Growing up in South Dakota I remember well cold Septembers during Homecoming week. I also remember playing in football games with snow on the ground and having Nipco heaters on the sidelines to keep players warm. This week the "experts" are predicting some winter-like weather coming our way. I would prefer we could enjoy fall for a bit longer before having to deal with any snow. Alas, it's time to break out the snowblowers and to get ready for the reality of winter coming.
Last week the Argus Leader and American News rolled out news stories discussing the statewide assessment all schools are required to take. The governor was quoted as being "unimpressed" by scores and some have put the issue on the "watch" list come this legislative session. They also noted how SD teachers received a raise yet testing reports have remained stagnant. I do have thoughts on the situation that I will delve into but would first like to note that the state assessment is based on a one-time look at a student's understanding of what professional educators have deemed important for students to present their understanding of curriculum content. A few years back the state adopted "Common Core" teaching standards along with several other states. A few tests were developed to administer to children as a check for their understanding of the standards in a way the testing company and experts would measure. South Dakota went with Smarter Balanced, while some other states (like TX) went with an assment called PARCC.
What I found interesting is that when South Dakota decided to go with Smarter Balanced the testing company called on educators nationwide in states to come and help "create" the test. The idea of having professional educators from the field give input on the test in my mind gave the testing company and the test itself some legitimacy. Curious and intrigued about the process, I threw my name in the hat and was selected to be among the educators that would travel to Dallas, TX. It's been 5 years ago now and some of the details are hazy but a few moments stand out for me. There were two phases to the project, the first involved hundreds of educators, and the second phase involved around 4 or 5 dozen known as the "vertical articulation committee".
I remember having breakfast with educators from across the country to include California and Hawaii. I was extremely interested to learn that in CA the state's teacher union is a powerful force in politics, holding much weight in the legislative process. What a novel concept! But when the Los Angeles School District has more teachers than Aberdeen has citizens you can understand how numbers will help sway opinions.
I don't recall much else about the first phase, but I remember key moments in the second phase. We were charged with selecting the "bar" that each proficiency level would be set at. So we read through testing items and there was a fair amount of bandying about the different merits or lack thereof to determine if a child show know "this much" to prove mastery or proficiency in given areas. It was a pretty detailed process and in the end we "voted" on where we felt was an appropriate level to illustrate understanding or proficiency. As an educational leader I was humbled and forced to bite my tongue when my opinion was not the same as the majority of the group. Collectively the group had determined that it was their duty to ensure test legitimacy or integrity based on some "tenets" of mastery set forth by the company. I don't decry their educational professionalism and noble-like approach to the process, but my comments were simple: "We are making it too hard, and schools are going to look bad." I was met with blank stares and no one supported my opinion. I was interviewed by Keloland after the process and I wish it was still online, because I remember trying to be objective and giving the assessment a chance, but that the scores would be much lower and couldn't be compared to scores from previous years.
This isn't just an "I told you so" moment (although it kind of is), but where it really irks me is that the tone of the article undermines the integrity, the hard work, and the dedication of South Dakota teachers to students in schools across the state. We have several other assessments that monitor and illustrate growth throughout the school year and I am of the opinion we should consider a different model. Other states are abondoning Smarter Balanced assessments and Common Core standards. I don't want to pretend to be a seer, but I do see changes coming to mandatory assessments in South Dakota. Before lawmakers, among other government leaders, want to be unimpressed I would invite them to take one of the assessments. And I'm not even saying that has to be the high school assessment. This would be a solid opportunity for them to impress the public of South Dakota.
I think that's about it this week, see you next week!
