For immediate release
June 5, 2007
Lake Mary, Florida

Golf, School Improvement And The  FCAT: An Open Letter to Florida School Boards and School District Education Leaders

Robert R. Lange, Ph.D.    This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it   or  This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
Participant -- June 1, ‘07 Dept. Of Ed. Advisory Meeting on FCAT Grade 3 Scores

Most of you either golf or have watched golf matches on television.  In many ways the FCAT is a game much like a golf tournament.  If you know what it takes for a golfer to move up in the standings after the first day of a tournament, you can understand why it is difficult for at-risk students and schools to improve their standing on the FCAT.
 
To move up on the second day and thereafter, a golfer must do more than improve their golf game. Every other golfer is also trying to play better.  For success the golfer must both improve themselves and do so in an amount greater than the other golfers ranked higher. Ranking in the tournament is based on both the golfer’s play itself and on a comparison to the other golfers in the tournament.  If the golfer improves but the others also improve as much or more, there is no reported improvement in tournament standing.

The task of improving a student’s or a school’s standing or grade on the FCAT is similar to the task faced by the golfer.  Not only must the student learning increase, it must increase more than the gain exhibited by those ranked above them.  Note that it is easier to move-up  if a golfer is near the middle rank than if they were near the lowest rank.

The FCAT is a norm-referenced test.  Each year the scores are forced into a new nearly bell-shaped curve.  Close to the same percentage of students are ranked in the low group every year.   Students’ scores are like a competition against other learners.  In golf the same number of strokes will result in a different rank each week.  There is no unchanging or fixed performance on the FCAT that must be demonstrated to earn a specific grade. Lower ranked students must improve more than middle ranked students in order to increase their rankings. It is a struggle to do better than other learners on a broadly defined set of abilities and associated test items.

Assessment of learning is similar to golf in other ways.  A golfer’s abilities are determined by the golfer’s play on a collection of many golf courses over a long period of time.  It would be silly to judge the ability of a golfer by the play on a specific course on a specific week.  Although the better golfers are near the top of the leader-board regardless of the golf course and week after week, at times they falter and do less well for whatever reason.  A golfer’s ability is judged by the demonstrated performance on different courses over time.  Ability is not one thing easily captured but a concept formed with multiple performances.

It is very difficult for lower ranked golfers to improve when compared to others.  They must struggle and work harder.  They often face many natural challenges with the tasks of tournament golf.

In a similar way, a single academic test cannot adequately capture the complex idea of students’ learning.  Learning must be demonstrated in multiple ways and requires multiple and diverse observations taken at many different times.  Students’ test-scores can vary from time to time just like a golfer’s daily or weekly performance.  

As noted above, in order to move up at-risk students and at-risk schools must improve more than the students and schools nearer the middle of the rankings who are also tying to improve.  No one wants to drop in the rankings.      

The scores obtained from a single imperfect test such as the FCAT contain some truth but limited truth.  They are not some kind of “revealed truth” provided by an all-knowing entity.

Golfers who perform poorly week after week soon quit the tour and find other “work”.  At-risk students who are told over and over again that they are deficient soon believe that schools have disrespected them and their families.  They quickly shut down and drop out of school one way or another.

What is the other “work” for at-risk youth?  They join gangs in order to recapture their “respect” and become part of the growing youth crime movement.  It is a natural consequence that can be prevented.

The national policy statement on Eliminating Social Promotion (July, 1999) pleaded for creative schooling that is better suited to the diverse needs of youth.  The policy preceded NCLB and described the goals of NCLB without the negative implementation consequences of high stakes testing.  Based on a large number of research reports, the  1999 authors warned state and local school leaders against using school grade-level non-promotion, simple minded testing and punitive policies as strategies of school and learning improvement.  Students who work toward a goal and make honest progress toward that goal should be rewarded for their efforts even if other students make greater gains.  Like higher-ranking golfers, faster-learning students should not attenuated by being forced to practice a basic previously mastered skill just in ensure they can do it again on a specific day.  There are even more refined skills to learn.  The national challenge was to keep same-age youth together and to better meet the learning needs of every student regardless of their prior learning history, rate of learning or learning modality.

The long-term studies in Chicago and other cities and the short-term studies in Florida, when properly interpreted, have shown the national warning to be correct.  Policies that result in grade-level retention or other punitive acts produce small gains that soon dissipate and fail to improve long-term learning and lead to unintended negative reactions.  They have highly destructive long-term consequences.
 
Check the commonly published school-board pledges and beliefs as published on web pages. “Encourage risk-taking” to better meet the learning of all students. Believe that “everyone can learn” just as it is true that all youth can grow.  But realize that not all youth learn or grow at the same rate or in the same way.

If intensive reading coaches produce positive results, they may be able to work with students at any grade level.  A strategy that works at one level may work just as well in grades 4, 5 & 6 as it does in grades 1, 2, & 3 – but perhaps in different ways. However, one intervention alone will not be enough.  

Where are you with your work on School, Family, & Community Connections or Partnerships?  Go beyond the FCAT era of punitive, inhumane, and failed schooling.
Believe that all parents want their children to succeed.  They just might not have the ability or resources to show it in the way you personally desire.   

Be courageous.  Help tear down the FCAT “wall” of simple-minded one-size-fits-all education.  The FCAT “wall” has kept good teaching out of schools and has blocked the “excitement of learning” from reaching many students.  The wall has begun to crumble.  Improve your schools, but do it in a way that helps every student learn.

You will also have to learn to seek the research evidence from those who claim to have research evidence for school improvement initiatives.  Avoid interventions known to be counter-productive. Ignore the uninformed opinions of the editors of some news-sources such as the editors of the Orlando Sentinel who may be well intentioned but appear to be tied to the apron strings of a failed educational policy.  Policies are too often imposed by those who act as if they are closed-minded self-praising political leaders.

Use the FCAT and other assessments for what they are – imperfect indicators of an unknowable human condition.  Remember to respect the human dignity of everyone just as you were asked to do by all great leaders.  You will be rewarded with respect in return.

###