"Is the State School Board now admitting that the grades on the tests over the past 10 years were wrong?  Does that mean the millions of dollars in taxpayer money was given out to the wrong schools, since, under the new method, many schools should have had higher scores and therefore gotten reward money?" —Martin Cothran Senior Policy Analyst

Special Op-Ed for Community Papers
 

Martin Cothran  The Family Foundation

About 730 words  First Serial Rights © The Family Foundation

All movements are born in idealism--and end in pragmatism.

When the sweeping Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) was passed in 1990, one of the cornerstone principles was the belief that "all children could learn at high levels."  This was a corollary of the liberal maxim that man is perfectible, but, like most liberal beliefs, it had to be tapered back to take account of reality.  It wasn't too long before the mantra was modified, and became: "all children can learn, most of them at high levels."

In a recent committee hearing in Frankfort, lawmakers took testimony from state education officials about the State School Board's plan to change the way the statewide CATS tests are graded.  Under the new scoring plan, thousands of students who would otherwise be ranked at the Apprentice level (second-lowest in the state's grading scheme) would be ranked Proficient or Distinguished, the two highest rankings--not by performing any better, but solely by virtue of a new grading system.  The result is that some subject categories will see huge increases in test scores.

But it goes far beyond this.

When Kentucky created its statewide system of testing and accountability (then known as KIRIS), it used what testing experts call a "standards-based But it isn't the huge increases in test scores that

After state officials presented the new plan to lawmakers, State Sen. David Karem of Louisville took the microphone.  Karem is a veteran of the education wars in Kentucky.  In the swirling controversy over the state tests in the late 90's, the Louisville Democrat always seemed to be the one in charge of circling the wagons, trying to defend the tests against swarms of detractors.  I know because I was one of the ones shooting arrows.

Karem and his troops succeeded in preserving the centerpiece of KERA, which was the statewide testing system--partly by changing its name.  Originally known as KIRIS, its name was changed to "CATS" in an effort to stave off more substantive changes, an effort which succeeded in preserving the tests largely intact.

The thing that distinguishes Karem from most other liberals (or should I say politicians?) is his unfailing candor.  You never have to wonder what he's thinking.  He'll tell you straight up--whether you want to hear it or not.

He waved aside all the rigamorole, and went straight to point he wanted to make, which had to do with one of the was that the important point to him was the In his statement to education officials, he stated--in his customary down-to-earth fashion--that he still clings longingly to one of the bedrock beliefs of KERA: that all children can learn at high levels.  In a question to State Education Commissioner Gene Wilhoit, Karem stated that he was worried that there were some Kentuckians who might not believe this, and he pled with the Commissioner to do his best to stress this point in his role as Commissioner.

The committee was hearing testimony from Wilhoit and other education officials on newHe apparently didn't realize it at the timeHe pled with the Commissioner to make sure that people When KERA was first passed, its defenders stated in no behind the state testing systemof education reformers in the early 1990's: that all children
 
 

One of the practices that was thrown out was the practice of giving A’s, B’s and C’s to children for their schoolwork.  In most schools, the old way of grading was replaced by various methods of grading such as checks, minuses—and, in some cases, geometrical figures—to indicate the quality of student work.  There was also a lot of stress on giving long verbal descriptions of how the student was doing.

Because of this new inscrutable method of grading, many parents received report cards home that they simply couldn’t understand.  Even parents with graduate educations were left scratching their heads wondering how they were supposed to figure out how their children were doing in school.

But all this didn’t stop with report cards and homework grades.  Even the statewide tests were to be graded in a new and different way.

The KIRIS tests—which are now called “CATS” tests—have been a part of KERA from the start.  They are the statewide tests that drive much of what Kentucky schools do to this day.  They use an altogether different grading system.  Instead of A’s, B’s and C’s, they use the general terms “Novice,” “Apprentice,” “Proficient,” and “Distinguished.”

Now, however, members of the State School Board want to change the way children are graded—not by using new terms, but by changing the grading scale.

At their April 4 meeting, the Board announced that they were considering a proposal that would result in huge grade inflation in many parts of the tests.

Under the new plan, most of the students who have been ranked at the Apprentice level will be moved into higher categories, resulting in huge scoring increases on some parts of the tests.

If you compare 1998 KIRIS scores with the 2000 CATS scores under the proposed new standards, you come up with some interesting findings:

· Under the new scoring system the percentage of students rated at or above proficient in elementary practical living increases from 6 to 46 percent, an increase of about 700 percent.

· The percentage of middle school students rated at or above proficient in reading increases from 15 to 51, an increase of 340 percent.

· The percentage of high school students rated at or above proficient in practical living skills increases from 6 to 49, an increase about 800 percent.

State Board officials argue that this change is needed since the new method is a more accurate way to rate students.

But if the new way is right, then the old way was wrong.  In other words, if the new method of grading the tests is more accurate, then the old way was inaccurate—in fact, very inaccurate if you look at the differences under the new scoring method.

Is the State School Board now admitting that the grades on the tests over the past 10 years were wrong?  Does that mean the millions of dollars in taxpayer money was given out to the wrong schools, since, under the new method, many schools should have had higher scores and therefore gotten reward money?

This is an incredible admission, and you can bet the State School Board, which has overseen the state tests since their implementation, will try to deny it.  But more and more people are going to be asking why it is that if the scoring method has been so wrong for so long, why the Board hasn’t noticed it before.

And many schools will be asking why it is that some schools got money, and others, who deserved it, didn’t.

Maybe the Board will fess up and admit they haven’t been minding the story like they ought to.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Martin Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky, a nonprofit educational organization dealing with public policy issues affecting families.