 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a part of the national
push to improve the quality of instruction in schools, a variety of academic
standards and tests to measure these standards have been refined or developed.
For the most part, academic standards are well written and have been developed
by teachers, administrators and educational stakeholders, all of whom have a
desire to see schools and children succeed academically. By their very nature,
academic standards are designed to allow us to track all learners as they progress
through their respective grades. When connected to standardized assessment systems
that claim to evaluate student success, the process begins to fail as an effective
measurement tool. This system of student measurement is further called into
question when it becomes a high stakes assessment system with punitive consequences
that are externally applied and attached to low student performance as measured
by a single test. Rather than the standards and their attendant tests being
a positive tool to promote quality education for all children and their teachers,
the assessment process becomes a hateful task disdained by students and feared
by teachers. The tests serve to increase the level of stress already present
in schools and place undue importance on single scores of suspect accuracy relative
to real student learning.
Historically, standardized testing has been an educational tool to measure student progress for more than thirty years. During this time critics of education have increased their attack on schools as failing in their mission to educate children pointing to dropping scores as proof of their claims. It therefore seems clear that the standardized testing process has been ineffective as a school reform or improvement tool. High stakes standardized testing combined with punitive consequences for suspected under performing schools has little to do with real school reform or quality education. The reality of standardized testing is that it is a social concept rooted in the age of industrialization; characterized by standardization of production, the concept of interchangeable parts and assembly line manufacturing.
The business of education does not serve the individual learner well when the age of industrialized manufacturing methods are applied to children. I am pleased to say that in more than thirty years in the business of education I have never taught two identical children. But pick a year, any year, and hundreds if not thousands of identical cars, toasters, and appliances of all kinds can be found that were identically constructed during that year. Such sameness is a good standardized measure for machines and allows us to produce and service machines easily. However, the product of education is based on a raw material, children, who are absolutely not standardized and will hopefully never become standardized despite our advances in genetic engineering.
Unfortunately, for years we have allowed business leaders, politicians, test publishers and others with little real understanding of the science and art of learning to impose standardized assessment methods on education as if something important is being measured that can lead to school reform using these extremely limited tools. Rating schools by their average percentile rank on a standardized test tells us nothing about the individual students learning successes nor does it paint a story of how the teacher artfully brought together a diverse group of children and molded them into a learning community. The process of molding children into a learning community is not the same as standardizing them. It is a process of respecting individual differences and allowing each child to bring individuality to a common learning environment and uniquely benefiting from the experiences shared in the classroom. There is not a standardized test that exists that can measure this very human process that occurs within the classroom with any degree of reliability or validity.
Yet, one can legitimately argue that there are failing schools in America. We can affirm that there are teachers and administrators who could best serve education by resigning their posts and discovering new professions. There are children that are difficult to teach, motivate or control within the traditional classroom. There are problems associated with high drop out rates, low quality facilities, low graduation rates, social promotion, improperly applied retention, overcrowded classrooms, inadequate teacher preparation, teacher shortages, poverty, violence, childhood drug abuse and adult value systems that fail to promote quality education. How to deal with all of these variables and lessen their negative impact on education cannot be ignored. It is equally true that treating the symptoms of a problem will not correct the problem. Investing thousands of dollars into high stakes testing programs to force educators to do a better job is equivalent to treating symptoms rather than implementing real reform.
Today in education there are real attempts at implementing educational reform that are meaningful within traditional public schools systems—charter schools and private schools. Within each of these settings there are creative thinkers and high quality educators willing to embrace the challenge of bringing meaningful reform to the field of education. Yet, in very significant ways, our state and national accountability systems bolstered by high stakes testing are getting in the way of real school reform. This encumbrance on educational reformers stifles effective change and forces schools back into a tired and regressive formula that perpetuates the demands of high stakes standardized testing. Albert Einstein stated that doing the same thing and expecting different results equals insanity. Frankly put, high stakes testing using standardized testing fails to lead us forward meaningfully and is tantamount to educational insanity. We need to allow for and discover new dynamic ways to measure student success, identify high performing schools, and develop their successes into models that can be used universally. To allow this creative reform to occur it will be important that significantly more robust and effective evaluative systems be developed. These evaluative processes will not rely on a single test system but on a dynamic array of assessments discovered through action research conducted within the schools by educational teams that reflect best practices and the effective leveraging of our limited resources.
When aviation was in its infancy, it only had one clearly identifiable advantage over trains, ships or automobiles-speed. Aviation was not for the faint of heart or individuals seeking the comforts of traditional travel. Early planes were cold and noisy, subject to even minor weather changes and down right uncomfortable. However, as aviation pioneers pushed forward they solved each of their challenges. More importantly, they developed a new set of rules to define travel. One can look back and see the successful development of the airline industry through the process of adapting existing travel standards, modifying measures of success and the creation of new measurement standards. Had the airline industry been encumbered by having to meet all the existing standards of what made train travel a quality experience, the airline industry would never have achieved lift off. Essentially, long distance travel by train is today a non-growth, seriously dated industry, incapable of competing head on with the airline industry that relies heavily on government financial support. In many ways our current public school assessment configuration is reminiscent of our rail system, outdated, inadequately responsive to today’s issues, and in need of excessive governmental financial support.
Today’s school reformers, regardless of their educational setting, find themselves encumbered by the negative interactive effects of state standards, inadequate measurement tools, high stakes consequences, poorly conceived attempts to show student success by teaching to the test, and a confusing set of definitions regarding educational success. In very real terms, quality learning experiences and higher order thinking projects are being sacrificed in order to teach basic skills measured by tests. Students are being placed in danger of the dire consequences associated with teaching students to become successful test takers rather than critical thinkers. Such a shallow educational culture is not going to produce well-educated thinkers capable of successfully solving life’s problems.
Within the arena of educational reform action research methods offer educators a relevant tool to systematically evaluate school success, develop standards of excellence and establish benchmarks capable of reflecting successful reform efforts. Richard Sagor (2000) provides a succinct definition of action research. He states that action research is: “A disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor” in improving and/or refining his of her actions.” Such a definition gives us hope that educational reformer/researchers can leverage their skills to bring about real, robust change in the educational environment through the systematic evaluation of education practices that are empirically defined, studied and modified through data driven results. The concept of action research takes us out of the realm of political posturing, blame and armchair speculations regarding how to fix education. It forces us to become data driven in our daily actions and in how we interpret our successes. It becomes an inclusive model that is responsive to all stakeholders and most especially to students. Successful models can be derived from best practices with clear patterns of growth that can lead to the generalized application of these models.
Action research methods give the researcher/reformer a focus bolstered by theories of education that can be tested within the classroom, analyzed, synthesized and developed into clearly defined definitions and results that allow for comparing and contrasting successful versus inadequate reform practices. The process is empirically data driven and points the researcher in a problem solving direction that impacts on real issues rather than ineffectively addressing symptoms. The process allows educators to understand cause and effect relationships as they exist within the school setting. The focus on real issues with real solutions leads to our ability to establish new best practices and the formation of effective learning standards. Education becomes redefined through a systematic and focused method of inquiry that is meaningful and yields learning dividends for the teacher and student alike.
Through establishing a goal of continued and systematic improvement, action research takes us away from the process of relying on static demands for improvement based on test scores and negative social consequences imposed by high stakes testing. Systematic reform does not focus on failed practices it focuses on patterns of success discovered though a culture of trust, empowered change and its associated problem solving methods. We may discover that wholesale changes are needed in order to redefine the process of American public school education. We may come to the conclusion that big box styled schools are failing because they are trying too hard to be everything to everybody and using educational processing methods that fails too many children. Such large schools frequently lack focus, are mired with too many social problems that get in the way of learning and that fail to teach or motivate the individual learner in meaningful ways or that feed the teachers’ creativity and motivation.
Action research will enable the researcher/reformer to answer questions that identify what the problems are and who is affected by the problems. We will be able to address skills, attitudes, and definitions of knowledge based learning, and understand issues that contribute to problem continuation. Suspected causes of school failure can be systematically studied and eliminated, leaving in place successful practices. In short, action research allows us to ask the right questions and respond systematically and decisively to important questions and insure improved practices. Action research practices forces and allows the researcher/reformer to spend time thinking and reflecting on the data gathered. It creates a culture of reflective thought that allows us to integrate multiple sources of information and establish the efficacy, truth and validity of reform efforts. Using such a system, standardized tests become one of several sources for data collection. More importantly, the tests are no longer high stakes measures. They are part of a collection of data designed to provide direction and feedback.
The process of action research within the school setting develops a culture of collaboration and discovery that encourages the capacity for change. Change is always difficult at best. When a culture of threats and external consequences is added to demands for school improvement change becomes threatening. By building the capacity for change through a model of collaborative change, the internal culture of the school reduces stress and provides an avenue for growth. The stresses of change are reduced or managed by the school culture as change becomes expected, is goal related, and the successes brought on by change are celebrated. The school becomes highly effective as a learning environment as it accepts self-assessment in multiple forms, is growth oriented, fosters trust, and employs knowledge based decision making. This type of school success is tangibly recognized and experienced by outside observers based on the healthy noises made by learners and educators alike. The benefits of action research within the arena of school reform are limited only by the creativity, energy and hard work of the individuals who form the school community.
--by Jody Summerford, Ed.D.
ARIZONA AGRIBUSINESS
& EQUINE CENTER INC.
REFERENCES
Sagor, Richard (2000). Guiding School Improvement With Action Research.
(p.3). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.