Another look at state's testing standards / California's

[Ken <kpoppers@sbcglobal.net>]

Scroll to the bottom for helpful links...

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14246882p-15064640c.html

Scott Hill: Another look at state's testing standards

By Scott Hill -- Special to The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, April 23, 2006

Criticism from the education establishment is fast and furious about  
AB 2975 by Assembywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. While it is easy to  
employ platitudes to attack the bill - such as "it will dumb down our  
standards" - trite remarks mask the need for a serious discussion of  
California's expectations for its students and schools.
California has a standardized, grade-level competency test. With the  
federal No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002, each state  
sets its own proficiency standards, and incurs federal sanctions if  
the standards aren't met. Many other states use much lower standards  
than California's. AB 2975 would replace California's grade-level  
standards with evidence students are showing yearly competence to  
pass California's High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
	The question AB 2975 seeks to answer is: Where should California set  
the bar for its students as recognition of their preparedness for  
life beyond K-12, whether that includes additional schooling or work?  
The bill is scheduled for a hearing this week.
	In California, students who attain proficiency against our world- 
class standards are, by 12th grade, more than academically eligible  
for admission to the University of California or California State  
University. Imagine: The state's accountability system is predicated  
on 100 percent of our students reaching UC or CSU eligibility.  
Historically, one-third of our students attain that goal. Is this a  
reasonable expectation for all students? Are our institutions of  
higher education prepared to accept all these newly eligible students?
	In contrast, CAHSEE has a passing score, as critics of AB 2975  
rightly point out, with a lower expectation for students. The content  
for the exam is set at about eighth grade in math and 10th grade in  
language arts, and the passing score is in the 50 percent to 60  
percent range.
	Do we really want to have two distinct measures of performance,  
where CAHSEE represents the "floor" and proficiency on the state's  
standards test represents the "ceiling"? Perhaps. But maybe we can  
use AB 2975 to create a level of student performance and  
accountability that represents something in between and, in doing so,  
fix some structural flaws in our system.
	Why should we?
	California's performance expectations - measured by its standards  
and its performance levels - are higher than virtually any other  
state. Consequently, California routinely reports that somewhere  
between 55 percent and 65 percent of its schools meet the annual  
yearly progress expectations of No Child Left Behind. But Georgia,  
with lower standards, reports that more than 80 percent of its  
schools meet the expectations. The comparisons are of the apple and  
orange variety, but the consequences are quite real. AB 2975 should  
encourage discussions about calibrating and reporting our state's  
performance against others states more accurately.
	Consequences for failing to make proficiency levels can affect  
students and schools. They include diverting and directing funding to  
supplemental services, such as before-or after-school programs.  
"Failing" schools must provide additional transportation and  
professional development services. Fail long enough, and principals  
and teachers may be terminated or reassigned. The local school may  
become a charter school. The point is that California's proficiency  
standards result in more schools failing. Hancock is correct to ask  
education officials to revisit the validity of this policy.
	Most critically, research by the National Assessment Governing  
Board, Achieve and others demonstrates more and more understanding  
that the performance levels students need when emerging from the K-12  
system must reflect specific skills and knowledge to be successful in  
college and in specific employment sectors. That research should  
inform how and where we set our performance levels for both our state  
standards and CAHSEE. Our current method for setting those levels is  
unrelated to these real-world applications of the skills and  
knowledge students need.
	AB 2975 invites policymakers to engage in a heretofore absent  
discussion. While many fear that this bill would compel us to lower  
our expectations, there is an equal chance that a serious discussion  
could result in both raising the content and proficiency levels of  
the CAHSEE and changing California's grade-level standards to those  
linked to real world applications. This is a conversation worth having.

About the writer:

Scott Hill is vice president of School Innovations & Advocacy and co- 
founder of Dixon Montessori Charter School. He served as executive  
director of the California Academic Standards Commission and as chief  
deputy superintendent of public instruction. The views expressed are  
his own. Reach him at scotth@sia-us.com.

http://www.sia-us.com/companyinfo/bios.htm

To track click on this link:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
and type in 2975