Welcome
to the Machine
( weapon of mass instruction )
The Daily Star -
Quality is not equal across the state
By Johnathan Chase
In its attempt to raise standards, the New
York State Education Department has overlooked a crucial element of fair and
reliable assessment.
While the standardized exams may be
identical, the students and their communities clearly are not. The suburban
community, with active, concerned parents and a wealth of resources, varies
greatly from rural and urban communities with often-minimal parental support
and resources. The reliability and validity of standardized testing hinge
directly on the capability of all schools to properly identify students who are
deficient in basic knowledge, skills and abilities, and then provide
appropriate instruction, interventions and support services to help "level
the playing field."
NYSED tries to accommodate differences
between communities and students through regulatory language that provides for
"local control" in the design and implementation of school programs
and services. A May 5 Q & A document regarding Comprehensive Attendance
Policies states, "Local education agencies can establish local guidelines
... that reflect local education and community needs, philosophy and
priorities."
While local control allows for much-needed
discretion and flexibility, it also ensures that students across the state do
not receive equivalent instruction and academic assistance. This paradox
directly undermines efforts to uniformly raise standards and should lead people
to question the efficacy and fairness of the standardized testing program in
Recognizing that many students were
struggling to meet higher standards, the Regents adopted new regulations in
1999 requiring each district to provide additional instruction and support
services to disadvantaged students. Known as Academic Intervention Services, or
AIS, these are critical services designed to assist weaker students in meeting
the state learning standards. NYSED allows each district to develop its own
AIS. Hence, the quality and effectiveness of this crucial program varies from
district to district. Ideally, allocation of staff and critical support services
should be based entirely on the educational needs of individual students. In
reality, the scope and breadth of many school programs is subject to budgetary
limitations and based on "ability to pay" rather than the best
interest of students.
During AIS informational and training
sessions, NYSED representatives have stated unequivocally that AIS should
supplement regular instruction and these services must not be scheduled during
the time a student attends a credit-bearing class. With limited staff, facilities
and funding, how will schools find the resources, space and time to provide
these additional academic services during the school day?
The answer is clear, by reducing or
eliminating courses and curriculum that have been historically viewed as expendable
and frivolous. The so-called "specials" (music, dance, theater, art)
already devalued and marginalized, will be placed on endangered-species lists
as districts search for ways to safely "diminish instructional time"
without compromising preparation for the standardized tests.
Did anyone really think a standardized test
could identify and measure the emerging skills and talents of a young
Rembrandt, Pavarotti or Picasso?
Schools should be in the business of creating
diverse and stimulating learning environments and experiences where a child's
athletic, artistic and creative talents are free to flourish and thrive. The
arts have always been the fuel that feeds the flame of exploration and inquiry.
As Assemblyman Steve Sanders, chair of the Committee on Education, wrote,
"... the arts are often the impetus to inspire children and teen-agers to
succeed academically, while also increasing their motivation, their self-worth
and their appreciation of living in
It is important to note that beginning in
2005, all entering ninth-graders with learning disabilities will be required to
pass five Regents Exams to graduate. According to the March 2002 Information
Bulletin, published by New York State United Teachers, "The state
Education Department is authorized to approve a variance that enables a school
district, BOCES or approved private school to exceed special education class
size limits, chronological age range limits, or the number of students to be
assigned to a resource room or consultant teacher in programs for students with
disabilities." These variances should raise serious concerns regarding the
quality and uniformity of instructional programs and support services provided
for special education students throughout the state.
Does NYSED really believe that equity and
parity of instructional programs and services can be maintained on a statewide
level through mandate and decree alone? It is fanciful to hold all students
accountable to a uniform set of standards when there are, at best, rudimentary
guidelines and safeguards in place to ensure that each student has received
equivalent preparation and training for the state exams.
To put it another way, the current system of
assessment makes as much sense as placing a large group of students in an
abandoned warehouse and then setting it ablaze to assess their survival skills.
Actually, the analogy is not quite accurate.
In order to replicate conditions and restrictions placed on students, you would
first have to brick in all the windows and then blockade all exits but one. You
would then have to randomly divide students into weaker and stronger groups and
prepare students for the test by distributing different sets of survival tools
and supplies.
The "better prepared" groups
receive a survival pack that includes a fire extinguisher, blueprint for the
building and a cell phone. While the "least prepared" groups would be
given a pack that included a water gun, a manual for programming a VCR, and two
cans connected by a piece of string.
Do standardized tests measure the quality of
school programs? Do they measure the achievement and educational needs of the
students? Do they help lead educators to improved program designs? What they
only do (and even that is subject to debate) is measure how well the students
have been prepared for the test.
Are we really to believe that every student
who fails standardized tests is somehow inferior and less likely to succeed in
life? After all, while numbers of disadvantaged students may not pass the state
exams, in many cases they have actually worked harder trying to "stay
alive" and utilized critical thinking and problem-solving skills in a
valiant but unsuccessful attempt to safely reach the only available exit.
We should prepare our children to be thinking,
caring and responsible citizens who can make meaningful and lasting
contributions to our challenging and vibrant world. They need to be taught how
to make quality choices as they collaborate with others.
We can only hope that their combined efforts
will provide for a productive, safer and more inclusive community while they
avoid self-defeating attitudes and behaviors that so easily entrap children and
young adults.
The school experience should not be reduced
to lessons in, at best, tolerating innumerable uncomfortable situations where
the constant rationale is, "Don't you want to pass the Regents?" and
"You need to know this for the test!" The whole school experience has
been diminished and transformed into a forced march toward a "state
designated performance level."
To ease the transition to higher standards,
NYSED has already watered down the caliber of these exams and degraded their
quality through gimmicks such as a "low pass" of 55, grading on a
curve, and component retesting. To help students achieve higher standards, many
schools have implemented after-school programs, Saturday sessions, summer
classes, even a fifth year of high school. Now students can look forward to
spending even more time in school drearily reviewing old Regents exams.
Johnathan Chase is a middle
school social studies teacher and president-elect of the