Marc Tucker writes that we test students more than any of the high-performing nations in the world.
Here is a graph that demonstrates the differences.
Tucker proposed a new accountability system for the U.S. that puts us more in line with common practice.
“The ideas outlined by Marc Tucker in Fixing Our National Accountability System signify a departure from conventional thinking on the issue of accountability. Rather than focus on punishing teachers for the results of a system that others designed, the core components of this report rest on three fundamental principles:
1) Testing: Instead of testing all of our students every year with low-quality tests, students would take high-quality accountability tests, covering a full core curriculum, only three times in their school career. In some off years, tests in math and ELA would be administered only to samples of students by computer and would not carry high stakes for teachers or students.
2) Use of Data: Data from these tests would be used to identify schools that might be in trouble, and to deploy a team of expert educators to assist in resolving the issues with the help of districts and/or states. This data would be available to the general public but it would not include a rank or grade.
3) Policies for Professionals: Enact policies that make it attractive for our nation’s strongest teachers and principals to work in the most at-risk schools – these very same policies would also make teaching an attractive career for some of our best high school graduates and transform teaching into a high status profession.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Good ideas and principles, however I think there needs to be a 4th: All reform starts from the ground up, beginning with teacher input, not administration or outside-of-schools “ex-spurts” (people with ill-founded opinions that spout them out, expecting others to comply).
As the stakeholders with the MOST influence over teaching and learning, teachers input must be solicited in the first stages (ex. focus groups) of any reform that is to be meaningful and efficacious.
We learn about constructivism in our college classes (that a person is empowered when their input, opinions and help is solicited by those in power), but in our schools it is never practiced; everything is top-down tyrrany driven by “ivory-tower icons” and “exspurts”.
Maybe that is why endless, useless and futile, cycles of “reform” is in reality pedagogically deformed, because those that matter most, teachers, are left out of the equation (and when a mandatory variable is left out of an equation, the solution is false).
I especially applaud Tucker’s suggestion re more use of sampled data. It could also be used to red-flag districts in trouble–for a closer look at whether the trouble is who they’re teaching or how they’re doing it.
I like the idea of a 4th–aimed at schools designing their own criteria, with a review board (local) representing the school board and/or community then adding to it and then together working out ways of “measuring” it–analyzing it, makes more sense since it should not be limited to numerical quantities. Some means of bringing the public into the discourse. It might include a visiting team review.
All schools also need built-in time for two separate tasks: (1) planning and reviewing student work and lesson plans, etc, and (2) time for collegial professional development, oops and 3) time at least twice, ideally 3-4 times a year conferences with family–including student. Alas and hurrah: that might require cutting down on the number of families/students any one teacher is serving, or a way to have an adviser over several years who knows the student well and really follows the student’s work and is the family “contact” person. The latter worked wonders at CPESS–and is not probably needed i ost elementr6 schools where the ratios are more reasonable.
I have a real issue with No. 2. Everyone knows which are the “schools that might be in trouble”. We don’t need tests to determine that. And we certainly don’t need a team of education “experts” descending on those schools (and I really hate the word “deploy” like it’s some sort of military threat that must be eradicated).
Maybe if schools all had equitable (not equal) funding and if there were programs in place to help students dealing with poverty, trauma and other issues, and if some schools still weren’t making the grade, then maybe a team of actual educators (not consultants) might be appropriate. But to send in teams to “fix” education when poverty and trauma are the real issues is not only not helpful but actively harmful.
But first don’t need consensus among elected leaders that:
1. there should be public school
2. public school is good
3. that there should be public school because it is good
don’t we need, rather. . . I was posing a question.
I object to high stakes tests because we’re not being honest with the test-takers. If teachers and schools suffer sanctions as a result of standardized test scores, the students who are taking the tests are involved in a high-stakes testing regime.
This idea that we can separate “students” from “their teachers and schools” is ridiculous, and the worst kind of legalistic parsing of terms to avoid an obvious truth, one they MUST be feeling.
I think it harms adult credibility to continue this charade. Tell them what the tests mean, all of it. They deserve to understand what this system is and how it works. They KNOW ANYWAY. They’re not idiots. The security measures alone signal loud and clear to them that these tests are VITALLY IMPORTANT. Why are we pretending we don’t put a huge amount of weight on the score? WE DO. They know we do. They’re there every day.
We decided to measure teachers and schools using tests. Good, bad or indifferent, that’s where we are right now. What’s the point of telling them this is about something else?
A couple of interesting articles in today’s NYT (Electronic Edition). The relevant one to this discussion was the article “Grading Teachers, With Data From Class” talking about using student survey data being used systematically as a formative evaluation of teachers (Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/technology/students-grade-teachers-and-a-start-up-harnesses-the-data.html?_r=0)
The second article was about the efforts to expand pre-K to all in NYC. A lot of public funds going to private hands.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
The chart that compares testing in the public schools of top rated, developed countries is worth seeing. And evidence is pouring in that shows testing and then ranking teachers and firing them achieves and improves nothing.
It has been my view for decades that accountability is imperative but to whom are we responsible? To humankind’s best minds or to politicians? What is education about? What IS the purpose of life? Why are we here? Where are we going. Where are those “glimmers of truth” to be found? etc etc.
There’s a national accountability system in place now??? Since when???
Fixing what was suppose to fix a nation at risk….oh, the irony!