JUST SAY NO?

A short item in last Sunday's New York Times caught my interest. It seems that in the state of New York, students are awaiting, in short order, the administration of the state-wide assessment testing. This is a yearly event. That state's testing is based on the recently developed Common Core standards. These are standards developed not by New York, but by the federal Department of Education. The effort is to provide standards that are not based on rote memory requirements, but on more analytic and problem solving skills. At the national level, the concern seems to be prompted by the perceived need for our students to fare more competitively with students of other nations. A better standing among our students today promises a more competitive work force tomorrow. The article indicates that there is a group of parents in New York City who are opting to have their sons and daughters not take part in the state testing. The total number of students affected by these parental decisions amounts to 270 students – not many given the total numbers being tested. These parents are not against testing or assessment per se. They say that they are in favor of the accountability that testing aims to provide. In the past, these yearly tests in the several states have been used to not only indicate how well students are doing – determining, for example, which ones should be allowed to advance to higher grades or graduate from high school – but also to see how well schools are doing. Florida's testing determines what grade a school deserves, A through F. There has even been some talk of using the tests to “grade” teachers that could then be further instrumental in determining which teachers should be retained, promoted, if their students do well, or penalized in some form if their students do not perform well. These results have earned this type of assessment the title of “high stakes testing.” These rebelling parents claim they're all in favor of this type of accountability. Their beef is that the existing assessment instruments – even the newer versions spurred by Common Core standards – are too limited.

This sentiment is a bit ironic in that the Common Core standards were developed to meet some of the criticism. The newer testing is not based on rote memory skills, but the parents still think that the testing is short on evaluating a variety of student products and short on testing critical thinking based activities. The following captures the concern:

As Rosa Perez-Rivera, a mother in the Bronx who is opting out, explained it, her daughter was thrilled by school last year, when work around oceans sparked a love of science. This year, in third grade, as the focus has moved to test preparation … her confidence and enthusiasm have lagged.¹

The often reported effect of state-wide testing is that is takes over a school's curriculum and students find themselves almost exclusively involved in lessons and activities dedicated toward preparing them to do well on the test to the exclusion of other worthwhile endeavors. Social studies and civics seem to be one of those other worthwhile areas that are being “cheated.” According to the Common Core website, reading standards call for the use of history materials, such as foundational documents, in the design of the test questions. But is this enough?

I have concerns about any single testing system for evaluating students. Space here does not allow me to go over all my concerns and what I think should be done with assessment. But I can say that evaluating students, evaluating schools, and evaluating teachers are three different challenges and each needs its own system of evaluation. The strategy for each should be very different. For example, one test regimen cannot be used to see how well teachers are doing when the range of student preparation and level of support students get, such as at home, is so varied. And with modern technology, different strategies can be developed and implemented for a relatively inexpensive investment that could address the varying assessment challenges that educators face. For example, the installation of video cameras in classrooms can be used to randomly review teacher performances. These recordings could then be used to not only judge teacher techniques, but also to improve them. Of course, any new evaluation strategies should include teachers in their development.

As for the specific complaint of these parents, assessment should be more open-ended and test for more creative and critical thinking skills. This is not easy, but I believe it can be done and should be done.

1Bellafante, G. (2014). Refusing to submit to testing and the burdens it imposes. The New York Times, March 30, p. 22 (front page section).

THE PROBLEM WITH DRAWING UP TO THE WRONG COUNTER

How should a national history course, particularly one for secondary students, present the history of the nation? Is the common way our history is taught today a version or a narrative that uncritically views that history by glorifying its people's accomplishments while ignoring or rationalizing instances of injustice or other shortcomings? There is an approach to history, the celebratory approach, that takes on this positive posture. But, of course, the critique is that it presents an unrealistic view of a national history or worse, it serves as a form of indoctrination. A history that looks just at what is good about our past deprives students of a means to learn from policies and practices that led to unfortunate results and usually costly consequences. That's not what we say we want history to be or, for that matter, what the purpose of teaching social studies is and having it as part of our required curriculum. As it pertains to American history, such an approach will skimp in describing and explaining such developments as slavery and dispossession of native American lands. These less savory events are “covered” but in a perfunctory manner without delving into the moral and vacuous implications that such events, practices, and institutions caused in the maturation of our nation.

There is what I deem to be an overcompensation for celebratory tendencies in our curricular choices, an approach to history known as the reconstructionist history. It is supported by the critical theory mental construct. I have become aware of a particular suggested strategy whose aim is to address the above distorted view. This awareness is the result of information contained in a book review¹ which reviews a new book by Meira Levinson. My understanding is that this author introduces an approach that presents to students “counter narratives” of history in which particular versions of our past are presented. These narratives are designed for different ethnic and racial groups. Since I have not had the opportunity to read the book, my comments here are a reaction not to the book, but of an idea of how to present history to disadvantaged groups in our student population. That is, a different story is designed for each group with the purpose of offering students materials prepared to address specific areas of exploitation or injustice that have been visited upon the particular group in question. According to a review of the book, Levinson is making the proposal in order to encourage a particular racial or ethnic group consciousness and to promote civic engagement within that group. After all, public schools are meant to create an informed and active citizenry. But is this a good way to do it?

I would judge, based on limited knowledge, that Levinson is what is considered a critical theorist educator. I have described critical theory in past postings. In short, this construct views deep seated exploitative relations based on class, race, gender, and age. Many of the scholars who ascribe to this view engage in research that unearths evidence proving the existence of these exploitative relations and how they are manifested. My categorizing Levinson this way is a product of reviewing her argument – as presented in the book review – and looking over her curriculum vitae. In the case of the argument – as I deem it to be – by presenting these histories, as I just described, members of racial and ethnic groups can critically study the evidence of exploitative polices and practices and appreciate their victimization.

I find this suggested strategy as not only novel, but also dangerous. If this summarizes the argument correctly, I don't question the motivation; I'm sure that only the best interests of these students are what is on Levinson's mind. But the notion of setting out our mutual history by drawing up tailor made narratives that are meant to highlight those incidents of injustice in lieu of an overall narrative that visits these same developments is unnecessarily divisive and counter to promoting an appreciation of our compacted unity. Yes; cover these instances of injustice in our history courses but among the cases of rectifying injustice and the accompanying courage and sacrifice that many Americans endured. Cover them in the context of our overall history and highlight those cases of righting the wrongs as well and understand that they originate from all the varied groups that make up our nation.

Let me offer another approach. The injustices that occurred in the US – and in some cases continue to occur – are not unique to our nation. I am in no way diminishing the hideousness of their occurrences here or in any other place. For example, I have heard the argument that our form of slavery was one of the more, if not the most, egregious example in all of history. Our slavery continuously degraded its victims; it regularly split families; it administered brutal physical punishment, sometimes gratuitously so, and set the stage for generations of African-Americans dealing with the legacy of its deleterious effects. It was cruel, unusual, at times fatal, and long lasting. Any responsible rendering of our past must convey these facts. But it also must convey the heroism of those who sacrificed a great deal, even their lives, to bring this institution and other injustices to an end. Some of these heroes were African-American; some were not. But all of this needs to be put within the context that any of these distasteful activities are examples of human behavior motivated by human aims and goals and that all of this is the product of culture, past experiences, and physiological “wiring” of those involved. Our sense of justice and the actions of some to promote it is not the product of natural tendencies.

Actually, a lot of it is counter-intuitive. It is more a product of well thought out thinking and reflection to combat tribal biases – that I feel are inherent in our physiological make-up – and bolstered by traditional customs. Our national compact – the US Constitution – is the product of reflection over what had been learned from the experiences of past societies. It laid the theoretical foundation that we have had through our history. It is a plan of governance based on our cherished beliefs wrenched from the lessons of immoral practices. Our history is one of striving to fulfill that agreement's promise. This is mutual; it is holistic of all of our experience. It is not the product of “counter narratives.” Let us be true to this foundation and not succumb to the temptations of going down the path of separate languages and stories that might offer short term and limited advantages in summoning divisive motivations. Hopefully, I am overstating Levinson's argument, but given my experience with critical theory and its adherents, I fear that I am not.

1Marri, A. R. (2013-14). No child left behind by Meira Levinson. Political Science Quarterly, Book Review section, 128 (4), pp. 776-777.