|
New York Times,
June 15, 2005
Holdouts Against
Standard Tests Are Under Attack in New
York
By Michael
Winerip
Stephen M. Saland, chairman of the State Senate
Education Committee, is a conservative upstate Republican, and Steven
Sanders, chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, is a liberal New
York City Democrat. But when it comes to education, they have much in
common. Neither is a fan of the federal No Child Left Behind Law and its
extensive testing mandates. Both say that standardized tests are too
dominant in public schools today.
That has at times put the two education chairmen in conflict
with the state education commissioner, Richard P. Mills. During his 10-year
tenure, Dr. Mills has turned New
York into one of the most test-driven public
systems in the nation, requiring students to pass five state tests to
graduate.
For months now, the legislative leaders and the
commissioner have been locked in a little-noticed fight over the future of
28 small alternative public high schools, a fight that may well be the
final stand for opponents of standardized testing in New York.
Senator Saland and Assemblyman Sanders are doing their
best to protect these schools in New York City
(Urban Academy,
Manhattan International), Ithaca (Lehman
Alternative) and Rochester
(School Without Walls) and help them retain their distinctive educational
approach. Instead of the standard survey courses in global studies,
American history, biology and chemistry pegged to state tests, these
schools favor courses that go into more depth on narrower topics. At Urban Academy,
there are courses in Middle East
conflicts, world religions, post-Civil War Reconstruction and microbiology.
In the mid-1990's, the former education commissioner,
Thomas Sobol, granted these 28 consortium schools (serving 16,000 students,
about 1 percent of New York's
high school population) an exemption from most state tests. That permitted
a more innovative curriculum, and students were evaluated via a portfolio
system that relies on research papers and science projects reviewed by
outside experts like David S. Thaler, a Rockefeller
University microbiology professor,
and Eric Foner, a Columbia
history professor.
The Gates Foundation, which has given hundreds of
millions of dollars to start small high schools nationwide, is so impressed
with these schools, it regularly sends educators to New York to see how they're run.
But the testing exemption for these schools is about to
expire, and Commissioner Mills does not want it renewed. He believes that
all students, without exception, should take every test.
Recently, Senator Saland defied the commissioner. He
shepherded a bill through the Republican-controlled Senate that passed 50
to 10 and would continue these schools' waivers for four years. Senator
Saland's bill does require that students pass the state English and math
tests to graduate, letting the state gauge the alternative schools'
performance versus mainstream schools.
On the Senate floor, Senator Saland noted that while 61
percent of consortium students qualified for free lunches and
three-quarters were black or Hispanic, 88 percent went on to college,
compared with 70 percent at mainstream schools that give state tests. He
said that the dropout rate was half the rate at mainstream schools and that
on the one statewide test these students took regularly, English, they
scored an average of 77, outdoing mainstream students by 5 points.
Senator Kenneth P. LaValle, a Long Island Republican,
said the alternative schools were needed because not everyone learns the
same way. "Our education system must accommodate those
differences," he said.
Senator Eric Schneiderman, a Manhattan Democrat, pointed
out that private schools were exempt from state tests. "The children
of the rich have a lot of alternative schools available to them," he
said. "There is no rich kid who doesn't test well who can't find some
fancy prep school."
Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, said: "I
empathize with the State Education Department's desire to have a
one-size-fits-all system. It's easier to administer. It's easier to
measure. But it does not reflect the reality of the fact that our children
are not one-size-fits-all."
Dr. Mills was not moved. His spokesman, Alan Ray, wrote
in an e-mail message that exempting these students from state history and
science tests would create "an unworkable system and would lower
educational standards." A state position paper says that making
everyone take state tests is crucial for monitoring local schools.
"The public demanded it, saying a local diploma often meant a poor
education. Our students must compete with the rest of the world in science.
They must understand the history of their own country and of the world
around them. We will not ensure this if we effectively lower standards by
making this bill into law."
The bill would also require Dr. Mills to develop a state
portfolio assessment in history and sciences that could be an alternative
to state tests. State officials say this would be too hard and too
expensive. (Dr. Mills estimates $8 million; the Senate, $5 million.)
WHICHEVER, says Mr. Sanders, it's a fraction of the cost
of the dozens of state tests given yearly. Supporters of alternative
schools say creating a portfolio system shouldn't be any harder than
developing the current testing system, which had many setbacks.
In 2002, nearly half the students who took the physics
test - the smartest pupils in New York - flunked, and after insisting for a
year that all was fine, Dr. Mills was forced by his own Regents board to
rescale the scores. In 2003, scoring of the state math test was so far off
- two-thirds failed - the results were thrown out. An oversight panel
identified major flaws in state procedures, the testing director left and
Dr. Mills pushed on, taking aim at his last testing opponents, the
alternative schools.
Mr. Sanders says Dr. Mills has lost perspective.
"There's a fear if there's a single exception that this whole policy
of student evaluation will be undermined," he said. "It's almost
irrational."
In the Democratic-controlled Assembly, the bill's fate
will probably be decided by the speaker, Sheldon Silver. "He doesn't
feel as strongly about it as I do," said Mr. Sanders. "He has
political considerations. These days, if you're against high-stakes
testing, it's like being soft on crime. People are afraid of appearing soft
on standards."
Indeed, Charles Carrier, a spokesman for Mr. Silver,
said: "He has concerns about the bill. He believes strongly in
standards."
</tbody>
|
