In Harrison Distict 2–a low-income, predominantly Latino school district in Colorado Springs–students at every grade level sit for pencil and paper tests in every subject, including art, music, and even physical education.
On their gym class exam, first-graders are asked to draw a picture of how to position's one's hands while catching a ball. In art, they are asked to identify three shapes within this Picasso cubist portrait. In music, they clap along to the beat of a song as it is played aloud.
The purpose of these tests is to collect student achievement "growth" data in order to assess teachers and award them merit pay. The typical Harrison child will sit for standardized exams about 25 days each school year.
It seems self-evident, and yet it's rarely discussed: If we are going to evaluate every single teacher, at every grade level, according to how well he or she "grows" student achievement, children are going to have to be assessed far more frequently–and in many more subjects–than they currently are.
To explore the affect of value-added teacher evaluation on kids in the classroom, I spent much of my first semester as a Spencer Fellow reporting on Colorado. The result is my May American Prospect cover story, "The Test Generation."
In response to Race to the Top, the Colorado state legislature passed one of the most aggressive new teacher evaluation laws in the country, the "Great Teachers and Leaders Bill." Fifty-one percent of every teacher's evaluation will soon be based on student achievement data, and if a teacher fails to grow student achievement two years in a row, he or she can lose tenure protections.
Local districts will have some autonomy in how they choose to collect this data, but a few dominant models are emerging–and one of the most celebrated by politicians and education reformers is Harrison Distrct 2's, which over-relies, in my view, on testing. I hope you read the entire piece.