By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
ONE WHO TRIED to decipher what happened in the S.C. Senate last week with regard to the PACT — that’s “Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test” to the uninitiated — can be forgiven for being confused.
I certainly am.
Start with a press release from Sen. Greg Ryberg, which said in part, “PACT is dead…. the bill we passed today kills it as of July 1, 2008.” He said “the creation and administration of our statewide assessment test belongs with the people at the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) whose sole focus is education and not the General Assembly. I am glad that we have left it in their hands.”
This was confusing to me because I was here when the PACT was created to measure whether schools were successfully meeting educational standards set in the Education Accountability Act, which the Legislature passed at the behest of business leaders who wanted a better-trained work force and conservative Republicans who were determined that if money was going to be spent on public schools, the schools were by golly going to meet objective standards. The EAA created the EOC and charged it with making sure the DOE (had enough initials yet?) did what the Legislature insisted be done.
So yeah, if the PACT is to be changed, it’s the bureaucrats’ job to do it. But it’s the Legislature’s job to tell them to do it.
More confusingly, this is exactly what state Superintendent of Education Jim Rex wanted the Legislature to do. “Teachers and parents are clamoring for these changes, our students need them and our state deserves them,” Mr. Rex said in his own release. “It’s really gratifying to see the Senate make such a strong statement with its unanimous vote.”
In case the elected officials don’t have you confused enough, the chief organization devoted to diverting public education funds to private schools declared Friday that “The PACT is an expensive and outdated test that lacks the child-specific diagnostic data required by teachers. Unlike tests used in other states, PACT is South Carolina specific, and doesn’t provide educators with a comparison of our schools to regional and national test scores.” SCRG went on to charge that “Superintendent Rex was unwilling to replace PACT on his own,” and celebrated the idea that “final passage of this Senate bill will force him into action.”
Action that he’s been begging for authorization to take.
It might be instructive at this point to note that the Senate is run by Republicans, as is the House, which earlier passed legislation authorizing a revamp of the PACT, while Mr. Rex is the state’s highest-ranking elected Democrat. These fact are not at all important to me; I see them as an asinine distraction. But to the players, party considerations are of the utmost importance.
Republicans are terribly worried at the moment that Mr. Rex will challenge their divine right to the governor’s office by seeking that position in 2010. In fact, some see his insistence that a PACT replacement be in use by a year from now, rather than a year later, as a ploy on his part to give a boost to his campaign. In other words, these Republicans suspect him of being too anxious to replace the PACT, other Republicans see him as too reluctant (or say they do), while Mr. Rex sees his level of enthusiasm for replacing the PACT as being, like the Mama Bear’s porridge, just right.
How did we get here?
I already mentioned above how the EAA, and its child the PACT, came into being in the late 1990s. Far from being some sort of oversight, the point was to have a South Carolina-specific test, to measure whether the specific standards our state adopted — some of the highest standards in the country, by the way — were being met by the schools. The point was to make sure the schools didn’t let any students fall through the cracks.
This Republican-driven reform was never welcome among what critics are pleased to call the “education establishment,” or among Democrats, the party most closely identified with said establishment. But Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, elected in 1998, had to accept the whole shebang as a fait accompli.
Teachers complained about the PACT from the start. One of their main complaints was that the test (actually, a battery of tests, but let’s keep it simple) was not useful to them in helping individual students. Of course, it had never been intended for that purpose, but it was a complaint with great appeal across the political spectrum. Even SCRG, which is certainly no friend of public school teachers, took it up.
Add to that the fact that schools felt so much pressure over the PACT that they inflicted pressure on the teachers who then transferred the stress to the students, and before you knew it, it appeared that all teaching ceased in the last weeks of each school year while everyone involved participated in a mass panic attack over the test.
It is a great shame that teachers have been so conscious of this pressure, and a greater one that students have. This was, after all, about helping the students by making sure the schools, as institutions, did not fail them.
So it’s good that a bipartisan consensus emerged this year to change the PACT into an instrument that would hold schools accountable, while providing in addition an instrument that teachers can use for timely diagnosis and remediation.
But it’s bad that partisan craziness has made it so hard for voters and taxpayers — the folks to whom the system was to be held accountable — to tell whether that is happening.
Related Posts
Brad, when the first school report cards were in planning, I wrote an ed-op piece that was published in The State. My complaints then sound very much like what many take issue with now. We are not getting meaningful information.
“Well, no duh!” It’s naive to believe we can determine how well a school is educating students based on one test. As I wrote back then, using such a narrow measure is like evaluating the sheriff’s office by how many speeding tickets they write.
Cakora made a very good point (it almost pains me to admit it) that education is a complex process which makes evaluation a difficult task. One factor that is clearly the most influential is socio-economic status of the student body. We don’t need PACT to tell us that Lexington 1 will have top scores and Allendale will have low scores.
I believe the answer lies in End of Course Exams. Instead of waiting for a student to take a comprehensive PACT or HSAP exam, the students should have to pass an exam for each of the foundational courses; algebra 1, English, Biology, etc. This pushes evaluation as close to the classroom as possible by providing objective data on the performance of teachers and students. In turn, this reflects on the school as a whole.
Perhaps the educational process has become too complicated.
I remember that, in the sciences and math, it was two weeks or so of covering the material, test; two more weeks or so, test; etc., a grade every six weeks, final exam, final grade, summer. Or maybe it was one test every three weeks.
The process for English, languages, social studies and history was a bit different, but not so much so as to confuse a fifth-grader.
After almost 12 years of the aforementioned process, the SAT evaluated our readiness for college, and, by extrapolation, could be used to determine whether our schools were teaching the right things the right way. If all the students had an A average, but no one made better than 900 on the SAT, something would be wrong.
Why schools don’t do something of that ilk every year to chart everybody’s progress, I can’t imagine. One testing instrument could evaluate both teacher and student annuallly.
Yes, Randy: end-of-course exams should be the answer.
But teachers have been giving end-of-course exams (or at least end-of-semester exams) since time was. Why those aren’t standardized and the whole process streamlined, I don’t know.
What rings strangest to me in this whole line of query is teachers complaining that the PACT didn’t help them with individual students. So what? The teachers in my day didn’t have PACT or anything else as a measuring stick save the tests they gave us, and, lo and behold, they muddled along, produced Bill Gates, Brad Warthen and Rush Limbaugh, and just kept on keeping on.
“muddled along” is the point. Warthern, Gates (Limbaugh the comedian?) and others would probably be successful regardless of the system and we will continue to have exceptional individuals in the current system.
Cak’s point is not so much that the educational system has grown more complex, his point is that it is inherently complicated because you are dealing with people, families, and other factors that simply can not be controlled.
The SAT is hardly a valid indicator of school success. There are 9th graders with good scores. If this indicates academic success at the high school level, then they are ready to skip their last 3 years of high school. My point is they are not ready. Also, look at the break down of SAT scores by socio-economic status (SES). There is a consistent increase in score for each jump in SES. So is Lexington High School doing a great job or do they have inherently capable students?
I didn’t say the SAT is a valid indicator of school success, Randy. I said it can tell you if a school is way off base.
So let me repeat myself with a little added clarification: If the honor roll students at a school have lousy SAT scores, or if the C-average students do a lot better on the SAT than the students making A’s, something’s wrong, and not with the SAT.
And you’re right that SES predicts success by group. I’d tell you the answer to our entire educational problem is finding inherently capaple students.
And the way to do that is simple. Make inherently capaple students out of four-year-olds using early childhoood education to do a good patch job on the poorly parented while there still time.
Then the rest will take care of itself, and whether we use PACT, SCE&G or Mr. Mxyzptlk, it will all work out.
My point is this, Randy: If everyone can read by the time they reach the first grade, the battle is mostly won. Of course, nothing can ever substitute completely for the missing love and attention of a parent who, for whatever reason, just doesn’t do his or her job.
Not that we need a Brave New World. It’s already new enough.
And, by the way, I mentioned Limbaugh and Mr. Warthen in the same phrase while ago just to keep Mr. Warthen on his toes.
Randy and penultimo – Neat discussion.
Let me suggest that the challenge is to take the existing data (test scores, grades, aptitude (IQ), etc.) from whatever source (PACT, other standardized tests, new tests, etc.) in order to analyze the data over time to determine:
Someone a lot smarter than I can do the corrections by student or cohort, for example, for moving from a mediocre third-grade teacher to a superior fourth-grade teacher in a given subject, but that’s just one indication that this is an exercise fraught with danger. In other words, it can become quite political by virtue of what types of results are desired by the analyses.
Back in the late 1990s the big fight was over which federal body should oversee the development of voluntary national achievement tests with charges that various groups were trying to politicize the process. At the time and even now (and I’ve done some searching to refresh my memory, but I just got more confused) I’m not sure what the politics were, but I do know that any assessment is controversial because policymakers, administrators, teachers, and parents have dramatically different viewpoints.
So while parents want to know how good their local school is, administrators do too, but may not want to let the parents know too much. The sixth grade staff may be the best in the state, but there’s one teacher who’s whacked out and if the parents of students in that class get the word, life will be difficult for the administrators…
So while I agree with you, I think it all boils down to a matter of the will and attitude of those at the top to force change, and that will probably take courage in the legislature.
Yeah, we’re screwed.
I would recommend that if the PACT test is not off the schedule for next year, that parents advise their children to opt out of taking the test. What would be the point? If enough parents protest, maybe the kids will get a couple more weeks of meaningful education.
What I find interesting is that the school year started a couple weeks later this year and yet my high school son is done with Math with two weeks and two days left in the school year. End of course test was last week. Last day of school is June 2.
And Randy – this is not meant to be a snide question — did you find any significant impact on your math students with the later start date and the Christmas break? I ask because that was one of the key reasons against the late start.
When I read the original language of the EAA I don’t see why the Superintendent needs the legislature to tell him to revise the assessment program. The two sections below first establish an assessment program and then provide for this program to be revised.
The State Board of Education, State Department of Education and Education Oversight Committee already had all the authority to revise the PACT and any other accountability assessments. In fact, they have done just that several times with end of course exams without any direction from the legislature.
SECTION 59 18 310. Development or adoption of statewide assessment program to promote student learning and measure student performance.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, is required to develop or adopt a statewide assessment program to promote student learning and to measure student performance on state standards and:
(1) identify areas in which students need additional support;
(2) indicate the academic achievement for schools, districts, and the State;
(3) satisfy federal reporting requirements; and
(4) provide professional development to educators.
Assessments required to be developed or adopted pursuant to the provisions of this section or chapter must be objective and reliable.
SECTION 59 18 360. Cyclical review of state standards and assessments; analysis of assessment results.
(A) The State Board of Education, in consultation with the Education Oversight Committee, shall provide for a cyclical review by academic area of the state standards and assessments to ensure that the standards and assessments are maintaining high expectations for learning and teaching. All academic areas must be initially reviewed by the year 2005. At a minimum, each academic area should be reviewed and updated every seven years. After each academic area is reviewed, a report on the recommended revisions must be presented to the Education Oversight Committee for its consideration. After approval by the Education Oversight Committee, the recommendations may be implemented. As a part of the review, a task force of parents, business and industry persons, community leaders, and educators, to include special education teachers, shall examine the standards and assessment system to determine rigor and relevancy.
Cak, you miss a major point I’ve been making. The foundation of our system is grades as opposed to learning. Until we address this, it doesn’t matter what accountability testing we conduct.
As I wrote on a previous thread, if most or all of the students in the class of a particular teacher make the grade they want (A for some, D- for others), they and their parents are happy. This results in less problems for the administration so they are happy. The end result is kudos for the teacher, regardless if meaningful learning took place.
On the other hand, if the teacher is demanding, holds kids accountable, and pushes students to take responsibility the teacher is likely to be viewed in a negative light. I have AP students complain that I treat them and the class like a college class even though they can earn college credit! I am not like the “good teacher” they cite who repeatedly shows them what to do (in lieu of making them actually use their notes) and gives them extra credit.
Another major factor is addressing the disparity in school between the haves and the have nots. The ONLY candidate I’ve seen address this is Campbell Jr. His position is that we have to address the community as a whole to help the schools. (He also almost ran over me in the Trenholm Plaza parking lot as he was checking his Blackberry – what’s the deal with these young republicans and driving?)
Hey Doug,
Yes, the later start date was a big source of contention. I did not pay attention because it was a crazy time for me but will research this tomorrow. Did you notice anything with your kids? I still have strong disagreement. How does shifting time from August to June make for a better summer vacation?
You mentioned that word would get around about different teachers and their ability. What’s your take on grades as I addressed above? Keep in mind that you are much more perceptive of what happens in a school that most parents.
Randy,
Ansolutely, word does get around. I continue to be amazed at the amount of extra credit points and re-tests that are allowed.
There are also certain teachers in subjects outside the core curriculum whose sole means of educating class appears to come from showing videos of recent movies. I’m still trying to figure out how showing Finding Nemo to a Psychology class is a way to teach about separation anxiety.
For the most part, the teachers my three kids have had in high school have been good or very good. We’ve learned to accept the ones who aren’t very motivated in the elective classes because the hassle of changing schedules is too difficult.
As for the late school year start, we saw no noticeable difference in performance. I did not hear any complaints from other parents either. All we discuss now is why the kids are left to do nothing for two weeks… and why the kids have to come back to two half days on the Monday and Tuesday after next week. I think the system still is geared toward the mindset of Memorial Day = school’s over.
And I’ll put in a good word for the culinary education program at Blythewood H.S. – a perfect example of getting kids ready for the real world — most of the kids are either going on to higher education in the field or right into work. That’s what high school should be about.
Brad does not find the flip-flopping and lobbyist posse of his boy, McCain, to be “interesting. Because he won’t address the increasing portfolio of political pollution spewing from Camp McCain, I’ll offer this most recent headline about the Double Talk Express:
Another top McCain official resigns – “It’s at least the fifth lobbying-related departure from the campaign in a week.”
How on earth can anyone expect a statewide test to measure whether students have absorbed basic knowledge, and can perform basic tasks, and still give someone data to personalize one’s approach to teaching that child? A test can certainly tell you what a child does, or does not know. Tests can also be designed to determine how a child manipulates the data he has, and thus determine what deficits there might be in his ability to “learn to think.” I don’t know that you can have one test that does both. I also know that, to a great extent, the best one can do is try to ensure that the student has enough correct data, and can perform certain basic tasks well enough, to where he can learn. The actual “learning” is up to the student. I know that many of us never forget a mistake–that way we can keep repeating them again, and again….
A teacher can try, through example, to teach students how to effectively manipulate data, but no one can guarantee that the student will do it. To try to actively “teach” a method of learning may well limit a student more than help him, and will certainly be decried by some segment of the population. I don’t know if we should chuck this test out or not, but I do know that if you try to make a test that can measure everything, you’ll end up with a test that measures nothing.
Randy,
The funny part of all the lobbyist revelations and revelations from the McCain campaign is that those guys have known for quite a while that McCain has been lying to public for months when he claimed to not have any lobbyists on his staff.
And McCain can just play the senility card and say he doesn’t remember ever hearing that all these key guys happened to have lobbying ties to all sorts of scummy organizations.
As I’ve said repeatedly, McCain is at the point now that he will say anything, do anything, and mislead people in order to win. Just wait til he becomes the focus of the media’s attention.
He’s got one shot at the brass ring before heading off to Bob Dole-ville and doing commercials for Viagra and Metamucil.
Karen – you write: How on earth can anyone expect a statewide test to measure whether students have absorbed basic knowledge, and can perform basic tasks, and still give someone data to personalize one’s approach to teaching that child?
In theory, it’s straightforward, but it takes a lot to accomplish. With the right structure, you are measuring achievement, mastery of objectives. In a comprehensive test with a specific (diagnostic) design, incorrect answers will show deficiencies in mastery that will point to needed remediation. Such a test will be longer because it takes more detail to determine specific deficiencies than it does to assess mastery.
Test selection / development is just one of the trade-offs in education. Typically educators prefer the cheap, general assessment for all while reserving the expensive stuff for kids who are perceived as not doing well. It’s not necessarily what parents want or what kids need, but it’s affordable.
As for your points on manipulating data, the evaluation / test focuses on the results of the manipulation, and this is or should be a difficult process. The question / problem presented has to be unambiguous and, if multiple choice, has to have answers that provide diagnostic information. So “What is 2 times 2” is a poor questions, but “What is 2 times 3” is a good one. The reason is that 2 X 2 = 4, but so is 2 + 2, so a correct answer is not definitive regarding understanding the problem. The later question with distractors of 1, 4, and 5 give a hint of the problem if one is chosen instead of the correct answer 6.
I don’t know what your specific issue is with data manipulation, but a good teacher will employ several strategies and introduce students to various tools to employ to convey the point regarding manipulating different types of data. They will interactively query students to determine who’s getting it and who is not, and adjust accordingly.
This is probably more than you wanted to know. What’s sad is that I could go on and on.
Yeah, but Mike, an answer of ‘5’ to ‘what is 2 x 3’ tells you that the student doesn’t know the correct answer (or chose not to give it to you), but it doesn’t tell you why. Does the student not understand the multiplication at all? Is the student simply used to seeing it in a different form ‘2 times 3’ or ‘2(3)’? Maybe your student was simply stoned during the test, and multiplication is not the basic problem at all. A lot goes into designing a program to meet an individual students needs.
Europeans and Japanese schools still stress learning (memorizing at least) the multiplication tables.
Cak, you contradict yourself. First you explain how complicated the educational process is with the multitude of factors (for which I gave you credit) then you suggest some “straighforward” measurement can be used to measure the results of this complex system. Unless you are hiding the fact that you have a degree in educational assessment design, such a conclusion is highly questionable.
Second, you state “Typically educators prefer the cheap, general assessment for all” but you stated earlier that some assessment should be “pulled from the shelf” to replace PACT.
BTW, the term is not “manipulating data” in regards to testing but on collecting the data – assessment. The manipulation comes later, if you from SCouRGe. You can also manipulate the methodology for data collection, which is what you were addressing.
Mama Bear’s porridge was too cold. Baby Bear had the “just right” batch.
In answering Karen’s question my point was that designing a test to assess student mastery of whatever’s mandated for a given grade level is straightforward in theory, not that it’s not complex in practice, because it is. It can generate diagnostic information if that is designed in. It takes a lot of time, money, and expertise to develop and maintain. The more comprehensive it is, the longer it will be, making scheduling more difficult. There are a lot of tradeoffs, but you can test for about anything with enough time and money.
Educators do prefer simpler but more frequent tests so they can gauge progress during the semester and adjust their teaching based on the results. They will refer kids who are having problems to specialists for in-depth assessment.
It’s parents, legislators, and sometimes even administrators who want the more comprehensive testing.
“still stress learning (memorizing at least) the multiplication tables.”
ACK! Something else I agree on Lee with.
Boone pickens wind
Boone pickens wind
Boone pickens wind
Boone pickens wind
Boone pickens wind
Boone pickens wind
I’m having one of those de-ja-vu’ moments.