The Lone Star Foundation Conference
Public Education Reform in Texas: Comprehensive Progress Report
Austin, Texas - December 7-8, 2000

INTRODUCTION

Nothing is quite so stimulating or keeps a person attuned to the pulse of a nation than working daily as a classroom teacher. If long-range policymakers want to know what the future holds, they should draw upon the knowledge of experienced classroom teachers who can predict what society will be like in the coming years based upon what they have observed among today's students and their parents. Teachers have the rare privilege of watching students interact with their peers when parents are not around; this helps teachers to predict what society will be like in the years to come when the present generation is out on their own. The classroom is a microcosm of society -- its strengths and its weaknesses.

Each student is unique, but there is one thing that has never changed: Students must learn basic skills and foundational knowledge before they can originate and analyze. English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) forms the foundation for all other instruction.

No one can fix a car without having the proper tools. Have our Texas students been provided with the proper tools in order to help them make informed decisions and become contributing members of society? Let's check the pulse of the Texas public schools now that the politicization of the November political campaign is over:

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for ELAR are not specific for each grade level; therefore, specific goals for each grade level cannot be tested effectively with the TAAS tests.

Texas teachers are not being trained to utilize direct, systematic instruction which has been validated as the most successful research-based methodology.

Texas elementary students are being taught with the "balanced approach" to reading which is a repackaged and renamed term for whole language.

Texas 9-12 students are using newly adopted literature books in which many of the time-honored classics have been dropped and replaced with inferior literary selections.

Grade inflation is occurring on a broad scale in Texas schools.

The TAAS tests and the ELAR/TEKS curriculum are not aligned; therefore, parents of students who fail the TAAS tests have possible grounds for litigation because of curriculum inequity.

The public is demanding that children master basic skills. A wide range of test results indicates that a huge proportion of Texas' students have not risen to the mastery level.

Texas' test scores on the SAT, ACT, NAEP, and TASP tests do not correlate with the rising TAAS scores.

The TEA's weighting of the TAAS writing section does not hold students to a high standard of excellence.

Texas teachers are encouraged to "teach to the test."

The Advanced Placement program is experiencing a dumbing down of its academic rigor.

 

DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS -- MARGARET THATCHER

"Ah, consensus...the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"

TEXAS ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS -- ENGLISH / LANGUAGE ARTS/ READING

It was "consensus building" that massaged and shaped the Texas English / Language Arts/ Reading (ELAR) into the "mush" that today is known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).

When I was first appointed in the summer of 1995 to serve on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) writing team for English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR), I was naive enough to believe that the way to deal with a national education crisis would be to do what the health community does when a national health crisis occurs. Experts and practitioners are brought together to discuss the problems in the field and to study the latest research. A protocol is adopted based upon the research. The health professionals are then dispatched back to their communities to implement the protocol. Scientific assessments are utilized to track the results.

Did the writing team use this approach? No. Instead a professional consensus builder and other specially trained facilitators in the Delphi Technique greeted us writing team members at our August 1995 meeting. This technique uses psychological manipulation and peer pressure to gain group conformity and was pioneered by the Rand Corporation. Many well-documented articles have been published which indicate that an open, systematic, research-based process did not occur in Texas when the ELAR standards were developed. (Please go to http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/12texas.h17 to read the article in Education Week entitled "Double Standards" by Drew Lindsay.) In fact, the entire process was driven by facilitators who made sure that certain pre-determined standards were produced -- standards which were filled with education jargon, which were written in grade clusters, and which were full of performance-based (e.g., constructivist, project-driven) standards.

Since personnel with the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE), the New Standards Project, and the Chief State School Officers all helped to orchestrate the TEKS process, it is no surprise that our ELAR/TEKS standards look mysteriously like most of the other states' broadly worded standards.

TEXAS ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT (TAD)

Because the TEKS process was so contrived from the very beginning, a number of us classroom teachers decided to write an alternative set of standards which came to be known as the Texas Alternative Document (TAD). The TAD was written by teachers for teachers, by Texans for Texans. I was the Lead Writer of the TAD and became its chief spokesperson. A full set of TEKS documents is about 1,000 pages in length. The TEKS cost the taxpayers about $9.5M to produce (approximately $9,500 per page). The TAD, on the other hand, cost about $15,000 to produce; and we writers and a few supporters paid for it out of our own pockets!

Unbeknown to any of the TAD writers, the 2000 State Republican Party Platform of Texas endorsed the TAD and its philosophy by stating:

...To this end, we urge the Governor, the Texas Education Agency and the State Board of Education, to reconsider their previous hasty adoption of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and incorporate the nationally acclaimed solid English Language Arts/Reading (ELA/R) academic standards of the Texas Alternative Document (TAD) into our state's formal education standards. We support immediate revision of the ELA/R TEKS to make them grade-level specific at each grade level, as in the TAD.

It is ironic that our own Texas Education Agency did not endorse the TAD even though many states' standards committees, schools, and teachers have utilized the TAD to craft their own standards.

CONSTRUCTING A STURDY FOUNDATION

As I look at Texas education, I am reminded of my brother who spent twenty-seven years as a civil engineer for an international construction company. He has found out through much experience that the foundation of a structure requires the most diligence. He uses a nuclear densometer to ensure that the soil is compacted properly around the basement walls. Inadequate compaction might lead to the eventual collapse of such features as sewerlines, waterlines, and retaining walls. He knows that unless the foundation is secure, none of the upper floors can stand; they will develop cracks and fall into ruin if the foundation is not solid.

I am also reminded of the well-known Biblical reference in Luke 6:49 which states, "But those who listen and don't obey are like a man who builds a house without a foundation. When the floods sweep down against that house, it crumbles into a heap of ruins."

Now we need to consider the analogy of the foundation as it is applied to Texas education. If the ELAR/TEKS document is not structurally sound, the programs which are built on the document cannot function well. Since the ELAR/TEKS document does not spell out specific targets for each grade level, there is really no way that curriculum, textbooks, teacher training, and TAAS tests can legitimately be devised for children at each grade level. Because teachers and students do not know what is required of them to teach/learn each year, they cannot be expected to meet goals which are indefinite.

How successful would the U. S. military be if we went to war without telling our soldiers where the precise targets were? Worse yet, what if each soldier assumed the other soldiers above him or below him would hit the targets? Would each soldier feel personally responsible to do his very best?

NO GRADE-LEVEL-SPECIFIC TARGETS

Because of Goals 2000 funding and its tight strings, the ELAR/TEKS curriculum requirements followed the national trend of having almost identical standards repeated within grade clusters of K, 1, 2, and 3; Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12. (Please refer to Attachment #1 -- "Excerpts from TEKS To Show Repetitive Wording.") We TAD writers objected to the duplicative format of the TEKS. In our TAD document, we wrote specific targets in Pre-K through Grade 12 which increased in depth and complexity from one grade level to the next.

Because many people liked the TAD's common-sense wording, we were able to mount enough pressure for our document to gain recognition. What did the Commissioner of Education and the Texas Education Agency do? They were forced to make their TEKS document look similar to the TAD; however, instead of actually writing grade-level-specific standards, the TEA staff simply used the cut/copy/paste feature on their computers and created an illusion of grade-level specificity to those who gave the TEKS only a cursory inspection. A closer examination would have shown that nearly the exact same standards were repeated over and over again within grade clusters. (Please refer back to Attachment #1.) Because of the generic, broad wording and the lack of grade-level specificity, Texas' ELAR/TEKS as passed in July 1997 form a weak foundation for genuine education reform.

TWO DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION

On education issues alone, the public does not seem to fall into Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, or right-wing vs. left-wing. The public seems to be divided into two different camps: Some support classrooms where the teacher, an authority figure, teaches curriculum that is academic and knowledge-based, and students are tested primarily through objective testing (i.e., right or wrong answers). The other camp supports classrooms where the teacher is the facilitator who emphasizes a performance-based, constructivist curriculum (e.g., projects, discovery learning, inquiry-based learning) which is subjectively assessed.

Far-seeing people on either side of the political spectrum can see the danger of emphasizing subjective assessments in public school classrooms where schools have become today's battleground for social agendas. In the rush to transform schools into places of social change, valuable and irreplaceable academic content and instruction have been lost.

Gilbert T. Sewall, author of Lost in Action and director of the American Textbook Council, has written an excellent article in the Spring/Summer 2000 American Educator (call 202-879-4420 for a free copy) on the subject of constructivist classrooms:

Sometimes teachers must inform directly; at other times they guide students to figure things out for themselves. Active, attentive listening on the part of both teacher and students is an imperative. Repetition, practice, and memorization have their part, as does learning to take organized notes. At the core, always, is serious content approached seriously. Knowledge builds on knowledge. Thirteen years of carefully sequenced content and jealously guarded classroom time allow students to build an enormous storehouse of knowledge and skills and the ability to use them. And since knowledge and success are the best breeding ground for interest to take root and expand, the more students know, the more they will want to know...

Projects and activities can breed student cynicism. It does not take long for some students to figure out that activities waste a lot of time and that some activities are pretty lame. Students may wonder what the point is, especially when they encounter dozens or even a hundred projects or activities during the course of the school year instead of a well-chosen handful carried out with precision and depth...Teachers have to ask themselves... Do we give up making that mural of the Underground Railroad in order to get a more in-depth understanding of the Civil War through reading the Emancipation Proclamation or memorizing the Gettysburg Address? Which is doable in a shorter amount of time, and which is more valuable?

PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS IN THE TEKS

The ELAR/TEKS are filled with performance-based (i.e., constructivist, project-driven) standards. Performance-based standards are evaluated by performance-based assessments which lead to subjective scoring. The ELAR/TEKS are full of heavy doses of this philosophy. (Please see Attachment #2, "Examples of TEKS Performance-Based Standards -- English I.")

Before Texas jumped into the performance-based model, we should have first studied the research. Where is the compelling research to prove that the constructivist philosophy is superior to direct, systematic instruction in raising academic achievement? In fact, the federal government has spent $1 billion on "Project Follow Through" which took over three decades to complete.

(Please go to http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/151toc.htm to read the entire report.) Their findings: The best methodology that teachers should use to teach children is direct, systematic instruction as described in the July 1999 publication of Association of American Educators:

The teacher in a face to face, reasonably formal manner, tells, shows, models, demonstrates, and teaches the skill to be learned. The key word is teacher, for it is the teacher who is in command...There was a general finding that highly structured classes focused on basic skills produced better results on basic skills tests.

If direct, systematic instruction is the superior method, why has the Texas Education Agency moved in a direction not supported by the research? Instead, Texas teachers have been led by the TEA into utilizing failed fads such as whole language, teacher-as-facilitator, holistic scoring, self-esteem movement, inventive spelling, group grading, outcomes-based-education, fuzzy math, rain-forest algebra, block scheduling, open concept, portfolios, integrated curriculum, year-round schools, subjective scoring, etc. The public is disillusioned with the public schools and rightfully so. Parents are tired of their children being used as guinea pigs in education experiments. That is why the public is desperately looking for alternatives to the public schools.

It is not a good practice when teachers over-emphasize performance-based projects in their classrooms. Huge chunks of valuable classtime are wasted, and grade inflation almost always occurs because of the subjective nature of performance-based assessments.

The real problem occurs, however, when performance-based assessments and subjective scoring occur at the state level where the accountability system (TAAS) is housed.

From looking at the numerous performance-based standards in the TEKS, it is obvious that Texas has forced teachers to turn their classrooms into project-based classrooms; yet the state is not supposed to prescribe methodology for teachers.

Not only have the TEKS forced teachers into a prescribed methodology, but that methodology will undoubtedly be implemented into the new TAAS tests which are presently under construction. The TEKS form the foundation for the questions on the TAAS tests; therefore, if the TEKS are full of performance-based projects, undoubtedly the new TAAS tests will contain a heavy dose of performance-based assessments which by their very nature must be graded subjectively. With so much riding on TAAS scores, it is pretty scary to think that the TAAS test results could be based upon subjective evaluations done by faceless people who may or may not honor a child's value system.

Many states have already run across dire problems when their standards and state-mandated tests contained sections which had to be subjectively assessed. Huge expenditures were required to develop performance-based tests because of the countless hours that it took for test developers to construct tests based on performance-based standards. On the other hand, construction of knowledge-based tests is rather straight forward and much less costly. Performance-based sections on tests are also very expensive to score because evaluators have to spend extra hours comparing student responses to a complicated rubric. (Please see Attachment #3, "The Fallacy of Performance-Based Assessments in Maine.")

PHONEMIC AWARENESS, DECODING SKILLS, AND DECODABLE TEXT

Whole Language Lives On was published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (202-223-5452) in October 2000. The publication was dedicated by Louisa Moats to the memory of Jeanne Chall who taught hundreds of reading experts and teachers. Chester Finn wrote in the Foreword:

Millions of children are needlessly classified as 'disabled' when, in fact, their main problem is that nobody taught them to read when they were five and six years old...

We also know what doesn't work for most children. It's called 'whole language.'

Yet whole language persists...it often disguises iteslf, not using the term 'whole language' but rather, wearing the fig leaf of 'balanced' instruction. A lot of people who have a casual acquaintance with the research have persuaded themselves that balanced reading instruction means a little of this, a little of that. Take a cup of phonics from one cupboard, add a half-pint of whole language from the fridge, and the resulting blend will succeed with children while avoiding the battles and conflicts of the 'reading wars.' Everyone will be happy, and all will be well.

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. What's going on in many places in the name of 'balance' or 'consensus' is that the worst practices of whole language are persisting, continuing to inflict boundless harm on young children who need to learn to read.

 

Whole Language Lives On goes on to state what the reading research has made clear in recent years: All children must be taught phonemic awareness and decoding skills (phonics) through direct, explicit, systematic instruction. Children must learn to sound out and read single words completely, accurately, and fluently through decodable text -- passages which contain the sounds that children have already learned. Children need to practice reading decodable text until they become automatic and fluent readers. The Fordham publication states:

Students who are not taught properly are less able to sound out a new word when it is encountered, slower and less accurate at reading whole words, less able to spell, less able to interpret punctuation and sentence meaning, and less able to learn new vocabulary words from reading them in context.

The interesting thing is that the Fordham Foundation publication compliments several states' standards and praises Texas for its TEKS:

Every state should have language-arts content standards and curricular frameworks for each grade from kindergarten through third grade. These should be explicitly based on research findings on phonemic awareness, alphabetic skills, reading fluency, beginning and advanced decoding skills, vocabulary, and comprehension. California and Texas have done especially well in this regard and should be emulated -- but even they need to ensure that practice follows policy.

DECODABLE TEXT BATTLE IN TEXAS

The question should be asked, "Are Texas' standards explicit, and are they specific for each grade level? (Please refer to Attachment #1.) How clear were Texas' standards when it came time in the fall of 1999 for Texas to adopt new K-3 reading textbooks? Because of the mushiness of the wording in the Texas standards, an upper-level TEA staff member told the K-3 textbook publishers that it was acceptable to produce reading textbooks for Texas which contained only 51% decodable (phonics-based) text. The ELAR/TEKS indicated that "most" of the text in the reading books should be decodable, and the TEA employee interpreted "most" to mean 51%. (If an employee only completed 51 percent of his workload, he would lose his job. If a student only completed 51 percent of an assignment, he would receive a failing grade.)

As if the 51% interpretation were not bad enough, the TEA employee also told publishers that the Grade 1 reading books could pass muster if they contained as few as two reading selections with decodable text.

The TEA's faulty interpretations opened the door to publishers to produce textbooks which were polluted with heavy doses of the failed whole-language approach to reading. Because of all the confusion and misinterpretation of the TEKS at the state level, the textbook series which had the best research, the best systematic approach to the teaching of phonemic awareness/decoding skills, and the best integrated decodable text throughout its entire K-3 series (not just in Grade 1), SRA/McGraw-Hill Open Court Reading, received only 5.3% of the entire Texas market. The textbook companies which produced textbooks that contained the "balanced approach" received the biggest share of the Texas market simply because the TEKS are so broad and inexplicitly stated.

The Texas Education Agency is supposed to offer leadership to classroom teachers. What kind of research-based information does a first-grade teacher find when he goes to the TEA website (http://penick.tea.state.tx.us/TeachersToolBag/Home/

TEKSLessonPlans/LangArts_1.asp) to look at recommended lesson plans? Forty-three suggested lesson plans are listed. Only 6 out of 43 TEA-suggested lesson plans relate to the teaching of phonics. What does this indicate about whether Texas is making sure that "practice follows policy" as recommended by the Fordham Foundation report? Can we in Texas say that our K-3 teachers are actually teaching our Texas children the reading skills which the research so clearly recommends, or are we in Texas following the failed whole-language practices which have simply been repackaged and renamed as "the balanced approach"?

GRADES 9-12 LITERATURE TEXTBOOK ADOPTIONS

What happened when Texas adopted its 9-12 literature books in the fall of 1999? Did the TEKS spell out clear standards for the textbook publishers to follow? Absolutely not. Because the TEKS do not list a single piece of literature in Grades K-12 , textbook publishers were free to make their own textbook selections that oftentimes advanced their own social agendas. Dr. Sandra Stotsky (author of Losing Our Language, The Free Press, c. 1999), Deputy Commissioner of the Massachusetts Education Department and a Research Associate at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education performed an extensive review of Texas' ELAR standards. In her report entitled "What's at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars," she faulted Texas for not including in its TEKS a core list of known titles or authors. "When state assessments in the English language arts consist of selections constructed by a test contractor or of unknown pieces of literature...it is not easy for teachers as well as parents to determine whether the tests are of equal difficulty from year to year..."

EVALUATION OF GRADES 9 - 12 LITERATURE BOOK SELECTIONS

When I did an evaluation (Please see Attachment # 4, "9-12 Literature Selections) of the selections in the 9-12 literature books for last year's textbook adoption, I was disappointed to find that out of 244 traditional classic selections, over half have been replaced with selections written by authors based solely upon their ethnicity instead of their expertise as writers. Our Texas high school students will not be exposed to the memorable heroes, heroines, and authors that influenced the historical foundations of our country or the Western world. Dr. Stotsky stated in an Associated Press article by Anjetta McQueen in November 14, 1999:

Books used to teach schoolchildren reading [but] now focus too much on cultural diversity and not enough on laying a foundation for reading, writing, and thinking...Children hop from culture to culture, century to century...You are not introducing them to a good literary foundation. You are introducing them to linguistic chaos...new reading books are squeezing in diversity by simplifying vocabulary. The stories also confuse young children with foreign words and phrases that take up additional instruction time and attempt to shape their views on race, sex, class, and disability.

As the textbook cycle goes around and the new adoptions in Grades 4 - 8 are aligned with the TEKS philosophy, Texas will see a further erosion of its ELAR program.

Are there explicit, grade-level-specific standards in the TEKS for the teaching of grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and composition? Basically the same standards, except for a few minor word changes, are listed in Grades K, 1, 2, and 3; Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12. (Please see Attachment #5, "Side-by-Side Comparison of the TEKS and the TAD.") No clear, grade-level-specific targets are set for teachers and students. How can they hit a target which repeats itself year after year and which is stated in such mushy terminology that few people understand what the TEA intends the TEKS statements to mean.

Any grammar teacher knows that students must master grammar skills sequentially in order to gain mastery of the English language. The TEKS do not set sequential targets which deepen as the student advances; the TAD most certainly does.

(I have written my own grammar packets which can be downloaded free of charge from http://www.readbygrade3.com, "Assistance for Teachers and Administrators.")

GRADE INFLATION

The TEKS do not provide sufficient specificity for teachers to standardize classroom instruction throughout their school districts, much less throughout the state. Using the broad, general TEKS standards, teachers cannot determine even an approximate common definition of passing standards on which student grading should be based. Vague curriculum standards by their very nature produce vague grading standards which lead to curriculum inequities, assessment inequities, and grade inflation among classrooms in a school, among schools within a district, and among districts throughout the state.

A study released by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in October 1999 entitled "The Relationship of the Texas High School Curriculum to College Readiness" reveals that 55% of students who took advanced high school English Language Arts and Mathematics courses specifically designated as college preparatory in Texas' State Recommended High School Curriculum Plan were unable to meet Texas Academic Skills Test (TASP) exemption standards. This occurred even though the students had taken and passed advanced high school English language arts and mathematics courses designed to prepare students for college. This problem was most pronounced among African-American and Hispanic students. Among African-Americans who completed the Advanced diploma program and then took the TASP test, only 28% passed. Hispanics passed the TASP at a rate of 36.8%.

Studies comparing school pass rates with TAAS failures are periodically conducted by the TEA because Texas Education Code Section 39.182(a)(4) mandates such an evaluation. In a 1996 sampling study entitled "A Study of the Correlation of Course Performance and TAAS Performance on the Grade 3 TAAS Reading Test" (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resuhs/studies/correlation.pdf), the TEA found that of the third-grade students who failed the TAAS reading test, only 20 percent failed the course. Of the African-American students who failed the TAAS reading test, only 24 percent failed the course. Of the Hispanic students who failed the TAAS reading test, only 22 percent failed the course. The same kind of negative correlation was found in the areas of mathematics and social studies.

High and worsening grade inflation in Texas public schools has also been reported annually by The College Board. The board reports the correlation between students' reported grades and SAT scores and has found, year after year, that Texas has the lowest correlation between SAT scores and school grades of any state in the nation! As the average SAT scores have fallen in Texas over the past years, the percentage of "A" test-takers has increased.

Something is quite wrong when students are passing their courses with high grades and are then failing many different types of standardized assessments. That development is caused by the generic wording and lack of specificity in the TEKS.

Probably the most serious shortcoming of the ELAR/TEKS document is its potentially negative impact on future Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests. The present ELAR/TAAS tests are basically built upon the old Texas Essential Elements (EE) standards used by Texas teachers since the mid-80's. The EE's were not perfect by any means. They were somewhat broad and repetitious, but at least they were by and large knowledge-based. Hence, the TAAS tests administered up to now have been based upon the EE's -- not the TEKS. In spite of the fact that the public has been told by the TEA that the present TAAS tests have been aligned with the TEKS, I have not seen any evidence to support that statement. The present TAAS tests are almost identical to the TAAS tests which have been given for years.

Correspondence from the Texas Education Commissioner was sent to school administrators on October 25, 1999, to explain the introduction of TEKS into the TAAS (begun in Spring 1999 and fully integrated into Spring 2000 TAAS). The Commissioner wrote (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/taa/tasss991025.html):

Before going into the difference in this year's tests, I should point out that it is based on all the same objectives as previous years' tests. The same reading, writing and math TAAS objectives adopted by the Board in 1988 and covered by every TAAS test since that time will be covered this year...The 1998-99 school year was the year the TEKS were required to be implemented by school districts. It was also the first year that TEKS items were incorporated into the test, along with the EE items. This year we transition to a test which is completely TEKS based...Like the TEKS themselves, this test is more rigorous. However, a child who would have passed last year's test will also pass this year's test. This is because in January 1994 the Board, to ensure a fair test for students from one year to the next, adopted its Five Year Plan for Assessment and Procedures for Setting Standards. This plan required the agency to equate the level of difficulty of the TAAS from one year to the next. In other words, the TAAS will be no more or less difficult for a child to pass in one year than another.

A clear-thinking individual would have to wonder how TAAS tests can supposedly be more rigorous when they are based upon the jargon-filled, broadly worded, non-grade-specific ELAR/TEKS standards. Maybe the Commissioner meant that the TAAS tests would be more "rigorous" because teachers and students would have a more "rigorous" job of figuring out what statements actually mean such as "Describe how meanings are communicated through elements of design, including shape, line, color, and texture." Just exactly what does that standard look like in actual practice, and how will that standard be tested on the TAAS?

Here is the dilemma Texas finds itself in: SB 103 was passed by the 76th Legislature. One of its provisions stated that the TAAS tests must be "knowledge- and skills-based" instead of performance-based as was stated in SB 1 (74th Legislature). If it becomes widely known that the TAAS tests are still largely knowledge-based because they are based upon the old knowledge-based EE's, teachers will ignore the many performance-based statements in the ELAR/TEKS and teach only the knowledge-based elements in the TEKS. If the TEA continues with its original intent to use the test bank from the end-of-course tests (largely performance-based) to build new TAAS tests, the agency will be defying SB 103. So far, the TEA has tried to bluff its way through by saying that the present TAAS tests are aligned with the TEKS, thus ignoring the multitudinous ELAR/TEKS standards which are obviously performance-based and require performance-based assessments.

Texas cannot have it both ways. Either we need to adopt explicit, knowledge-based, academic standards which are specific to each grade level and which can be tested objectively on the TAAS tests, or we need to follow the performance-based TEKS and develop performance-based TAAS tests. If we follow the latter choice, the TAAS tests will lose all credibility because they will be graded subjectively, a very dangerous prospect in today's politically charged world.

Since Texas teachers are mandated to teach the Texas State Board of Education-adopted curriculum requirements (TEKS), Texas teachers find themselves in a Catch 22 situation. Should they attempt to teach the TEKS which is an impossible task because of the unrealistic classtime the TEKS require; or should they ignore the TEKS and teach only what is on the TAAS tests, reducing their classroom curriculum to a minimal-skill level?

NUMBER OF REQUIRED TAAS TESTS

SB 103, as passed by the 76th Legislature, requires Texas students in Grades 3 - 11 to take a total of 29 TAAS tests (not including retests). Aside from the fact that students may soon reach the saturation point, ELAR teachers find themselves frustrated further because they do not know exactly what content will be covered on the tests. Because teachers cannot understand much of the jargon used in the TEKS, they cannot prepare their students sufficiently for the TAAS tests.

POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR LITIGATION

The teaching of the TEKS documents is mandated for each classroom, for each subject, and for each grade level in the public schools of Texas (SB 1, 74th Texas Legislature). As printed, the TEKS documents are over 1000 pages long. Since the TAAS tests are supposed to be built upon the TEKS, a child who has not been taught all the TEKS really does not have an equitable chance to do well on the TAAS tests. These tests now carry the added weight of determining whether or not a child is promoted from one grade level to the next. If the teachers are narrowing their instruction by teaching just what is on the TAAS tests, students are experiencing curriculum inequity.

Any parent whose child does not pass the TAAS has legal grounds for a lawsuit because the Texas Education Agency-produced ELAR/TEKS document sets up an impossible mandate for all English teachers and students to reach.

A litigious person could file a lawsuit which forces a school district to subpoena teachers' lesson plan books to document that every one of the TEKS has been taught during the school year. Of course, no teacher could prove that every one of the TEKS has been taught because no student could assimilate that much curriculum in a year's time. SB 1 does not mandate that Texas teachers teach the TAAS; it mandates that they teach all the TEKS -- an impossible task.

ENGLISH I TEKS

Consider the English I TEKS, for instance. Based upon well over 27 years of experience as an English teacher, I calculate that it would take at least 18 months of solid instruction to teach all of the English I TEKS, not just the 9 months teachers and students are presently allotted. Because it is an impossibility for a teacher to teach and document that he has taught every one of the 99 TEKS elements in English I during a single school year, how could a school district ever prove that a student has had ample instruction in all of the elements before being given the TAAS test?

Any district that says it has aligned its curriculum with all of the TEKS has done it on paper only. In reality it is not happening at the classroom level because the TEKS set up an impossible task. Even though English I, II, III, and IV are basically the same TEKS, each teacher at each grade level is still charged by SB 1 to teach each of the elements which is designated for that grade and for that course. The truth is that the school year is not long enough for teachers to teach all the zillion and one TEKS from each subject at each grade level no matter how much time and money are spent on curriculum alignment.

THE RACIAL EQUITY GAP -- NOT THE REAL PROBLEM

In the past, minority groups have lost their lawsuits because they focused their litigation on the wrong target -- the racial equity gap. In essence, the TAAS scores show that the equity gap between minorities and Whites is decreasing; and based upon that evidence, the courts supported the present accountability system.

The real problem with the TAAS tests is neither the equity gap nor the issue of whether the content of the TAAS tests is discriminatory. The real problem is that all Texas public school children -- not just minority children -- have grounds for a lawsuit. Texas simply does not give students enough time to learn the TEKS curriculum requirements over which they are tested by the TAAS tests. I wonder how the education bureaucracy would respond if some savvy lawyer rooted out the real problem with the state's accountability system and filed litigation.

TAAS -- A MINIMUM SKILLS TEST

Then, too, there is the question of whether Texas' students are being challenged; or are the TAAS tests forcing teachers to dumb down their curriculum? How closely do the results of the Texas-managed TAAS tests correlate to national tests controlled from outside the state?

NATIONAL SCORES OF TEXAS STUDENTS

Texas Education Commissioner Jim Nelson reported recently, "Officials with both the country's major college entrance exams [SAT and ACT] say scores normally fall as more and more students take the exam."

The number of Texas test-takers may have gone up because of the increasing student population in our state, but have the percentages of test-takers in Texas actually increased? Based upon information taken from Texas' Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports:

In 1993 - '94, 59.7% of Texas' African-Americans were tested on either the ACT or the SAT compared to 1997 - '98 when 55.9% were tested. That is a decrease in test-takers among African-Americans.

In 1993 - '94, 49% of Texas' Hispanics were tested on either the ACT or the SAT compared to a figure in 1997 - '98 of 44.6%. That is a decrease in test-takers among Hispanics.

In 1993 - '94, 71% of Texas' Whites were tested on either the ACT or the SAT compared to 1997 - '98 when 69.4% were tested. That is a decrease of test-takers among Whites.

-

TEXAS' SAT SCORES

In a report by Walt Haney of Boston College ("The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education," http://wwepaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41), he states:

According to College Board data, in 1999 Texas had 50% of high-school graduates taking the SAT, scoring on average 499 on the SAT-M. This means that Texas, according to the pattern shown in Figure 7.6 has a slightly lower SAT-M average than states with comparable percentages of high school graduates taking the SAT. For example, according to the 1999 College Board data, there were seven states that had between 49% and 53% of high school graduates taking the SAT (Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, Texas and Washington). Among these states, Texas had the lowest SAT-M average in 1999 (499), except for Florida (498). Leaving aside Florida, Texas had an SAT-M average 15-25 points below states with comparable percentages of high school graduates taking the SAT. These results clearly indicate that the relatively poor standing of Texas among the states on SAT scores cannot be attributed to the proportion of secondary school students in Texas taking the SAT.

In fact, on the 2000 SAT I test, Texas students scored 493 on the verbal section while the national average was 505. (Please see Attachment #6, "Texas SAT Scores.")

Apologists for the failure of SAT scores to rise in Texas compared with the rising scores of other states commonly explain, "SAT scores are not expected to rise when an increasing number of test-takers take the test, especially when an increased percentage of minority students take the test." The contention that increased test-takers cause scores to stagnate or decrease is belied by the experience of states with increased test-takers and increasing minority test-takers who actually scored gains on the SAT.

In 1999 six states (Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maryland) had higher percentages of their student population taking the SAT than did Texas, and the average SAT scores of these states rose and posted above the national average. This is in contrast to Texas where scores declined and remained far below the national average. Three of these six states tested in excess of 70% of their high school students, and minority students represented almost 50% of the test-takers. There appears to be a casual -- not a causal -- relationship at work here. Scores remain unchanged or declined when an increased number of students with inadequate academic skills took the tests no matter whether the test-takers were White, African-American, or Hispanic.

TEXAS' ACT SCORES

What about Texas students' performance on the ACT? It is interesting to look at the neighboring state of Oklahoma for comparative data. The average ACT score for the Year 2000 graduates in Oklahoma was 20.8, and Texas' graduates posted a close average score of 20.3. Buried in the fine print, however, is this fact: Oklahoma tested 71% of its graduates while Texas only tested 32% of its graduates! (Please see Attachment #7, "Oklahoma Makes Most Significant Gains...") Based upon Commissioner Nelson's rationale that larger numbers of test-takers will, of necessity, lower the average score, Oklahoma should be scoring much lower than Texas; but they are not. (Please see Attachment #8, "ACT Findings.")

ACT has also produced some interesting data which compares the average ACT scores of students who have taken the core curriculum (four years of English, three or more years each of mathematics starting with Algebra I, science, and social studies courses). This data shows that even though the average ACT score was about the same for both Oklahoma and Texas students (20.8 and 20.3 respectively), 73% of the Texas test-takers had taken the core curriculum while only 52% had taken the core curriculum in Oklahoma. The ACT data indicates that Texas appears to be less successful in preparing its students for college entrance exams than other states.

NAEP SCORES IN TEXAS

First of all, the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has not released 12th-grade reading scores for any state. Therefore, we really do not have any NAEP data which shows how well our twelfth graders are functioning.

The next best thing, then, is to look at the reading scores of Texas' eighth graders. (Please see Attachment #9, "Texas NAEP -- 4th and 8th Grade Reading Scores.") According to "NAEP 1998: Report Card for the Nation and the States," Texas' eighth-grade students on the average scored 24% Below Basic, 48% Basic, 27% Proficient, and 1% Advanced. Thirteen states ranked above the national average. Texas, along with ten other states, ranked at or around the national average. Fourteen states ranked below the national average.

22% of Texas' eighth-grade males and 33% of females scored at or above the Proficient level; 12% of eighth-grade Blacks, 15% of Hispanics, and 40% of Whites scored at or above the Proficient level. The definition of Proficient is as follows:

This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter...The [NAEP] Board believes, however, that all students should reach the Proficient level.

The definition of Advanced is as follows: "...the Advanced level presumes mastery of both the Basic and Proficient levels...this level signifies superior performance." Only 1% of our Texas students function on the Advanced level.

Since 72% of Texas' students perform below Proficient, it is easy to see why Texas teachers get discouraged at the low level of performance among a majority of their students.

It is also interesting to note that according to the same 1998 NAEP report, only eleven states excluded from testing a larger percentage of SD (Students with Disabilities) and LEP (Limited English Proficient) students than did Texas. Leaving out a large block of test-takers can impact a state's average scores considerably.

TEXAS ACADEMIC SKILLS TEST (TASP)

Texas students have also posted dismal scores on the Texas Academic Skills Test (TASP). (Please see Attachment #10, "TASP Scores.") Section 51.306 of the Texas Education Code requires each public institution of higher education to provide remedial courses to all students who are unable to pass one or more sections of the TASP Test or an alternative test until those students can perform at college level. In the academic year of 1998-99, 50.7% of first-time enrolled college freshmen did not meet the TASP obligation. Even though many Texas parents feel they are paying a great deal of money to send their child to a Texas college or university, the tuition payment covers only a small part of the actual cost-per-student; the taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. How would taxpayers feel if they knew that they were paying twice to educate the same child -- once in the public schools and again for remedial college courses?

BOTTOMLINE ON TEXAS' TEST SCORES

Like it or not, here is the bottomline: On every indicator except the TEA-controlled TAAS tests, our Texas students are not showing superior academic strength and are not even reaching the national average. Based upon this fact, it would seem that we need to look carefully at the TAAS tests and the TAAS data to make sure that the cornerstone of Texas' accountability system is correlated with national test results. If the TAAS scores are too high, students and their parents are receiving a false illusion of success.

STATEMENT FROM A TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER

A Texas State Board of Education member told me recently that for the last year, he has made it a point to ask this one question of every experienced teacher he has met: "Are your public school students stronger or weaker than the students you had five years ago?" He has yet to have a single teacher state that today's students are stronger. With the TAAS scores going up dramatically, we should expect today's students to show the same dramatic improvement in their classroom work.

This informal type of survey could be carried further by asking college professors and business people how their public school graduates compare with students of past years. From frequent stories in the media and from my conversations with people from various fields, I have found that the public is basically shocked at the lack of basic, core knowledge in our public school students. How can our TAAS scores be getting higher each year while the public's confidence in the academic achievement of public school students is falling?

EXIT-LEVEL TAAS WRITING TEST

The following explanation reveals clearly the way the present TAAS Writing Test is graded: The Exit-Level TAAS Writing Test contains two parts; the first part is a multiple choice section on spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and sentence structure questions. The answers on this section are either right or wrong -- objectively scored.

The second part of the writing test is a subjectively scored (performance-based assessment) essay that is graded holistically. The term "holistic" means that the graders evaluate a student's composition based upon the overall effectiveness of the essay -- not on whether the student correctly uses or abuses the English language. The graders evaluate how well a student elaborates his ideas. The evaluators are not charged with the responsibility of grading a student's spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and sentence structure mistakes unless the errors interfere with his communication. The essays are scored on a scale from 1 to 4.

On the Spring 2000 TAAS test (Exit-Level Writing), there were 40 multiple-choice questions. To pass the writing section, a student who made a 4 on the essay only had to answer 6 out of 40 multiple choice questions correctly. That means he could get 34 wrong and still pass the writing section! If a student made a 3 on the essay, he had to answer 16 correctly which allowed him to miss 24 multiple choice questions. If he made a 2 on the essay, he had to get 26 correct and could miss 14 answers on the multiple-choice part. If he made a 1 on the essay, he could not pass the writing section; but historically, very few 1's are ever given.

With the TEA placing so little emphasis in the scoring grid on the importance of correct spelling, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and sentence structure, Texas students have become lackadaisical about the importance of correct writing. They all know that if they insert elaboration strategies into their essays, they will pass the TAAS irregardless of their incorrect writing.

TEACHING TO THE TEST

What about the charge that teachers teach to the test? Consider these excerpts from the Waco Tribune-Herald, October 29, 2000, in an article by Martha Ashe entitled, "Teacher Uses TAAS To Rate Her Success."

For the first time in their young lives, 19 third-grade students took a practice run at what will be an annual occurrence for them for years to come. They took the Texas Assessment of Academics Skills.

Actually the students in Kari Schroeder's class at Bell's Hill Elementary School in the Waco Independent School District took the reading, writing and math sections of a TAAS test from past years...

Bevil Cohn, Bell's Hill principal, said all her teachers use the practice tests as diagnostic tools to measure what skill students have mastered.

Students at the South Waco school take five practice versions of the test throughout the school year, leading up to the real thing next spring, Cohn said...

Teachers study the completed tests, looking at how many students missed questions on specific skills or how many students mastered certain skills, she said.

They also review the practice sheets with individual students, making suggestions to show them how they might reach the correct answer, she said...

TAAS preparation, the two [Cohn and Schroeder] say has become a way of life at Bell's Hill. 'It's more than just sitting down with a pencil and taking a test,' Cohn said.

 

What Waco ISD does is not unusual; it is the norm around the state of Texas. The TAAS is not just a test; it has become the curriculum! Teachers are not really implementing the TEKS fully into their classroom instruction because there are too many TEKS for a teacher to teach and a student to learn each year. Therefore, most teachers have decided to do the expedient thing which is to teach what they think will be on the TAAS tests. Do teachers teach to the test? Absolutely. Their appraisal and rehiring are based upon how well their students do on the TAAS tests; all principals' and superintendents' evaluations are based heavily upon how well the students in their schools do. The promotion of students from one grade to the next will soon be based on how well they do on the TAAS tests. The TAAS scores are made public in the newspaper, on television, on the Internet, and in every real estate brochure across the country.

LIMITATIONS IN THE CURRICULUM

The classroom curriculum should not be constrained and limited to a child's ability to choose from four multiple-choice questions and correctly bubble in the answer. Students should not be reading only TAAS-type, short reading selections; they should be reading real literature with real characters, plots, and settings. Texas students should not be writing just TAAS-type compositions in which the only thing stressed is the abundance of elaboration strategies rather than correct usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

TAAS STRATEGIES

Jerry Jesness, an experienced special education teacher in a south Texas elementary school, has put together a list of TAAS-preparation strategies which he and his fellow teachers have been trained to use with their students. From this list, it is easy to see how a steady diet of this type of instruction would indeed limit a child's academic future:

Reading Strategies -- Number every paragraph and line of a reading passage and then write the line and paragraph number where the answer is found next to each question.

Highlight words in the text that match words in the questions or the answer choices.

Work backwards, plugging each answer into the question if appropriate.

Learn key phrases that in released TAAS exams indicate whether a question can be answered by matching words in the text with words in the answer choices. If so, highlight matching phrases. Unless there are contrary signals, assume that the matching choice is the correct answer.

Ask yourself, 'Could I be expected to know that?' If not, look for answers in the text. At one in-service, the consultant showed us a practice TAAS passage and asked us to apply the above strategy. The question had something to do with the Presidential election of 1864. Faced with such a question, we were told, students should understand that such knowledge would not be expected of them, so they should look for the answer in the passage. Sure enough, we looked at the passage and found a table that showed that the winner was Abraham Lincoln.

Multiple-choice writing test strategies: Assume that an answer choice beginning with an 'ing' word is probably wrong. Some years ago a consultant told us that students should eliminate such answer choices. Consultants who had studied released TAAS passages as if they were Scripture had concluded that the TAAS scholars didn't like initial participle and gerund phrases. A few years ago, a consultant informed us that there had been found an 'ing' sentence that was correct. Now, students learn that an 'ing' word is a red flag.

In the sentence combination parts of the editing test, use check marks to match words in the underlined part of the selection with words in the answer choices. According to some consultants the answer choices with the most matching words are most likely to be correct.

Essay writing

Write five paragraphs, an introduction, a three paragraph body, and a conclusion.

Since one is more likely to make mistakes when writing compound and complex sentences, avoid them. Meet TAAS writing standards by using at least one adjective per sentence and one metaphor per paragraph. Let me rephrase this, just in case some of my readers are recent graduates of Texas public schools:

Very long sentences are hard. They make you make very bad mistakes. Make your sentences as easy as cherry pie. Then you will always be correct. Use vivid describing words. Use nice phrases with the words 'as....as.' Then you will write good TAAS essays.

How does this harm children? In some schools, TAAS practice consumes the greatest part of instruction. Some Texas school children literally only read four or five pages per week in their reading classes. They may spend a few minutes reading their daily passage and then spend an entire hour doing strategies and re-reading that same single page. This does not build good reading habits.

ADVANCED PLACEMENT PROGRAM

Advanced Placement (AP) is a program which allows high school students to take college-level coursework while at the same time receiving high school credit. The AP course requirements and exams are devised by a committee of curriculum consultants made up of highly qualified college professors and high school secondary teachers. Because master teachers who are still currently in the classroom help design the AP curriculum and the exams, the AP program has earned a solid reputation for offering high school students genuine academic rigor. Students who make 3's, 4's, or 5's on their AP exams qualify for a certain number of college hours depending upon the individual policies of colleges and universities. (Please see College Board website at http://www.collegeboard.org/ap/techman/whois/apdevcom.htm for more information.)

TEACHERS AND ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES

Because of the mushy, jargon-filled, and repetitive wording of the TEKS, teachers are terribly frustrated with them. Classroom teachers are desperately searching for something which has validity, something which offers legitimate academic rigor. They want some explicit guidelines which challenge their students to learn specific content. The Advanced Placement program offers an exciting prospect for both teachers and students. However, if Texas does not take some action very quickly, the AP program will turn into just another "dumbed down" program.

THE DUMBING DOWN OF THE AP PROGRAM

According to TEA's 1999-2000 figures from The College Board, 55,176 students in Texas' public schools took 97,965 AP exams last year. (Please see Attachment #11, "AP Test-Takers and Their Scores.") Those figures look quite favorable until one question is asked. How many of the students took multiple exams, and how many AP students took no exams at all? Some interesting information arises when we investigate that data by looking at two sets of AP figures: the number of students enrolled in each AP course and the number of students who took AP exams in each course. This data shows that only 27.15% of the enrolled AP students actually took AP exams. This means that around 1 in 4 students in a typical AP classroom finished the course and took the AP exam for that class. What happened to the other three students? Why didn't they finish the course and take the end-of-course AP exam?

My contention is that many AP students do not have the preparatory skills which will help them to be successful in the AP classroom. Therefore, they get discouraged and either drop out or do not take the exam. Then there are many students who never plan to take the AP exam at all. They are simply in the AP classroom in order to receive the grade-point multiplier that most schools award on students' Grade Point Averages (GPA) for each AP course that they take. It is commonplace for students to enroll in numerous AP courses, stay only one semester, and still reap enough total multiplier points to raise their GPA's.

What happens when a large number of students do not have the preparatory skills necessary for success, do not plan to take the end-of-course AP tests, and/or are only taking the course for the GPA multiplier? AP classes are being inundated with students who are dragging down the standards of the classroom. The teacher cannot maintain a true AP curriculum standard if a large majority of the students either do not have the required foundational skills or if they do not intend to do the advanced work. The reality in today's public schools is that when a large number of students begin to fail a teacher's class, the students and their parents put tremendous pressure on the teacher. If administrators do not stand behind a teacher's high standards, the teacher is left in a very vulnerable position; and in many instances, the teacher either has to lower his standards or suffer the mental and physical anguish that intense pressure brings. My fear is that unsupported AP teachers all over this state are caving in to the intense pressure and are lowering their AP standards.

Here is another realistic concern: How does a school know whether an AP course is being taught on an AP level if a large majority of the students do not take the AP exam? Some AP teachers may be calling their classes "AP courses" in order to get to teach the more-motivated students when, indeed, the course content is very minimal. Without the AP exams to hold teachers and students accountable to a standard, who is to say what is really happening in those courses?

It is my belief that the Advanced Placement program probably offers the last bastion of academic standards left in our public schools today. When the state started tracking the number of students enrolled in AP courses, the schools started pushing more students to take AP courses. Whatever administrators are told will be counted and/or tracked on the AEIS Indicators becomes the byword for counselors. In trying to raise the numbers of AP enrollees, quantity instead of quality became the over-riding concern. This flood of unqualified and uncommitted AP students has the potential to drag the level of AP courses down and could easily lead to the destruction of the one credible program that Texas has left.

Because of the top 10% rule passed by the Texas Legislature (students in the top 10% of their graduating classes are granted automatic admission to any state college or university), the state now has a vested interest to make sure that class rank based upon GPA is standardized and equitable for all students.

Students take their AP tests once a year -- in early May. The tests are graded in June, and the results are released in July. Therefore, it would be impossible to hold seniors personally accountable for their AP test results because they have already graduated by the time they receive their AP test scores. However, legislation could be passed which states that (1) students should receive their GPA multiplier in an AP course only after they have finished the school year in the AP course and have taken the appropriate AP exam; (2) schools should be granted AEIS Indicator points based upon the percentage of AP students who make 3's, 4's, and 5's on their AP tests. If these two legislative provisions are put in place, the AP program can be saved from becoming just another mediocre program.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Texas Legislators, Texas State Board of Education members, the education bureaucracy, and educators have all put forth considerable effort to raise the academic achievement of Texas students. According to all the leading indicators except for the TAAS tests, Texas students still have a long way to go before it can be legitimately said that they have achieved mastery level.

The problem is not insurmountable if all entities would put politics aside and take an honest look at the condition of Texas' public schools. Valid research is available; documents have been written (such as the TAD) which could bring common-sense, grade-specific standards into every public school classroom in our state.

Legislation can be passed which addresses more than just the amount of money available to throw at the problem. In fact, money is not the answer. Money does not necessarily equal academic achievement, and there are no legitimate studies which can prove otherwise. Discipline and curriculum, in that order, are the two essentials; and fortunately for the taxpayers, neither is a big-dollar item. All we need in Texas is the will to do things right, and we can rectify the mistakes of the past. The mission is clear; the time is short for this present generation. Children only come this way once in their lives. We owe it to them to do whatever is necessary to help them become well-educated, hard-working, self-controlled, and personally responsible adults.

FOR POLICYMAKERS -- PLAN FOR EDUCATION REFORM

I have made it a practice never to criticize without offering a constructive alternative. Here are some recommendations for policymakers which would bring about genuine education reform in Texas:

Schools need to establish discipline-management plans which define required disciplinary action from the time a student is sent to the office for a disciplinary infraction to the time a student ends up in the juvenile justice system. All Texas schools must have such a plan in place.

The state of Texas needs to rewrite the TEKS for English / Language Arts/ Reading so that the standards are explicit, academic, knowledge-based -- so clear and well-defined that individual interpretation is prevented.

Specific TEKS goals need to be delineated for each grade level and should spiral upward in difficulty and complexity from one grade level to the next.

Once the TEKS are knowledge-based, explicit, and grade-level-specific, the TAAS tests need to be carefully aligned with the TEKS; and the TAAS questions need to be scored objectively.

All students need to be tested with nationally-normed tests (English only) at periodic intervals during the state-testing (TAAS) off-years.

English should be taught in English classes with foreign languages being taught in foreign language classes at the discretion of the local school districts.

Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs should primarily focus on the teaching of phonemic awareness skills.

Pre-K through Grade 3 reading programs should base their curriculum on validated, replicated, peer-reviewed, scientific reading research that stresses the importance of mastering phonemic awareness and decoding skills (phonics).

The decoding skills must be taught systematically and explicitly through at least Grade 3.

Children must practice their decoding skills by reading 90% to 95% decodable text.

Federally funded programs (e.g., Migrant Education, Head Start) for young children should seek to equip parents with phonemic awareness strategies which can be practiced easily in their homes.

Students should not receive their multiplier in an AP course unless they finish the school year in the AP course and take the appropriate AP exam.

The number of students who make 3's, 4's, and 5's should become an integral part of the scoring standards for each school's AEIS Indicators.

FOR EDUCATORS -- GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ELAR INSTRUCTION

Here is a list of guiding principles which I believe need to be followed in order to improve English / Language Arts / Reading instruction:

The first and primary mission of the school is to raise academic achievement.

Nothing must take away from clock hours of instruction in the ELAR classroom (e.g., block scheduling, cultural awareness, vocational instruction).

Discipline must come before learning can take place. Rebellion keeps a child from being able to focus on academic achievement.

The teacher must set up structure in the classroom. If individual students do not adhere to the policies, they should be disciplined on a one-on-one basis.

Discipline can only be established when there is a strong support mechanism in place to support the classroom teacher.

Students must have a clear sense from the moment they enter the classroom that the teacher is the authority figure.

Desks need to be arranged so that they face the teacher, at least for independent learning instruction.

Pre-K and K children must be surrounded with spoken English. They need to participate in oral language activities which are full of interchanges among participants. Getting to hear compound, compound-complex sentences which contain involved sentence structure will help children to develop a sense of what constitutes correct English sentence patterns.

All future academic achievement is dependent upon a child's ability to read.

Phonemic awareness/decoding skills must be taught systematically and explicitly.

Children must practice their new-found knowledge in words which they have already learned how to sound out (i.e., decodable text).

Children must practice sounds, syllables, and then words until automaticity is achieved.

Mastery level cannot be rushed and requires quality and quantity of instructional time.

Many of today's children who come from language-impoverished homes require one-on-one instruction and intervention.

Reading must be taught at the first of the school day while young children are fresh and alert.

During the time that young children are learning decoding skills in the morning, they need to be inundated with listening to great classic pieces of literature read to them later in the day. This will help them to develop cultural literacy, foundational knowledge, a sophisticated vocabulary, and a love of good literature.

K-1 must have the optimum scheduling, the smallest classes, the finest curriculum, and the most qualified phonics-trained reading teachers. A child's academic development in these two grades will determine his future success in all other courses.

Beginning readers should be taught to go from sound to letter, not from letter to sound.

Hearing the sound of the letter(s) and being able to write that sound as a letter(s) will lead students into correct spelling patterns.

Being able to sound out words with automaticity will lead to contented readers whose brains are free to focus on the meanings of the sentences.

Once children have gained the ability to read over 90 to 95% of the words in a book without their being frustrated, they should progress to a book which is on the next higher reading level.

Upper elementary students should continue their progress toward good literacy by being heavily exposed to the time-honored classics throughout their entire school experience.

Students should be expected from their earliest school years to use correct spelling and composition skills in their writing and to use correct English constructions in their speaking.

Grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and composition must be taught systematically and explicitly with skills that increase in depth and complexity as the student moves from K all the way through Grade 12.

The traditional classics cannot be improved upon. They are timeless and have proved themselves to be superior pieces of literature by appealing to countless generations. Children should be introduced to independent reading of traditional classics as early as possible and should continue to read the classics as they progress all the way through school.

Donna Garner - Teacher of 27 years in Texas Public Schools, now teaching English I & II and Spanish I & II at Temple Central Texas Christian School, member of the writing team for the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills English Language Arts, and Lead Writer for the Texas Alternative Document for English/Language Arts/Reading.

Donna Garner
236 Cross Country Dr. 
Hewitt, TX 76643
254-666-2798

  *     *      *     *     * 
Paper presented at the Lone Star Conference on
PUBLIC EDUCATION REFORM IN TEXAS - COMPREHENSIVE PROGRESS REPORT December 7th and 8th, Austin, Texas. Contact information for the Lone Star Foundation 10711 Burnet, Suite 333, Austin, Texas 78758 (Telephone 512-339-9771).

Published as a public service by
EducationNews.org