Standards-Based Reform

"Tests Don't Teach Children, Teachers Do"
Making Standards Work

Throughout America people are working to reform the schools through standards, testing, and accountability. Virtually all of the states have set new high standards of academic content and student performance. Most of the states have established testing programs to measure progress toward meeting the standards, and the President is seeking legislation requiring that students in grades three through eight be tested annually in reading and mathematics. Standardized test scores have become the chief method by which teachers, principals, and other school officials are held accountable for the results of their work.

We endorse the movement to set high standards and hold schools accountable for meeting them. Well-drafted standards make clear what teachers should teach and what students should learn. They focus attention on the substance and effectiveness of teaching and learning. They can promote quality by expecting students, especially those who are struggling academically, to raise their level of achievement. And they promote equity by setting the same standards for all students in a given state, thus eliminating invidious distinctions among students of various socioeconomic backgrounds.

The promise of the standards movement is so great that we must do all we can to ensure its success. To do so, we must begin by understanding that standards and testing alone are not enough. They are both needed, but other conditions must be present as well. If you want to help all your trees grow well, you must do more than specify the height you want and measure their annual growth. You must attend to the nutrients in the soil, the annual rainfall, and the space available for spreading roots and branches. (Sometimes you must also stand back and simply let them grow.) Similarly, both educational research and practical experience tell us that you cannot educate students well simply by specifying what you want them to learn and testing them on the results. You must provide the conditions that make effective teaching and learning possible.

There is nothing mysterious about these conditions. They are familiar to us all. In order to receive a sound, basic education students need qualified teachers who know the content of the subjects they teach as well as how to teach the diverse students in their classes. They need an appropriate curriculum aligned with the standards and assessments. They need schools that have high expectations for all students and classes small enough to provide individual attention. They need up-to-date textbooks, computer software, and other learning materials. They need a clean, safe, and orderly environment. They need positive collaboration among educators, parents, and others in the community. And they need help with the problems that can impede learning, be they physical, emotional, social, or linguistic.

Unfortunately, many students in our society do not enjoy such conditions. They tend to be poor children living in concentrations of poverty. Many are of "minority" status, or do not speak English as a native language. Too often, their schools are crowded and ill-equipped, and their teachers are less well prepared. Such children have the most to gain and the most to lose from the standards movement. If we do things right - if we supply the necessary conditions and resources - the standards will help to lift their achievement and increase their chances of a happy and productive life. But if we fail to supply these conditions and resources, these students will fail the tests - and the likelihood is that we will blame the students and not ourselves.

There are other things that we must do if the standards movement is to succeed. The standards themselves must be specific enough to provide useful guidance, but flexible enough to leave room for local initiative. We want the same high goals and high levels of performance for all, but we also know that there is no one best way to teach children and assess their progress. The state should not control the entire curriculum. Schools and school districts should be free to set important goals of their own and measure progress towards them. Teachers must be free to adapt their teaching to the needs and backgrounds of the children with whom they work. Furthermore, in a technologically sophisticated information age, the standards must be oriented to new ways of accessing knowledge and solving problems. Now that information of all kinds is readily available, our job is to teach students to raise useful questions, find meaningful patterns, discover new connections. Teaching them the traditional curriculum of decades past is no longer enough.

The tests, too, should be designed and used appropriately. The tests should be aligned with the standards expected and the curriculum taught. They should tell us how well a student is doing according to a fixed standard, as well as how the student compares with other students. Tests should challenge students to apply knowledge, not just repeat facts. And not all good tests are standardized tests. High achieving nations teach in-depth content and measure progress by grades and course-work as well as standardized tests.

No significant decision about a student or a school should be made on the basis of a single test. Multiple tests, other forms of assessment, and teacher judgment should be employed. The amount of testing as a portion of the child's total schedule should be kept in proportion. And perhaps most of all, the overall purpose of testing should be to inform instruction and benefit the student. No student should be subject to high-stakes decisions such as graduation from high school if he or she has not had the teaching and the tools needed to learn the material. As the National Research Council concluded in 1999, "Tests should be used for high-stakes decisions…only after schools have implemented changes in teaching and curriculum that ensure that students have been taught the knowledge and skills on which they will be tested."

Then we must look beyond the standards and the tests to develop the capacity of teachers to help all children learn. As some one has said, "Tests don't teach children - teachers do." Getting all students to high standards of achievement is a daunting task, and teachers can't be expected to succeed unless they have high-quality preparation and on-going professional development on the job. No industry succeeds in today's market without effective training of its staff, and we should not embark upon our own ambitious venture without preparing the teaching force. We must find new ways to recruit, train, and support effective teachers and school leaders. Unless we do so, all other efforts will be in vain.

Finally, we must remember that not all the purposes of education are strictly academic. Obviously, we must emphasize the academic program and help all children achieve to high standards. But from colonial days America's schools have tried to make children good as well as smart, wise as well as knowledgeable. We want to prepare young people for productive, decent lives as citizens in our democracy. These traditional goals have significant implications for how we organize and run our schools. We should not - and we need not - lose sight of these goals as we pursue higher academic standards.

The standards movement holds out great promise for all of America's children. Let's do it right.

* * *

The forty-eight signatories to this letter were participants in the 60th annual Superintendents Work Conference held this summer at Teachers College, Columbia University. The group includes superintendents of schools from all parts of the country (including twenty-two states) and from school districts urban, suburban, and rural.

Patricia Banks, University Place, Washington
Tina Barboza, Bristol, Rhode Island
Beverlyann Barton, West Palm Beach, Florida
Paul Beresford-Hill, Bangkok, Thailand
Terry Brennan, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey
Monte Bridges, Burien, Washington
Leigh Byron, Holmdel, New Jersey
Jim Callewaert, Kennett, Missouri
Carol Choye, Scotch Plains, New Jersey
Linda Clautti, Dayton, Ohio
George Cunningham, Fryeburg, Maine
Steve Dal Porto, Lind, Washington
Jack Dale, Frederick County, Maryland
Dorothy Dallah, Willingboro, New Jersey
John Davis, Unalakleet, Alaska
Tom Elliott, North Greece, New York
Michael Graner, Putnam Connecticut
Paul Kelleher, Trinity College, Texas
Diane Kirk, McMurray, Pennsylvania
Ted Kozlik, Westfield, New Jersey
Steven Ladd, San Luis Obispo, California
Roger Lehnert, Ferndale, Washington
Bert L'Homme, Durham, North Carolina
William Liess, Clifton, New Jersey
Marya Levenson, Brandeis University, Massachusetts
Walter Mahler, Annandale, New Jersey
Gibran Majdalany, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York
Michael McGill, Scarsdale, New York
Ranier Melucci, Seaford, New York
Roger Miller, Hinsdale, Illinois
Brian Nichols, Marshall, Texas
Paula Papponi, Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico
Lisa Piehota, Netcong, New Jersey
Gerrita Postlewait, Conway, South Carolina
Mark Raivetz, Westmont, New Jersey
Barbara Ramsey, Homewood, Illinois
Diane Reed, Honeoye Falls, New York
Victor Rodriguez, Brooklyn, New York
Nora Scherzinger, Dexter, New Mexico
Marcia Schwartz, Liberty, New York
Kathleen Serafino, Nutley, New Jersey
Tom Sobol, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York
Sam Stewart, South Brunswick, New Jersey
Joel Thaut, East Wenatchee, Washington
Doris Walker, Lakewood, Washington
Fred Wall, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Linda Whitehead, Marysville, Washington
Daniel Zorn, Kalispell, Montana

August 30, 2001