by Allen Koshewa
Education is under attack again. The state has
ensured that some schools will once again be labeled failures, thanks to the
new categories it has created, its distorted definitions of success, and its continued
use of tests to punish rather than to inform instruction.
It will come as no
surprise to most people that the state is using students’ scores on the
OAKS (Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) in reading and math as
the sole determinant of educational growth. Under the new system,
implemented last fall, some schools have been labeled as “model” schools,
“focus” schools, or “priority” schools while other schools have not been
labeled at all. Since the new labels only apply to Title I schools (in
which the majority of students come from poverty), schools in higher-income
areas are immune to the scrutiny and sanctions of schools labeled focus and
priority.
State number crunchers have come up with a new formula to establish what they
are calling a “growth model,” which will determine the label a school gets (or
doesn’t get). In a travesty of equity, students who scored the lowest
scores last year are expected to improve the most. For example, students
with low scores must demonstrate up to three years of growth (according to how
OAKS scores are analyzed) to meet the “growth target” the state has established
for them, whereas some students with higher 2012 scores only need to
demonstrate half a year’s growth after one year. This disparity of
expectations will probably increase the achievement gap, rather than close it.
As a fourth/fifth
grade teacher, I have several students who began the year stumbling through
simple picture books who now can read chapter books with confidence. On
the OAKS test, they showed what is deemed the equivalent of two to three years
of improvement, yet they were demoralized when they saw their scores and
realized they had not quite met the benchmark, still required as one component
of the state’s expectations for focus and priority school.
Highly capable students are also getting the short end of the stick.
Those who attained a designation of “exceed” in 2012 can make a higher score
and maintain their “exceed” status, yet still not meet “target growth.”
Another problem is the way the state is comparing
students’ scores with those of other students across the state. Students
who live in poverty are being compared to students from high socioeconomic
backgrounds. English language learners are being compared to native
English speakers. In short, this is NOT an individual growth model.
Although there is no common agreement about what constitutes a good growth
model, the state has implemented an inequitable one and has failed to logically
articulate its rationale.
To make
matters worse, exactly fifteen percent of schools will continue to be labeled
“focus” and “priority.” This means that no matter how much all students
in the state improve, fifteen percent of our schools will be construed as
failing schools.
It is clear that the standardized tests, along with the ludicrously unfair
“growth model” the state has invented, will continue to ensure that students
and schools are framed as failures.
Until a large
number of students and parents opt out of these tests, the tests will continue
to demonize children and schools.