A Second Chance for Policy Makers

Abstract

WHEN STUDENTS fail and get discouraged, they often get a chance in alternative schools or programs that help them take stock and find ways to do things better. It's about time to give politicians and policy makers a second chance, too. With inadequate information and skills, the policy makers are about to start trekking over even less solid ground with regard to assessment and accountability than they have traversed in the last few years. If students had made as many mistakes or wild guesses, they would already be on the at-risk list. Yet, just as you would say to a teenager, it's never too late to admit mistakes and try to correct them. That advice for policy makers is coming from many well-informed sources. Some of the concerns of these experts parallel those of parents and teachers, who may not know much about policy making but certainly feel that their values are being dismissed. When so many knowledgeable people -- from researchers to classroom teachers -- feel that something is not right with the policies adopted, then the policy makers ought to take notice and do some reflection. In a paper on transforming the American high school, for example, Michael Cohen, one of the architects of the standards and assessment movement, calls for midcourse corrections in state standards and graduation requirements. Cohen advised then-Gov. Bill Clinton at the first Education Summit, when, as president of the National Governors' Association, the future U.S. President hammered out a statement on standards and national goals. Cohen continued as an advisor to the White House and as assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education. Now a senior fellow at the Aspen Institute, Cohen argues that standards ought to promote high-quality teaching and learning, rather than stifle challenging and engaging instruction. And they also ought to encourage diversity and innovation. One clue to the preponderance of wrong choices made by many states was their reliance on separate disciplines to set the standards. These standards were then compiled into sets of standards with little attention paid to aligning them with is most essential for success in college or the workplace. States need to decide what is truly essential for all students to learn, Cohen says, while insisting that the standards need to be rigorous. It follows that assessment systems would be aligned to these essentials, opening up wider opportunities to use richer kinds of assessments, such as portfolios and performance tasks. For more than a year, researchers at the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) reviewed years of studies, experience from providing technical assistance to states and districts, and much public commentary to come up with standards for accountability systems. It worked out the new standards in conjunction with the Education Commission of the States and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. While it would have been helpful to have had the standards earlier, they do come at an opportune time. All states are now reviewing their accountability systems in light of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. The section on testing standards advises states to follow the recent revision of Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, developed by several national groups. …