Testing Woes

-->

New York State decided this year that they would substantially raise the standards for passing the elementary and middle school state mandated examinations.  The orientation of the exams was also changed to incorporate the common core learning standards at the same time that the standards were first being implemented.  Not surprisingly, a much larger percentage of students did not pass throughout the state and consequently we now have a major public outcry and backlash against testing.

If the scores required for passing standardized examinations are too low, no one would argue against raising the standards.  But if the standards are being raised dramatically, serious consideration should be given to phasing in the increase. The most important reason for a phase-in is the detrimental impact of dramatically raising standards on the students in our schools state wide.  Instantly dramatically raising standards and instantly dramatically increasing the percentage of students failing seriously undermines the confidence and self-esteem of the students who have gone from comfortably passing to seriously failing.  Since it clearly was the state’s fault that the standards were too low, the state should at the very least build in the time necessary for the adjustment to higher standards.  Instead of one year to totally revise standards, why not three years so that everyone has a chance to adjust over time.

The same period of adjustment should be built in for the transition to the common core.  There are benefits inherent in having a common core, which is a common body of knowledge that every person should be exposed to as part of his or her education. If tests aren’t based on the common core, they certainly should be changed.  But once again, it is all a question of how it is done. A test based on the common core should under any conditions follow the full implementation of the core.

My emails during the past week and the most recent meeting of the school board (which are public meetings) dealt overwhelmingly with testing and the overemphasis on test preparation.  The public is clearly concerned and the reaction goes from there should be no testing in schools, to there should be responsible testing, to there should be a continued emphasis on testing.  At the extremes there seem to be rather few people.  No testing is unrealistic and also doesn’t provide the essential assessment mechanisms. Overemphasis on testing takes time away from other educational priorities and also saps the enjoyment out of learning.  The third alternative, the push for responsible testing seems to have broad base support throughout the community and I am in total agreement.   If the state will over time deal with issues they have created, I am certain the public will respond appropriately and positively.

Public School education in many states may need to change.  But we only move ahead if the changes improve learning and comprehension, not if they create dissention and compromise learning in favor of testing.  We very much need responsible testing and we especially need responsible public officials to effectively manage change. 

High on Imagination

One of my favorite birthday gifts given to me this year was a membership to the High Line, and so a few days ago my kids and I went to visit there.  What is the High Line?  Before I answer that question, let me answer the question that should come first—what was the High Line?  It was an elevated freight train structure including of course the tracks, and freight trains ran on this structure until the 1980s.  And as a kid, riding in a car down or up the west side drive, I still remember the trains running.  The High Line, and before that time, surface level tracks, were prominent parts of the west side of Manhattan corridor during the time that railroads were an indispensible mainstay of our transportation infrastructure.  Those days are long gone, and even the rail facilities that continue to exist aren’t treated with the respect that this still important form of transportation should be accorded.

So what happens to the structure and the tracks when the need disappears?  More than likely, in the name of progress, the raised tracks and the necessary elevated structure also disappear.  And that was starting to happen here. But thanks to a group of individuals who had the imagination and the wherewithal to push for a park, the High Line now flourishes.  We entered the High Line on 14^th Street.  My kids were not really sure what to expect, and the thought of an elevated park seemed strange to them.  I also had wondered whether this was really a park or was it a gimmick. From the second we got on, and from the walk to Gansevoort Street and then from Gansevoort to 30^th Street, we were enthralled.  We walked, we sat, we looked at the sights including the buildings, the plantings, the art display, and the Hudson River; and we were all enthralled.  The kids have already decided that we need to go back soon and take some of their friends along for the experience.

New York was fortunate that much of this structure was not torn down and that this park exists. But the greatest good fortune lies in the imagination of those individuals who pictured the High Line as what it could be rather than what it was.

The emphasis in much of education today is on testing.  Test results carry great weight in evaluating a school district; test results carry great weight in determining where you will be able to go for higher education as well as graduate education. We are all familiar with school districts whose claim to fame is their test results and whose students help populate many of the best colleges and universities. But where does imagination play a role in this equation.  We know it can make all the difference; we know that meaningful change often requires imagination and the ability to see things differently.  I’m an economist.  I think that economics is invaluable but I know that fostering imagination is enormously helped by a meaningful exposure to the arts.  Music and art bring out the creativity and allow the mind to expand.  In this era of constraints, when choices in education may become more limited, we have an obligation to support the arts and to encourage students at all levels to take arts courses.  Test results do matter but test results without imagination lead to the same things being done in the same way.  The arts are one meaningful way of expanding the possible. And for so many of the problems we face today, expanding the possible is the best hope we have for a better quality life for ourselves and the other inhabitants of our world.

Arts Priority

Recently at a program presented by the Long Island Arts Alliance, New York State Education Commissioner David Steiner made an impassioned plea to a very friendly audience in support of arts education.  The Commissioner feels strongly that art and music education not only has a place in K-12 education but that it is a very important place equal in importance to English, Math and Science.  I very much agree and I would also add that health and physical education hold a place of importance as well.  It all comes together as a well rounded education, which hopefully brings with it, well rounded students who do better in college, at work, and in life.

To make the case for the arts and music being important, the Commissioner advocates a New York State (Regents) exam in these areas much like the sate wide exams already given areas such as English, math and the sciences. And though the audience was completely on board in recognizing the value of the arts and arts education, there was no such unanimity regarding a standardized test in these areas.  How would the test work; how would you assess both the theoretical as well as the performance elements of arts education? The Commissioner felt there were already examples in actual use elsewhere and he gave Britain as an example of a country where an arts test dealt successfully with the issues raised.

There was another concern raised during this discussion regarding the potential negative consequences from turning arts education into another area of test preparation at the middle school and especially the high school level.  Would this limit creativity?  Would this diminish enjoyment of the arts?   And would the long term negative consequences create a population that moves away from these areas as soon as there are no more requirements and no more standardized tests. This is certainly a valid concern and could be a very negative unintended consequence of an effort to make the arts more prominent.

I have great difficulty conceptualizing a standardized examination in these areas.  And I urge that no such examination be implemented without a full review and opportunity to provide feedback on what is being proposed. Schools of Education and university music departments can be of great assistance in both the development and assessment phases and should be fully utilized.  But I worry in this time of potentially significant reductions in K-12 education funding, that implementation of an arts standardized exam will not follow such a  comprehensive vetting process.  And I worry even more in this constrained time that teaching to the test will provide the most economical and therefore perhaps most utilized response to the test.

We really need to be very careful that in our quest to give the arts their rightful place in a program of essential learning that we don’t weaken rather than strengthen arts education. The most important test is whether we can foster creativity as well as a long-term appreciation of the arts as part of every child’s education.  For our children’s sake, we need to do well on this test.