Transparent Reporting of Education Results
Since I entered the race for State Superintendent, I have constantly argued that we need to provide open, transparent reporting of education results. Recent reports reaffirm the need for this basic reform.
The results of Oklahoma’s end of instruction tests in each school district show proficiency rates continue to lag in many districts. The real challenge, however, is for parents to decipher the true meaning of their child’s scores on Oklahoma’s end of instruction tests.
The Tulsa World noted on Aug. 26 that just a few years ago fourth-graders were considered “proficient” in math if they correctly answered just 44 percent of the questions on the state test. Had a child made that score on any other test taken in a regular math class, it would have been considered an F, and a low F at that. But when the same student made a 44 on the state math test, suddenly the child was … “proficient.”
To be declared proficient today, the Tulsa World reported a fourth-grade student must now correctly answer 64 percent of math questions. Again, that’s a score that would be considered a D (at best) on most regular tests given in the classroom. While the report by the Tulsa World is not entirely accurate, the point is that student testing is difficult to design, confusing to interpret and leaves everyone scratching their heads. We are all left wondering; what does the student actually know?
I think most parents would be shocked to learn a child could be considered proficient when he or she makes low grades on state tests, but it is difficult for parents to learn what that “proficient” score really means. Making the task even more difficult for parents is the fact that different state tests have different “cut scores” (essentially, the passing score for the test). In 2009, for example, a fourth grader had to get a 64 on the math test to be considered proficient, but a 74 on the reading test.
In short, the term “proficient” includes children who miss many test questions, and each test is graded using a different scale. On most tests questions are “weighted” for difficulty so a student will get more credit for correctly answering one question versus another. Sound confusing? It is both confusing and frustrating. It is a system that obscures accurate reporting of student progress and leaves parents in the dark.
We can do better.
I believe we must reform our testing system to provide consistent, easily understood reporting of test results. Parents should not have to read footnotes to determine if a child is truly “proficient” or in need of additional study.
Simplified, straight-forward reporting of student results is essentially to notify parents that a child is struggling academically, and it will create greater incentive to address problems early. Today, too often, children (and their parents) don’t learn of their true educational needs until the child has entered college or the workforce where the school of hard knocks provides a rude awakening.
As State Superintendent, I will work to provide parents as much information as possible about their child’s academic progress and the standing of local schools. For example, the state of Florida actually gives each school a letter grade based in part on student performance. Those grades – A, B, C, D, and F – are universally understood and the criteria for those grades are also widely disseminated. Similar reforms would allow Oklahoma parents to easily determine how their children are performing academically and how their local schools measure up. If we truly want to provide students the best education possible, a free flow of accurate information is crucial to improving performance.
