is highly proficient in a specific kind of content. For example., if I have a student who is horrible in algebra, but excellent in geometry, then there is a chance that the student performs exceptionally well in all geometry questions (including those of high rigor) and performs poorly on algebra. Compare this to a student who is able to answer all the low rigor questions for all the content areas on the exam. Both students could end up scoring similarly on the state exam. A vocational high school wants a student who has a basic understanding of most content. The geometrically inclined student is not a good fit for the school. Unfortunately the state exam does not provide this information. We need state exams that can measure both a students mastery of content and a student's ability to apply content in a rigorous manner.
Once we are able to distinguish between these types of students, there is no need for high schools to function in a monolithic manner. Meaning a vocational high school does not need to be devoid of high performing students. Different programs, which exists in the current high school application system, can be implemented in order to have a diversity of intelligence in the school. How useful would it be for future engineers to begin working side by side in high school with many of the mechanics and workers that will probably assist them in the field? Separation does need to occur by high school, but it should not be isolation. It is time we stop trying to teach everyone the same liberal arts education and instead center their education based on a well rounded support for their potential future career. The advantage of having the high school system New York City has is we can legitimately provide students with the ability to choose what their potential careers might be. It might seem young, but the reality is that the high school they go to in a large part will determine their career choices no matter what. If your student is not given high levels of math and science, the likelihood of them entering those fields in college is very low. Instead of pretending we leave students as blank slates, let us allow students to start the beginnings of their adult self when they choose their high school in conjunction with their parents.
There so much more I can write, but for now I'll leave it like this. All I can emphasize is the necessity for these exams to be useful. Data driven instruction is only useful when placed in the context of a student's success. Unfortunately it seems like New York State and essentially the rest of the country is stuck in an inferiority complex. We are obsessed with these abstract standardized exam scores and forget that the data is intended to allow us to guide students to their best possible outcomes in life. Let's refocus on what's important: our students, our children, our future. And for parents who have decided to read what honestly is a slightly informed opinion, I hope you take my advice with a grain of salt. The landscape of education is changing rapidly and so many of my opinions may be invalidated with a swift signature on a piece of paper.
Unlike most places, New York City has a high school system that requires students to apply to programs within high schools in order to determine where a student will attend. This has taken what should be a smooth and seamless transition from adolescence to young adult hood into an incredibly stressful and confusing process. While some programs have alternative criteria, the bulk of programs choose students based on grades and standardized exam scores. For a student who is exceptionally bright and did poorly in school, the state exam could be your saving grace. Zone schools which exist to protect those students who truly have no other options are plagued by discrimination based on income disparity. It should be no surprise that the poorest neighborhoods are home to the worst zone schools. Students in low income neighborhoods even at the young age of 6th grade are aware of their need to "get out" of their current school system and into one of the more prestigious options New York City has to offer.
For this reason many of these poor students can't afford to "opt out." Especially when the convention for students who opt out hasn't been determined. Will a high school judge a candidate without standardized test scores in the same manner they judge a candidate with standardized test scores? The answer is probably not. Especially if the student comes from a school in a poor district because regardless of what high schools claim in their selection process, many of them are privy to which schools produce the best quality of students and which schools simply don't. Furthermore, huge high schools might not even bother to look at students without test scores. It's much easier to organize students by 4s, 3s, and 2s and just take from the top till you reach capacity.
Some parents may be wondering, "should I opt out my child if I know they are going to perform poorly on the state exam?" One might consider this question to be "gaming the system", but when we are dealing with a high school process that in many ways is more complicated and difficult than the college application process, every little bit helps. The answer to that question is really determined by you and your child. Where do you want your child to attend and do you think that high school will be uncomfortable admitting your child without state exam scores to evaluate?
The reality of education is it is far easier to obtain a 90 or above average in the classroom than it is to even perform on grade level in the state exam. Furthermore, with the introduction of the ICT classroom setting in many schools, the mean level of rigor in the classroom has been brought down due to the lack of students being able to perform at such a high level of rigor. For example, if my child was bright and hard working there should be no reason for them not to score a high 3 or even a 4 on the state exam. Why don't we see many students scoring 4s from poor districts? The quality of their peers is significantly lower, making many of them perform at a low to medium level of rigor. When the exam comes they perform exceptionally well on most of the material, but due to their unfamiliarity with difficult material, they tend to be unable to reach the upper echelons of standardized testing scores.
So back to the original question. If I was confident that a high school would not penalize my child for opting out of the state exam, then I would definitely have my child opt out. There is a higher likelihood my child performs better in the classroom than the state exam, which allows my child to be more competitive in the high school application process. But that is a big if and I doubt many high schools would go in blind. In a way this would actually hurt the quality of education because when the state exams become pointless, the level of rigor needed in the classroom has a huge variance. Teachers are not bad, they just respond to external stimuli. Teachers love their students and so if it helps their students to create grading schemes that allow for an average of an 85, then that is what teachers will do. Good teachers will still have high level work, but will also have safety nets so that their scores don't dash the ability of low performing students to compete in the high school process.
Where does this leave us? To test or not to test? I'm unsure of what the answer to that question should be but in the spirit of not only being a nit picker, let me provide an alternative to the current system. First, we need a standardized test score that measures two things:content mastery and intelligence. The reality is we want schools to choose students in a holistic manner. Not all schools need the "smartest" students. Intelligence is not always a good measure of whether a student is the right fit for a school. Some high schools might have great vocational programs built into their schools. These programs don't need the most "intelligent" students. Instead they need students who have mastered a specific bulk of content. The standardized exam should be able to provide that information. A 2 on the state exam could be describing a student who is proficient in content or a student who is highly proficient in a specific kind of content. For example., if I have a student who is horrible in algebra, but excellent in geometry, then there is a chance that the student performs exceptionally well in all geometry questions (including those of high rigor) and performs poorly on algebra. Compare this to a student who is able to answer all the low rigor questions for all the content areas on the exam. Both students could end up scoring similarly on the state exam. A vocational high school wants a student who has a basic understanding of most content. The geometrically inclined student is not a good fit for the school. Unfortunately the state exam does not provide this information. We need state exams that can measure both a students mastery of content and a student's ability to apply content in a rigorous manner.
Once we are able to distinguish between these types of students, there is no need for high schools to function in a monolithic manner. Meaning a vocational high school does not need to be devoid of high performing students. Different programs, which exists in the current high school application system, can be implemented in order to have a diversity of intelligence in the school. How useful would it be for future engineers to begin working side by side in high school with many of the mechanics and workers that will probably assist them in the field? Separation does need to occur by high school, but it should not be isolation. It is time we stop trying to teach everyone the same liberal arts education and instead center their education based on a well rounded support for their potential future career. The advantage of having the high school system New York City has is we can legitimately provide students with the ability to choose what their potential careers might be. It might seem young, but the reality is that the high school they go to in a large part will determine their career choices no matter what. If your student is not given high levels of math and science, the likelihood of them entering those fields in college is very low. Instead of pretending we leave students as blank slates, let us allow students to start the beginnings of their adult self when they choose their high school in conjunction with their parents.
There so much more I can write, but for now I'll leave it like this. All I can emphasize is the necessity for these exams to be useful. Data driven instruction is only useful when placed in the context of a student's success. Unfortunately it seems like New York State and essentially the rest of the country is stuck in an inferiority complex. We are obsessed with these abstract standardized exam scores and forget that the data is intended to allow us to guide students to their best possible outcomes in life. Let's refocus on what's important: our students, our children, our future. And for parents who have decided to read what honestly is a slightly informed opinion, I hope you take my advice with a grain of salt. The landscape of education is changing rapidly and so many of my opinions may be invalidated with a swift signature on a piece of paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment