Getting With the "Times" - Take 2 (or Rigor Mortis)

In my prior post I responded to an L.A. Times article lamenting the loss of creativity in schools due to the culture of high-stakes testing that is burdening our public school system.  In that article, the author states,

It's not easy to figure out how schools can balance creativity with academic rigor, productive thinking with knowledge. The nations that do so will have the competitive edge in the future.

On first read, this made sense to me as a proponent of creativity and productive or critical thinking.  Then I realized I am not an opponent of rigor and knowledge, and neither is the author.  But, the author's statement does suggest there is a trade-off between these approaches that must be balanced.

On second read, I realized the folly of this fabricated trade-off.  It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how creativity and innovation work and what rigor means.

Proponents and explainers of creativity, such as Ken Robinson in "Out of Our Minds," would likely argue that creativity and innovation are most productive when pursued through a rigorous structure.  Examples of this abound in industry, with the working structure of Pixar being a favorite.  It is clear that innovation happens when people are mixed in purposeful ways and made to think both critically and in modes that expand their knowledge base.

There is also a misconception of the definition of rigor.  Rigor is a concept that is not easily defined and one that may have a variety of meanings depending where it is employed (something at odds with "standardized" testing).  In "Change Leadership,"   Tony Wagner and Robert Kegan state that rigor is not more work or harder work - probably what most people think it is.  They suggest rigor is more about a measurable, quality product.  They write,

Rigor is about what students are able to do as a result of a lesson.  Rigor implies holding students accountable for meeting certain objective, qualitative standards and measuring progress regularly...  In our view, however, test performance does not often measure students' ability to demonstrate their reasoning and apply their knowledge.

 Here, it is clear that reasoning and knowledge are two sides of the same coin and are not at odds with each other or goals that require a trade-off.  Indeed, creativity and innovation (applying knowledge in new ways) can come from a rigorous (measured accountability) system.

In conclusion, I would restate the initial premise that, "It's not easy to figure out how schools can balance creativity with academic rigor, productive thinking with knowledge."  The statement should read: Those countries that can acknowledge that creativity and innovation, though not easily measured on standardized tests, should be pursued with rigor will be the ultimate winners.

End the rigor-mortis of standardized tests that do not respect creativity and innovation, and Reclaim Public Education!

Getting with the "Times"

The Los Angeles Times is infamous in the education reform world for publishing a list of LAUSD teacher performance scores that are based on questionable and controversial value-added metrics derived from standardized testing data.

Value-added requires comparing test scores across grade levels, something that has always flummoxed me as the California Department of Education website specifically says these test may not be compared across grade levels:

When comparing results for the CSTs, you are limited to comparisons within the same subject and grade; that is, grade two English–language arts (ELA) in 2010 compared to grade two ELA in 2011 or grade six mathematics in 2010 compared to grade six mathematics in 2011. No direct comparisons should be made between grades or between content areas.

The publication of value-added scores caused outrage amongst teachers who rightfully felt unfairly and inaccurately represented. Thus, it came as a surprise to some readers when the L.A. Times published an editorial questioning the merits of standardized testing and the impact it has on creativity and innovation in schools. 

The editorial, "Education's pendulum: Thinkers or test takers?", suggests that the nations able to balance academic rigor with creativity will come out ahead:

It's not easy to figure out how schools can balance creativity with academic rigor, productive thinking with knowledge. The nations that do so will have the competitive edge in the future.

That Obama continues to force high-stakes testing and other punitive systems on our schools through Race To The Top while the rest of the world is waking up to the perils of the testing-factory system of education is a sign of just how unaware politicians are of the current state of education.

Value-added might sound good politically and high-stakes tests might seem like a strong stance on education, but I too am going with the nations that teach thinking and creativity as the ultimate winners.

So, rather than value-added, add value to your society and reclaim public education!