South Dakota Testing 21st Century Skills

Busy time of year for me... only day not at an inservice for this week and next.

THE Journal reports on South Dakota mandating statewide testing in 21st century skills, becoming the first state to explicitly do so. They are using the assessment created by Learning.com, which is specifically aligned with the NETS standards.

Some quick thoughts:

• In general, I applaud the move. In the words of Tony Wagner, what gets tested gets taught. In Iowa, while we will push the concept of 21st century skills in the rollout of the Iowa Core, unless there is a test, it will remain a secondary concept to specific skills on the ITBS.
• The fact that "21st century skills = NETS standards" will raise some eyebrows. It's to say that technology literacy is the only literacy in 21cs. Financial literacy, civic literacy, employability skills, health literacy...? But, if you dig deeper into the NETS standards, you find there is some general overlap with other areas. At the very least, you have to start somewhere in assessment, and the NETS standards looks the best place to start of any.
• The test is a coupling of multiple choice and performance based tasks. Not the ideal, but impressive given the logistical challenges that any performance-based tasks provide. I am curious to see how "communication and collaboration" is assessed.
  
• The test does have problems assessing one of the standards. From THE Journal:

  A sixth category, Creativity and Innovation, is also included in the assessment, although this area is not a "skill" per se, and there has been some controversy within the education community over how the category might be standardized and assessed.

I would counter that "creativity and innovation" is most definitely a skill, one that some people are more gifted than others, but a skill that can be developed nevertheless. Gifted education researchers have used tools to measure creativity before, usually along the lines of finding the number of different solutions to a task, the number of original solutions to a task, and then a subjective valuing of the originality of the solutions.

Iowa should do the same as South Dakota, but should look for a different assessment product, one that gathers significant data about creativity.

Wiggins: "Testing & Whining"

You wouldn't expect Grant Wiggins to have anything positive to say about standardized testing. After all, Wiggins (of Understanding by Design fame) has been the champion of authentic assessment for decades, commonly pointing out the inefficiencies of multiple choice. Imagine my surprise when I read this from his Testing & Whining post:

What do you learn from looking at all these tests? Two utterly counter-intuitive facts. 1) The bulk of the test questions are not factoids but perfectly reasonable questions that only someone who had learned with understanding could answer correctly. (The exception, not surprisingly, is History). 2) The hardest questions are the questions that require understanding - transfer of prior learning. This is especially true in math and reading. The hardest questions in Florida on the reading test involved identifying main idea or author purpose.

I'm not sure I fully agree with the statement above. The questions I see on the ITBS indeed are not factoids, but they also are not tied to a curriculum. They are very heavy in inferential thinking (even in the "history" section), and it's a leap to say "only someone who had learned with understanding could answer correctly". Learned what? Last I checked, the main premise around the Iowa Core and every school's curriculum was a whole lot more than inferential thinking.

But there is an important thought in what he says. Many opponents of standardized testing argue it is the lowest level of thinking required. This isn't true... it actually requires more cognition in the "comprehension" and "application" levels than in the "knowledge" level. And what is more important, this is in stark contrast to locally-made (i.e. teacher-created) tests:

Most local assessment, ironically, is of poorer quality - mostly simple factoids and plug and chug skills being sought. Few people disagree with this claim in workshops. Indeed, they typically wince and nod in agreement.

I can't agree more. Here's the true danger in our current assessment in Iowa schools: too many unit tests serving as all-knowing assessments that look for a student's memorization of the bold-face vocabulary words and "things to remember for the test" from the day's-before review session.

This is a fair warning for us not to make a straw man out of standardized testing. We need standardized testing to be able to know how students are mastering the curriculum. We need their technical accuracy and reliability, and yes, we need accountability. It just should be in the form of authentic measurements, not multiple choice.

Related posts on authentic assessments:
Call for Action: Authentic Standardized Assessment
Program Evaluation of 1:1 Environments
NAEP Assessment for Technology?
Tony Wagner in the Des Moines Register

Authentic Audiences for Visual Arts

One of the most unfair struggles I see in education is the struggle that visual arts teachers have to show relevance of their curriculum. Not that they should have a struggle, mind you; both creativity and visual literacy are essential skills for today's learner, and its hard to find a subject area that better directs both. But as the art teachers I've known in past districts will attest, visual art is marginalized for not being "core content", seen as a luxury, and one of the easiest targets for program cuts in poor budgets.

Unfortunately, I don't see the Iowa Core helping this in any way. Progressive schools should see that "viewing" is now one of the 5 literacies, and that the visual arts classroom is the perfect place to delve deep into that content. Moreover, visual arts teachers should be schoolwide leaders at how to infuse creativity across the curriculum, and how to ensure that the school graduates creative students.

Visual arts, I feel has it even harder than even drama, vocal music, or band music. Those three, while still facing the "why do students need that?" criticism, have the advantage of concerts and plays. Productions not only make fierce advocates from arts supporters, but also a general positive feeling from an otherwise disinterested community member. At Grinnell, we had many in the community who would oppose any cuts whatsoever to music and drama because they enjoyed tremendously the musical and the spring concerts.

It's this notion of an authentic audience that is tremendously essential for the arts, and visual arts teachers have learned this as well. Schools are getting better (and more prominent) display cases. Teachers are using websites such as Flickr or Artsonia to give their students a bigger audience. They are connecting with local artists, community colleges, the chamber of commerce, any community group they can to try to get their students' work displayed.

And note to principals, your art teachers are good at this. Real good. An example of an art teacher I knew, who was working with her students on graphical design. The class was creating visual brochures, using both Photoshop as well as (at the time) Microsoft Word (they have since upgraded to InDesign). And, she was talented at getting the students to learn the finer details of graphical design.

Then came the hubbub of the Rigor/Relevance quadrant, and not just the "higher-order thinking" axis, but also the relevance axis, which moves from knowledge of just "art for art sake" to "how art applies in math and science" to "how can I use my art skills to handle this task I've never seen before".
The teacher was inspired; this gave her a new look on her assignment. She visited with the local chamber of commerce, who connected her with several small businesses in town that had advertising "divisions" (or a person who spent some time out of their day on this). Then, she contacted those businesses, who in return, provided a one-page summary of a brochure that they would like to see... no images or specifics like "needs to have a blue banner", but rather interpretive, like "needs to show we're part of the community", or "that we're trustworthy".

The students then selected which tasks they would work on, and the teacher worked with the student to do their best, incorporating the elements of art they had discussed prior, and helping them think meta-cognitively about how they would complete this task.

What was best, of course, was that the businesses came in and gave the students feedback on what they liked about their work. These were authentic audiences that students were working with. They took much more care and pride in their work. And when one business was so impressed that they paid the student $500 to use that brochure with the logo the student developed, you can imagine the students' attitude towards their own art skills. They were very earnest in wanting to develop them, immediately.

That's not to say that all visual arts teachers are embracing authentic audiences in this way, but it has my experience that that group of teachers as a whole is ahead of the curve. Maybe because they have to, or maybe because of professional push. But the lesson is that this type of gathering authentic audiences for students doesn't have to stop at the arts classroom door. It can go to the math classroom as well. And principals would be wise to tap into the expertise of arts teachers in this regard.

Tony Wagner in the Des Moines Register

Yesterday's Des Moines Register featured an interesting Q&A with Tony Wagner, co-director of the Change in Leadership Group at the Harvard School of Education. The piece focused on Wagner's book The Global Achievement Gap, and looked at some of his thoughts on key issues revolving around the Iowa Core Curriculum.

A quick synopsis of the book: Wagner like many others feel American schools are fundamentally set up wrong, not like they should be in the 21st century. He identifies what he refers to as '7 survival skills' that are the critical elements for student. Those are-

• Critical thinking/Problem solving
• Collaboration (and leading with influence)
• Adaptability and Agility
• Initiative and Entrepreneurship
• Effective Communication (both oral and written)
• Gathering and Analyzing Information
• Curiosity and Imagination

This list, of course, looks to identify the famous 21st century skills, and you'll see a lot of overlap with lists by Angela Maiers, Stephen Downes, and the Partnership for the 21st Century Skills. He also weighs in on the core-content vs. 21st century skills debate to say that content should be secondary. In the article, Wagner mentions:

We have been focused on state standards. The problem comes with the definition of standards. What we have done is create content standards. The thinking is if students master more content, they will be better prepared for college and careers. That is fallacy.

Mastering more content doesn't equate to more competency. The research is very clear that breadth of scitentific exposure in high school does not prepare students for college. Only when you go into content in some depth do you begin to understand conceptually what science is.

What's interesting is Wagner doesn't necessarily see this to be in conflict with the Iowa Core, which identifies a core content. Partly, this is because the Iowa Core includes "21st century skills" as one of its subsets (along math, literacy, science, and social studies). But also because of the focus on instruction, not just content, that the Iowa Core has, which will get students to those 7 survival skills.

The most salient point from the article in my opinion is that we need assessments which measure those 7 items. Wagner says it thusly, "What gets tested gets taught". And since we test on lower-level comprehension and inferential type questions, that's what we end up teaching in class.

Wagner combats the notion that these skills are too fuzzy to assess. He points to the PISA and the Collegiate Learning Assessment as two assessments that do this. In this, he echoes what other local advocates for 21st century teaching and learning have mentioned, including Scott McLeod.

The article is definitely worth a read if you haven't checked it out already. In addition to discussing the necessity of 21st century skills over core content, Wagner has some discussion-starting thoughts on teacher-preparation programs, teacher evaluation, teacher salaries, and the Obama administration.

Wagner will be coming to Iowa to speak at the Polk County Convention Complex on September 16, sponsored by School Administrators of Iowa.

Assessment for Learning and Student Information Systems

Interesting question that was discussed in an Iowa Core conversation.

How will our emphasis on student information systems in our school districts mesh with Assessment for Learning (1 of the 5 characteristics of effective instruction identified in the Core)?

To break that down a bit, when we moved to online accessible grades through our student information system (JMC) five years ago, it was the greatest thing for parents. Literally. The community survey, the parental committee at the site visit, SIAC, every chance for community input, they loved being able to access grades online.

Some took it to extremes of course, taking away their child's privileges for the weekend on the basis of what the Friday's grades were. And of course, each teacher was expected to turn in two grades a week because of this feedback. But generally, the teachers felt it was a good thing, since parents were getting on their kids' case early and often. And if the teacher and the parent is happy, the principal is ecstatic.

Problem is, grading is counter-productive in assessment for learning. There are stages to the process that should never be graded, such as rough drafts or trial runs on experiments. Students are encouraged to give critical self- and peer-feedback to improve learning. That's not going to happen if there is a grade hanging over it. The work of Popham, Heritage, and Wiliam all suggest that grading should be de-emphasized for more standards-based reporting.

This becomes an interesting quandary for schools to navigate.

Better Data Needed

Our neighbors to the north were in the news, with some harsh (but very thought-provoking) criticism of NCLB. From Minnesota 2020:

Last fall, the prestigious publication Education Week hosted an on-line chat about the federal No Child Left Behind law. One of the panelists was David Figlio, a professor at Northwestern University and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ellen Solek of East Haddam, Conn., asked if Figlio was aware “of any current research that has, or is being conducted that determines correlation (if any) between K-12 student test scores, accountability, and future success in the workplace?”

This is a magnificent question because it goes to the heart of NCLB and how it relates to every Minnesotan. The question is simple: What difference does NCLB make?

Figlio doesn’t really have an answer. First, he says this: “It’s too early to know about the effects of accountability on workplace success.” Then he says “there have been a number of studies that have linked K-12 test scores to labor market outcomes as adults,” but then adds “these papers use data that are decades old, however.”

Minnesota 2020 is asking the right question... what difference does NCLB make? Sure, it gives you objective data to draw conclusions from, but are they the data we need? In simple words, don't we need authentic standardized assessment?

Which brings me back to the comment Shawne Berrian left on a post of mine several weeks ago.

Here is the research we need to conduct. Instead of debating about what will bring about success, let's go find successful people. Use the basis of peer nominations about who is the best in your profession. And choose all professions... mechanics, auctioneers, librarians, soldiers, not just doctors and engineers. Then, choose people who aren't successful in those professions.

Then test them. Give them standardized content-specific tests, such as the Iowa Test of Educational Development. Then give them a standardized assessment which measures the 21st century skills (PISA). And, look at the correlation.

This is what Wiggins and McTighe did. And, they found what made the difference were the 21st century skills, not the content skills.

This is a very interesting point. We always define best practice based on what elicits improvements in student achievement scores, but what if this has stunted other practices that "didn't bring about ITED gains" that would actually help out students be successful? There is a movement towards starting with the end goal in education and designing backwards... maybe we didn't go far enough to start the design process.

(h/t to Education Futures for the link)

NAEP assessment for technology?

NAEP, which is dubbed the "nation's report card", is the standardized test that is used in the "America is lagging behind the rest of the world" comparisons. According to Ed Week, they are preparing a tech literacy assessment for 2012:

On March 6, governing board member Alan Friedman, a science and museum consultant from New York who is working on the tech literacy test for NAGB, talked about how the board is going about that task. A prime challenge is developing a definition that will stand the test of time, Friedman said, so that the test is not outdated within a few years after it's been unveiled.

The significance for us, of course, is that we need to do the same to assess the 21st century skills of the Iowa Core. Friedman's words are true; we can't redo the test every year to meet the realities of changing technology.

What concerns me is that, with NAEP entering this territory, other publishers including Riverside could follow. And, we cannot settle for standardized bubble tests, despite the trend.

Interesting note:

Despite the name of the test, Friedman made it clear that goal of the NAEP tech literacy exam is not simply to test students' familiarity with computer products or features, or digital games. The goal is to evaluate their understanding of "interconnections among technologies," with technologies including processes from the designed world, he said. This could include not only computers but technology's relationship to processes such as metallurgy (in the manufacture of buildings, or individual products) or woven textile technology (used to make clothes and fabrics). Of course, computer technology is essential to many manufacturing processes today, noted Friedman, who was joined by Raizen in his presentation. But the point is that students need to have a broader grasp of technology that takes them beyond their computer keyboard, if they're to understand complex scientific issue today.

How does your school do with metallurgy/textile curriculum? Will headlines scream United States ranks even lower in technology compared to the rest of the world?

You choose the tool

I had a good conversation with a curriculum director at Heartland's recent Curriculum Network meeting. We discussed the concept of classroom integration, and how there are several depths to this. We got talking about "unconnected integration"; that is, integration done more for the tool's sake than learning's sake.

The thought that came out of this discussion is that there is also "dictated integration". This, like unconnected integration, exists at different intensities in the integration spectrum. In her district, what she traditionally saw was teachers telling students "We are going to do a project where we will learn 'X' and 'Y', and to do so, we are going to use a wiki" (or power point, or podcast, or webquest, etc).

The pedagogical question: Is dictated integration bad, much like unconnected integration is?

We discussed a long time, and though her gut told her it was, we concluded that it wasn't necessarily a negative. Dictated integration is direct and it can focus the class on the 'X' and 'Y' instead of the tool. And, it usually brings all the positives of integration in general... it is engaging and interactive and... you can run down your list.

But dictated integration shouldn't be your end outcome. And unfortunately, this is where many of our schools don't succeed.

EVEN THE BEST DON'T SUCCEED

At Howard-Winneshiek, where we were a regional model of effective integration, we made what I believe to be a curricular design mistake with our 8th grade technology assessment. And this comes despite my general feeling that we did an excellent job overall. We were very thorough with our assessment process, identifying the skill and concept sequence starting in Pre-Kindergarten, and utilizing assessments at each grade (unlike many other schools that only assessed technology proficiency at the 8th grade level, none before and none after).

What's more, we eschewed poor assessments... no multiple choice, or even worse, using the "grade achieved in the 8th grade computer class" model. We assessed using process rubrics to deep integration units in all four major content areas. This means we looked for the same technology skills in different units, which is critical to build reliability in authentic assessments.

The problem is, we always picked the tool. "We are going to represent our science lab data using Excel" or "We are going to demonstrate our findings on the American Expansion period using power point." We never said, "Here is your task... you need to determine the tool."

Which of course, while not being all of what you seek when you teach with technology, is extremely crucial. It represents the critical thinking, process analysis, and authentic ability needed in life. In this age of a myriad of technology, students ability to determine the tool to solve their problem will be directly related to their level of success. It is aligned to a host of ISTE standards (3c, 4a, and 6b explicitly).

As we look to assess the Iowa Core's implementation of effective teaching, and we discuss the inadequacies of the ITEDs to measure 21st century teaching and learning, we will create our own authentic assessments. We must keep in mind that to fully analyze how well students know what we want them to, we have to make sure our assessments avoid dictated integration. They must demand students to find their own technological solutions to the problems they face.

Program Evaluation, part 2

I walk a fine line when talking about program evaluation, for while I am not a proponent of using traditional standardized tests (ITBS) for seeing if your program works, I am equally adverse to those who say "Heck with data altogether". Data are crucial.

David Warlick, who I have a lot of respect for, showed his apprehension for data when he touched upon this topic in his recent blog post:

Now I get data. I understand its value under some circumstances. Yet when I hear people exulting data collection as a principle way of educating children, I feel that we are being drawn away from the things that I truly value in teaching — in being a teacher. It’s because I am, admittedly, a romantic when it comes to education. It’s about relationships, environment, and activity. I know that disaggregated data can help, but there’s something about the scale that bothers me.

What draws me to his thoughts is that, in many ways, I am the same. As a teacher, I was romantic when it came to instructional time. I knew when we just had a great learning moment, or when students suddenly saw the bigger picture. And as a principal, I knew that no matter what we did in professional development, certain teachers were going to be masterful in the classroom while others would not. There is an art to teaching that, unfortunately, I don't think you can learn. Some people just are great teachers.

But as I have learned, there is a science to teaching as well, parts that can be analyzed and systematically improved. If someone were to ask me when I was a teaching, "How do you know this constructivist-style classroom is working?" I would have said "You have to see what I have seen", the romantic that I am.

That answer is not acceptable. The answer has to be "I did it this way, and these were the results. Then I did it this way, and these were the results. And, being the second was better, I continued that practice." And, data are needed.

As a teacher, this was tough for me to swallow. Like most teachers, I took a prideful ownership of what I taught. To say it could be improved is almost a personal attack. This is the hurdle that has to be overcome.

Program Evaluation of 1:1 Environments

More food for thought from the day at Newell-Fonda...

At a couple different times during the day, one member asked a good question: what is the impact of the 1:1 on student achievement. The Newell-Fonda district, of course can't answer that quantitatively, being that they just started implementation at the beginning of the year. And while teachers indicated they saw improvement in student's performance in their own courses, critics could counter by arguing that's subjective data from a partial source.

Leaving Newell, I had a conversation with Steve Linduska, a colleague of mine at Heartland. One of the things we discussed is the interesting dynamic of a 1:1. You have an empassioned district (and in this case, partnering with an empassioned vendor, Apple). And at this district, the superintendent is also the high school principal, and probably has half a dozen other hats, like curriculum, public relations, school finance, and running the scoreboard at athletic events. Simply put, you don't have someone who can take an objective look at whether it is working, because they are too involved.

But as Steve pointed out, that's just half the dynamic. The other half is how this would be measured, which in Iowa, has been resoundedly via ITEDs. But, the benefits of a 1:1 do not appear solely (or I'd suggest even primarily) in ITEDs. What about visual literacy? Creativity? Synthesization? Presentational skills? Adaptability and problem solving? Not bubble friendly.

Mark Pullen put this well:

I think one of the biggest unspoken messages that No Child Left Behind has sent to teachers and students across the country is this: If something can’t be easily benchmarked, it isn’t worth teaching or learning.

The trouble is that most of the things that really matter in education (and life) aren’t benchmarkable.

Jeff Dicks, the Newell Superintendent, hit on that as well, as he replied that a junior in his school had suddenly taken a career interest in information technology, which doesn't appear in a bubble sheet.

Yet, it is essential that we do evaluate our programs to know if they are working, and do so objectively, authentically. I'd edit Pullen's last statement to say "The trouble is most of the things that really matter in education aren't easily benchmarkable". They still must be measured. What are assessments we can create that measure this reliably? This is more than just Newell-Fonda's task, it is Iowa's (and the nation's).

New Technology High Schools

For those who are involved with their district's Iowa Core leadership teams, you are familiar with the New Technology High Schools, if not by name, then by sight. They are the high schools that are featured in the video clips that illustrate the pedagogy favored in the Iowa Core. Those who attended the High School Summit not only saw several clips during the 21st Century Skills session, but also heard first-hand accounts from Judy Jeffrey, as she visited a school in Texas that made an impact on her.

The schools may have several advantages that districts in Iowa can't afford. They have access to state-of-the-art technology, they maintain small class sizes, and they have the ability to refuse registration. Talk to your local principal if you think these are small details.

Still, the teaching that exists in the video clips is different than teaching in Iowa. A lot different. And it is easy to see why there is buzz amongst progressives and change agents in Iowa, myself included. You can see learning happen, you can see students wanting to be there and learning in an authentic environment.

On one of the handouts from Napa New Technology High School's website, they structure this difference in 5 areas:

SMALL LEARNING COMMUNITY vs. LARGE FACTORY MODEL
By keeping class sizes small, the school not only can personalize education so much easier, but they can make cross-curricular integration not only the rule instead of the exception, but invisible as well. There is no surprise to find out that you will be working on a project with the math teacher and English teacher together.

Many of our schools are relegated to the factory model, somewhat because of limited resources, but probably more so out of tradition. Curriculum is standardized and tracked.

PERSONALIZED ENVIRONMENT vs. ORDER THROUGH DISCIPLINE
No bells or hall passes at the New Technology High Schools. As a principal, I cannot say how much fruitless time I spent hunting down students because they were in the hallways, not fitting in to our model of how they should regulate themselves (no urinating unless it is in this 2-minute window). The key concept here is that the New Technology High School empowers the student to learn self-management.

AUTHENTIC LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT vs. MEMORIZATION OF FACTS
Surprise! I like this too.

These schools have made the jump away from "compartmentalized, unrelated, short-term experiences". And scantrons.

LEADERSHIP EMPOWERMENT vs. TEACHER LED LESSONS
Speaking about empowerment, through the use of project-based learning, the New Technology High Schools put the students in charge of their learning. But, they do it well. I've seen several projects in our schools which have become exercises in tri-fold poster displays... these do not develop any worthwhile long-lasting skill, let alone leadership. The NHTS schools have much more thoroughly crafted projects for students to tackle.

Just a quick example. In one of the videos, students are creating presentations that they will share with the community, and will face the working world's scrutiny. That in itself is an authentic project for an authentic audience. But what's more, students were not given a lesson on how to properly make footnotes and citations, even though they were expected to do so. A student had to request a "work session" where they would ask questions of the instructor and the instructor would answer them. This work session was optional... about half the class attended the one I viewed. Students who already knew the material didn't have to attend (and be bored from pointless review).

Who determines what the student needs to know but doesn't know? The student. That's empowerment.

COLLABORATION, COMMUNICATION and INTEGRATION vs. REMEDIATION and INSTRUCTION
You might be wondering where the "technology" comes into their name. Key for them is a 1:1 setup, giving "access to workplace tools". But, it isn't the tools themselves. It is the fact that the tools give them the ability to do meaningful learning. Collaborative learning. Learning that gets away from some simple "web research, typing reports, and solving basic math equations", which you might see considered as "integration" in other schools.

I do see the smaller schools as important to the flexibility needed for this type of school to flourish. Ironically, with our current budget situation, we'll have fresh calls for more consolidations. Perhaps we need to look at schools within school models to make these smaller learning communities.

Workplace mantra

A poster in the cubicle next to mine, showcasing a Heartland motto:













Simple, yet makes the point about the need for quality assessment.

Call For Action: Authentic Standardized Assessment

We need better standardized assessments. Which is truly an indictment on two things. As many would quickly assume, this is an indictment on the ITBS and ITEDs. But it is equally an indictment on the areas those tests don't cover, which are then covered by inadequate locally-made exams (if at all). Neither are appropriate.

In Iowa, we (mainly) measure our proficiency with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Iowa Test of Educational Development, or ITBS and ITEDs. Published by Riverside at the University of Iowa, they have long been used as a norm-referenced test to measure student achievement in the classroom. With the advent of No Child Left Behind, the ITEDs/ITBS were suddenly used as the official achievement tests for accountability purposes. If students did not perform well on the tests, schools now faced consequences.

While there are tests in social studies, reading materials, and language, more and more schools are not taking those tests, as only math, reading, and science are required. Many outspoken critics of NCLB have mentioned that testing becomes a shell game, as schools teach to the test (or more linguistically correct, teach the test), and marginalize other curriculum for the sake of proficiency. More importantly in my estimation, they marginalize other students. Iowa requires being at the 41st percentile to be considered proficient, and a school needs a large proportion of its students to be proficient (79.3% in 11th grade, for example). From a statistical point of view, the students who are most likely to make a difference for a school are those students who are between the 20th-50th percentile. Many districts are implementing programs like Second Chance Reading, or Remedial Math to help those students, while not addressing the needs of the solidly proficient, let alone those who are in the top 10 or bottom 10 percentile. This is the equivalent to Obama and McCain putting all their money and resources into Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Virginia, because the other states don't matter.

In James Popham's The Truth About Testing, he points out several problems with using tests like the ITBS/ITEDs as measures for accountability. They are a snapshot in time and could easily be thrown off by external factors (like whether the student eat breakfast that day). By being a normed-reference test, they require testing elements that separate students for validity, or in other words, questions need to have students miss. While NCLB wants all students to get the question right, Riverside would consider the questions awful if everyone got them right. (The test has not been re-normed since being used for accountability, by the way.) Moreover, tests have large amounts of bias for intelligence and social-economic status that cannot be distilled. While Popham says standardized data are useful, they just are not reliable for accountability.

In brief, I not only agree with Popham, I could also add several other reasons why they are not valuable. But that's not the subject of my post. I strongly feel schools should be accountable, and that schools should use standardized tests. They just need to be authentic ones.

There isn't a more un-authentic test than a multiple choice test. When was the last time you took one? Seriously? High school? What job requires proficiency via multiple choice tests?

We show our proficiency in the world through our performance. Can you compose an essay that illustrates the reasons why I should be for a particular argument? Can you create a pamphlet that gives the reader instructions on how to complete the task? Can you draw a conclusion through a set of laboratory experiments? Can you grow strawberries in your agriculture class? Multiple choice, at best, is a tool for formative assessment, and is primarily overused by teachers because it is wildly convenient.

And, that's why we use multiple choice tests for accountability... because they are convenient. A scantron can score them. To those who would say convenience has to be considered from a financial standpoint, I could not object more. Flat out, that convenience hurts kids.

So I propose a call for action. Let's establish quality authentic assessments for all our schools. To do this, we must have standards that we deem are essential for the world. The Iowa Core Curriculum, I feel, will do that for us. But unless we then have quality authentic assessments, how will we know how students are performing?

Let's look at an example. When I say a student "must be able to use technology to solve a variety of problems" as my educational standard, how do I know students are successful at this? The two options that are currently out there are inadequate. An ITED-esque standardized test won't tell us. But moreover, a locally-made criterion-test (aka "a teacher test") won't tell us either. We have no way knowing how well a school's instruction compares to other schools with locally made tests.

Right now, technology literacy, as defined by the federal government, must be measured in 8th grade. And it is a joke. I've seen quite a few school districts who use a random assignment or a class grade as the proficiency exam. These districts have no way of being able to tell me "Yes, Johnny has met the standards for technology and is ready for the world". We need a performance-based set of examinations that address the technology standards. Every technology teacher in the state will be aware of them, and therefore will help their students prepare for those. It creates the most apples-for-apples comparison out there. And, technology is not the only field. Writing, financial literacy, civics, scientific thinking, physical education, and the fine arts all need this as well. Until then, we continue to mis-prepare our students for the world.