No participation trophies for Common Core

Last week, Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison made news by coming out strongly against “participation trophies” that his two young sons received from a track and field program.

Harrison wrote on Instagram:

I came home to find out that my boys received two trophies for nothing, participation trophies! While I am very proud of my boys for everything they do and will encourage them till the day I die, these trophies will be given back until they EARN a real trophy. I’m sorry I’m not sorry for believing that everything in life should be earned and I’m not about to raise two boys to be men by making them believe that they are entitled to something just because they tried their best…

Harrison is right to object to empty markers of accomplishment such as participation trophies because they water down expectations and undermine excellence. The participation-trophy phenomenon may be problematic in sports, particularly in light of research suggesting the long term benefits of high-school athletics, but it can have much more serious consequences for public education.

We have seen participation trophy trends in education in the past, such as grade inflation, questionable programs to increase graduation rates, and unacceptably low state proficiency definitions. The Common Core and other next generation “College- and Career-Ready” learning standards, and new tests aligned with them were designed to cut against this trend – to actually raise our standards. They still hold promise to do so, but if these efforts are watered down in the face of public pressure, they may prove to be the biggest edu-participation trophy yet.

For many students, their grades have become participation trophies. Everyone is familiar with complaints about grade inflation; here are the numbers. Reading and math achievement have been relatively flat for 17-year-old students, with almost no change over two decades. Yet, the average GPA of high school graduates rose significantly, by a third of a letter grade or from just over a C+ to a B average. Our high schools are telling their graduates that they’re much smarter than they really are.

For many high school graduates, their degrees have become participation trophies. In response to pressures to increase graduation rates, schools and school districts have turned to a number of potentially watering-down strategies to turn potential drop-outs into graduates. One surging strategy, credit recovery programs, offers students alternative means to gain credits required to graduate. Many of the credit recovery options are online classes, the quality of which is, ahem, uncertain. Like other programs designed to retain students, such as age-old summer school programs and correspondence courses, if the quality of instruction is low, such programs can be an end run around high educational standards. Watered-down diplomas are another empty promise, where our high schools are telling students they are ready to succeed in the world – when often they are not.

For schools in many states, “proficiency” has become a participation trophy. When No Child Left Behind required annual student testing, states were allowed to determine proficiency levels for passing their state tests. States’ proficiency benchmarks differ dramatically such that many of the 4^th grade students considered proficient in states like Georgia or Ohio would not be considered proficient in Wisconsin or New York. The low bars set by some state proficiency rates are another false promise, watering down expectations to give the appearance of achievement.

The Common Core was supposed to counter these trends. With more demanding standards and harder tests, test scores dropped, generating significant opposition and the opt-out movement. Arne Duncan somewhat indelicately characterized that opposition as “white suburban moms who – all of a sudden – their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.”

Duncan was pilloried for this comment – but perhaps he should have been applauded. We should not deceive ourselves, and our students, into thinking we are achieving our goals when we have not actually earned them. The promise of the Common Core was that it would make students – and teachers – actually earn their trophies.

At this point, whether it will work is up to the individual states. Will they be able to resist the social trends that James Harrison inveighed against? Under No Child Left Behind, states watered down their tests and manipulated their proficiency measures. Education reformers hoped that things would be different under the Common Core, but it’s not entirely clear why they expected that they would be.

It’s possible that states will hold the line this time, but delivering honest reports to the public on school performance and actually aligning graduation to college- and career-readiness would be hard work. Here’s hoping that states manage it. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that, as with No Child Left Behind, many states will take their cues on schooling from soccer moms (a la Duncan’s comment) rather than football dads (a la Harrison).

If that happens, then the result of the Common Core won’t be a school system that holds students to higher standards and makes them earn their degree by proving they are ready for the real world. Rather, the legacy would be giving our high school graduates shiny new “College- and Career-Ready Trophies” – just for finishing the game.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1hciB8I