|
|
|
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER: JUNE 2007 ISSUE
|
THE MYTHICAL PROMISE OF STANDARDS AND TESTING
BY JIM ELLSBERRY
THE DEWITT INSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
|
|
The innovative nature of charter schools requires that they hire teachers that can think “out of the box”; however, in looking at the prevailing theory driving our social, education, and economic engines today, it seems clear that the quest for excellence has shifted from a leader’s responsibility for building capacity in people to an artificial reliance on objective performance standards. Current Indiana licensing policy requires passing a written test to become certified as a teacher in public (charter) schools. Regardless of an administrator’s evaluation of one’s capacity to teach, or any other possible assessment of teaching competency, the door to the classroom remains closed to those who fail to pass the written exam.
The research of Peters and Waterman (Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman: Warner Books, Inc. 1982) provided concrete examples of how creative and imaginative leadership focused on people who can transform mediocre organizations into high performing ones. Politicians and bureaucrats appear determined to define excellence in education only in terms of standardized test scores and arbitrary standards established to separate those who can from those who can’t – whether students or teachers. As a result, the assertion that responsible leadership impacts performance more than policy has been left twisting in the wind. As opposed to a competent leader’s judgment based on criteria other than paper and pencil testing, how can a written test adequately assess a candidate’s ability to find creative solutions to daily classroom issues, go the extra mile for low performers, and work cooperatively with parents, faculty, and staff?
This is not an attack on standards. Establishing goals, identifying parameters for performance, setting high expectations, and holding people accountable are essential elements of an organization’s integrity. My objection is to the level of confidence that some people, particularly politicians and bureaucrats, put on “objective” measures as the sole criterion for being eligible to participate in a whole range of activities from high school graduation to qualifying for certification as a teacher or administrator.
The consequences of relying on written tests as the sole basis for teacher or administrative certification are ironic. Any educators ignoring individual differences among their students by using a single strategy for teaching and/or testing would be considered incompetent. Howard Gardner’s work with Project Zero at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education raises credible objections to practices involving the use of a single standardized test as the basis for determining one’s capacity to learn or perform.
Gardner and others (Goleman, Perkins, Gerstner, et. al.) believe high stakes proficiency testing is fraught with conflicting beliefs and political agendas. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is in direct opposition to those who see intellect as a single fixed trait that can be accurately measured by psychometric testing. The one-size-fits-all philosophy of the No Child Left Behind legislation defies common sense and frustrates those who understand that Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average is a mythical place.
Equal access is sorely restricted when there are no options or alternative paths aside from paper and pencil testing. It is a myth to believe that simply because one fails to meet the established cutoff point on a particular standardized exam, that the person
is not qualified to succeed at the allegedly measured task. For example, when we were considering applicants for the Experiential Program for School Principals (EPPSP) at Butler University, my colleague Dr. Gerald DeWitt (1922-1986) always wanted to be sure that of 24 candidates accepted, 2 or 3 would not be qualified solely on the basis of the admission tests. He would frequently point to Edison, Einstein, and Disney as examples of individuals who didn’t perform well on “tests” and were summarily dismissed by those who, blinded by the myth of objective testing, failed to see their potential. DeWitt believed it is a leader’s responsibility to uncover, encourage, and develop talent. His faith was rewarded; many of those admitted without attaining the cutoff score on the admission tests have become successful leaders.
Robert Owens in his book, Organizational Behavior in Education (Pearson Education, Inc. 2004), states that educators and school board members can neither understand organizational behavior, nor hope to work as leaders without having a clear and definite understanding of the issues at stake in this struggle to define and quantify excellence in education. How many mediocre teachers are in classrooms because they have a piece of paper designating them certified? It’s clear to me that charter schools (all schools) would benefit if the path to professional certification included possibilities other than written tests. Surely we’re missing some talented out-of-the-box thinkers whose learning styles are incompatible with the current single mode of competency testing. Indiana’s educational leaders who believe in tapping untapped potential, those who would build capacity in others, even the average and below, should not be found hiding behind test scores as the single assessment of competence. One goal – quality – many paths.
Jim Ellsberry is president of The Dewitt Institute for Professional Development
Phone: (317) 933-3365
Email: Jells33@aol.com
|
|
|
