From 2007: On Hoping for Humility...

"A Novel Notion: Trust Teachers!"

As I read the articles and editorials pertaining to reading instruction, I could not help but think of Michael Apple’s Educating the “Right” Way (2001), a text that challenges the power structure of education and insists that the policies and practices in education are moving towards the conservative right. I promise I will make clear the connections I see between Apple and the assigned readings, but to set up this comparison effectively I need to give a brief run-down of a couple of Apple’s core principles (do excuse the pun...).

First, he calls this movement towards the right “conservative modernization,” a process where different interest groups (“interested” in education) position and reposition themselves in relation to other groups vis á vis power relations. Now what is important to consider is how power is accumulated, and, in the words of Sir Frances Bacon, “Knowledge is power.” So then the question becomes, Who has access to knowledge? And this begs consideration of the notions of social and cultural capital; those who have these forms of capital are the ones who are more likely to gain and maintain power and, by extension, a voice. (I can go into a whole thing about social and cultural capital, but that’s too much of a tangent even for me… if you care let me know and I’ll write an addendum or something and post it later… lol.)

OK, so anyway. America is considered the land of the free, right? But Apple posits (and I totally agree) that freedom is really based on a fear of freedom, a fear of either losing distinction or of becoming too uniform in the “wrong” way. And who determines what is the “right” or “wrong” way for our culture to be represented? Those with the most social and cultural capital, and who currently has this? The right. (Again, there’s lots of support for this, but let’s just operate on the assumption that Apple knows what he’s talking about.) Let me start connecting this stuff to our readings: The Stutz article (1999) discusses how Texan conservatives are pushing for phonics and how their opponents argue that the “conservatives’ agenda is driven by a desire to have a more rigid learning structure in schools, one that avoids critical thinking by students.” Shouldn’t education empower students through engaging in critical thinking? Aren’t we taught in our undergraduate methodology classes that the ultimate goal is to get kids to a level of higher-order thinking? Why would any interest group discourage critical thinking? Fear of losing power.

So here’s the conflict: The state thinks it’s the expert in education and social welfare, yet so do the teachers who spend their days surrounded by students (I know: the nerve!). I absolutely love that Carpenter (2000) quoted Farstrup’s analogy that “[F]ederal pedagogy legislation [is like] having the government ‘tell an aircraft mechanic how to bolt a part on.’” Ultimately, whether the debate is reading instruction or standardized testing, my premise remains: We the educators should be those trusted to make the call when it comes to effective practices, not those with agendas steeped in fear or power-maintenance mode. And for that matter (sorry, one more tangent), I’d like to add that when it comes to methods of research (which I’m assuming proponents of any particular methodology base their arguments on), only quasi-experiments can be conducted on human subjects because of the innumerable variables; if we believe that this is true, then why on earth would it make sense to boast a single “best” method for any kind of instruction? The majority of articles on reading instruction that we read agreed that a blend of pedagogies is best; why do those with power so often fail to see the shades of gray that envelop education? Or, if they do see the gray, why is it a “bad” thing? Unfortunately, I think Andrea Neal (1999) reported the answer (ala Motes and Hall): “[C]hildren’s needs may take a back seat to adult... egos.” Here’s to hoping for humility….

From 2006: Thoughts on High-Stakes Tests

James Noll puts it best in his overview of Issue 9 in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues when he observes that there is a “direct impact of test mania on the nature of the learning process” (2007). In short, Noll’s statement sums up why my connection to the issue of high-stakes testing is so important: ultimately, it is my job to analyze my students’ learning processes and figure out the most effective interface between my methods and their abilities; I must be aware of and understand the various contexts affecting each student’s learning. Further, I am a constructivist. There are innumerable ways to measure students’ skills and capabilities, differentiated ways that allow for individual accommodations and provide a respect for diversity. As teachers, we are continually challenged to develop professionally, to create innovative lessons and find new ways of reaching our students. I refuse to accept the disparity between what teachers’ assessments in the classroom are expected to look like and what the state’s assessments have become.


In terms of a personal context for this assertion, I have just a couple notations. First, I was raised in a Chicagoland suburb and attended schools where the majority of the student population was just like me: white and middle class. I was always a good student, taking honors and AP classes and getting involved in choir and drama. I say these things to be clear that my motivation in developing such an emotional, negative opinion about high-stakes testing is not due to a particularly bad experience that I had in my youth. In contrast, I scored well on Illinois’ IGAPs and never felt lost or confused because of misunderstanding the language of the test. My distaste for tests such as Indiana’s ISTEP+ actually only developed as I began instructing the ISTEP+ remediation academy that met for two hours after school on four weeks of Tuesdays and Thursdays. In this time I met countless ENL students who could hardly communicate with me, let alone read or understand the directions on an exam. Additionally, I met many students who were incredibly capable of passing but just didn’t care, and I also worked with students from honors English classes who just couldn’t seem to pass the ISTEP. The most eye-opening moments, however, came as I began preparing the review materials; some of the questions were worded incredibly awkwardly, and I didn’t always understand what some prompts were trying to get at. With my combination of having degrees in both English and Secondary Education and graduating from Butler University Cum Laude, imagine my feelings of inadequacy at getting stumped by the ISTEP! I cannot even fathom the confusion and aggravation of students whose fortes do not include reading comprehension or essay writing. Further, the rubrics for the essays allowed little to no room for creativity or outside-the-box thinkers. If students didn’t write a standard five-paragraph essay addressing the bullet-pointed prompt precisely, they were unlikely to score well. In a system where teachers are to encourage discovery and independent thinking, is it not contradictory to assess them via prescripted formats? I do understand that to be successful in a global market we all need to be able to understand and adhere to protocol, but I still feel strongly that more liberties need to be taken to look at a student’s test—his essay especially—holistically.

I truly enjoyed the Hurwitz and Hurwitz’s “Tests That Count” and Ken Jones’ “A Balanced School Accountability Model: An Alternative to High-Stakes Testing” because each made points that required me to sit and think. I found myself writing several combative questions in response to Hurwitz and Hurwitz’s suggestions, and, in contrast, I marked many lines in Jones’s that resonated with me as I nodded along with his observations and calls for action. Let me begin with a couple of my challenges. Hurwitz and Hurwitz note that in order to make high-stakes tests “work,” “learning not testing [should be] the goal” (2000). My thought about this is twofold: First, if there is a test given by the state, does preparing for it not inherently become the goal? Don’t teachers develop objectives before lessons and plan assessments based on objectives? Second, if learning is the goal, can it not be assessed in a variety of ways? Shouldn’t it be assessed in a variety of ways? I just don’t understand how Hurwitz and Hurwitz can support testing by asserting that learning needs to be a school’s true goal or that testing can accurately measure such learning.

In another section Hurwitz and Hurwitz claim that “there has been a heavy investment in addressing the academic performance of the weakest students” (2000). My question here is about the methods; how is the money being used to improve weak students’ performance? In workbooks? In paying teachers to instruct tedious after school skill-drills? Without knowing how this funding is being used, it is unfair to judge Hurwitz and Hurwitz’s point; however, it is likely the means of addressing weak students’ performance are not innovative or engaging, and I just don’t see how such means would encourage learning or adequately prepare students for success in the global market.

In contrast to my continual skepticism of Hurwitz and Hurwitz was my appreciation of Jones’ text. One of the most poignant points Jones makes is that “A standardized approach toward school accountability cannot work in a nation as diverse as the U.S.” (2004). Teachers need to be trusted to adjust their methods to the contexts of their classrooms. We know better than anyone what will and will not work for getting our students to reach the objectives and standards set by the state. Further, not only will flexibility in assessing schools help reestablish teachers’ feelings of professionalism (which Jones argues is waning), but it also has the power to put the emphasis back on learning, not testing, as Hurwitz and Hurwitz noted as necessary.

Jones also asks the question, “How can students be expected to meet high standards if they are not given a fair opportunity to learn?” (2004). Although I agree strongly that schools need much more equality in terms of funding and resources, I think Jones’ question is a gross oversimplification; there is so much more to a “fair opportunity to learn” than what an institution can offer. Consider the impacts of socioeconomics or race; what can a school do to change a student’s environment once the bell rings at the end of the day? Is it fair that one student goes straight to work after school and has little to no time to complete homework or study, yet another goes home and has the evening free to do homework on the computer, study for an upcoming test, get help from an older sibling? Each student’s background and home life contribute significantly to his success in the classroom, and I think it’s important to understand that educational institutions cannot erase these influences but should be especially cognizant of them in their effort to be “fair.”

Before reading these articles I knew that I was not a fan of high-stakes testing, although all I could really say about it was that the tests were often called culturally biased and that ENL students were counted in the school’s statistics, which I found remarkably unfair and inaccurate since many of these students are extremely limited in their English proficiency; their failure of the ISTEP+ is no indicator of their intellect. However, I can now better articulate the reasons why high-stakes testing doesn’t make sense; I can discuss the differing considerations affecting a student’s schooling and can point out which of these are neglected by using standardized tests to hold schools and teachers accountable for student achievement. Therefore, whereas I have not changed my opinion, I have shaped my perspective. I can now engage in discussions about testing with more confidence and evidence. Further, I will continue to focus on learning in my classroom, and I will continue to give a variety of assignments and assessments. Because there are such high stakes when it comes to ISTEP+ scores, though, I must still help my students learn how to become effective test takers and how to answer essay questions to earn the most points. I will still go over scoring rubrics with them. But I will not pour all my energy into teaching them to take a test, for that will do little to truly prepare them for emerging into successful people with integrity and character. In all, it is incredibly reassuring to me that there is literature out there testifying to the inanity of objective assessments. There is hope that this, too, shall pass.


Noll, J.W. (Ed.). (2007).  Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (14th ed.). Dubuque: McGraw-Hill.