Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


Commentaries

What Bernie Madoff Can Teach Us about Accountability in Education

Posted: 2009-03-24

From href=http://hobokencurriculumproject.blogspot.com
/2009/02/what-bernie-madoff-can-teach-us-
about.html"> Hoboken Curriculum Project
, Feb.
19, 2009, a final version of this commentary
appeared in Education Week, March 18,
2009.

Certainly the new Obama administration has taken
several Bernie Madoff lessons to heart, including
surrounding itself with true believers. No one
else need apply. And there's more. . . .





Mindful of H.L. Mencken's observation that, "for

every complex problem there is an answer that is

clear, simple and wrong," the new Obama

administration should avoid making the mistake of

previous administrations in equating

accountability in education with high-stakes test

scores. There is increasing evidence that flaws

in current test design should all but disqualify

their continued use as metrics of accountability,

especially in science and mathematics education.



To help us head off a potential collapse of trust

in public education comparable in scale to the

collapse of trust in our financial system, we

might look to draw parallels from what we are

learning with the economy. In particular, the

closure of Bernie Madoff's fraudulent investment

firm stands to teach us at least four basic

lessons we might use in reflecting on the role

high-stakes testing has in driving current

education reform.



A first lesson is that the most compelling

evidence for something being wrong is often

hidden in plain view. Consistent investment

returns of ten percent or more can't be real, and

they weren't. Similarly in education, there is

mounting evidence in plain view that our current

approach to high-stakes test design can't tell us

what we need to know in order to drive education

reform.



Separate from whether any one test can give a

complete picture of what a student knows or what

he or she has learned in a given year - where the

answer is obviously "no" - there is the more

precise question of whether, empirically, the

tests work as good measures of what a teacher has

done during a given school year? The answer to

the latter question is also "no."



Using student scores from the Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) our university-based

research group has analyzed both the

effectiveness of some specific reform projects in

mathematics as well as year-to-year scores from

the entire state in science, mathematics, social

studies and English. For the most part, we found

the TAKS tests to be what W. James Popham from

Stanford University calls "insensitive to

instruction."



This means that even in situations where

sensitivity to instruction is most implicated -

e.g., situations where there is a sustained,

aggressive, high-quality, and content-focused

intervention - most of a student's score (more

than seventy percent of the variance) on the

high-stakes TAKS test is predicted by the

pervious year's math scores (with, at most, only

7-8% of the variance related to the

intervention). We have checked with colleagues

involved in mathematics interventions from around

the country and their results with similar tests

are comparable. We also found the predictive

power of previous math scores holds up over a

number of years of math testing, not just for the

year prior.



We then did a series of cross-disciplinary

comparisons where the results might be expected

to be the most distinct: Math scores versus

English, science, or social studies scores. What

we again found were similarly high levels of test

scores predicting other test scores in ways that

are very likely to overwhelm the effects that any

teacher could be expected to have in any given

year.



For reform-oriented accountability to work, test

scores need to be highly sensitive to what

educators do. Instead we have tests made up of

items selected for their ability to consistently

sort students, year-in and year-out, in the same

order relative to an increasingly cross-test,

cross-year, and even cross-domain psychometric

"profile" (i.e., the location of students, in

terms of an ability construct, on a logistic

curve) developed by the testing organizations.



Needless to say, these results are highly

problematic for reform.



A second important lesson Madoff teaches us is

that for misrepresentation to work at a large

scale, our desires and, even more so, our fears

need to be played to, often by appeals to highly

specialized forms of expertise or insider

knowledge.



Perhaps no single piece of recent domestic

legislation speaks more directly to our hopes and

fears as a nation than the goals of the No Child

Left Behind legislation to improve both equity

and the levels of excellence in education.



The fact, then, that these largely self-

referential and self-confirming testing profiles

align so consistently with existing inequities

related to socio-economic status, race, or first

language only serves to underscore how

problematic our findings are. That the math tests

in Texas are now being validated, in the name of

predicting "college readiness," with what

historically have been tests of "aptitude" (e.g.,

the SAT) with comparably problematic outcomes

along these same dimensions, makes it even more

likely our high-stakes tests in mathematics and

science are to re-inscribe precisely the sorts of

inequities the No Child Left Behind legislation

was ostensibly meant to address.



Making matters worse, in an era when

accountability hinges on improving scores,

changing a student's placement on this self-

referential profile - by teaching test-taking or

test-breaking skills - is likely to be at least

as effective as teaching the actual content

better. Minimum exposure to content plus heavy

test preparation, especially in schools that are

underperforming, might very well turn out to be

an "optimal" gaming strategy for improving

scores. Anyone who has spent time recently in

schools feeling pressure to improve test scores

can attest to a dramatically heightened attention

to test-taking skills at a level that might even

make the employees of test-preparation companies,

like Stanley KaplanTM, blush. The consequences of

teaching "test taking," as opposed to substantive

math or science, are likely to be profound in

their long term implications, especially for

children attending schools currently deemed

underperforming.



A third lesson Madoff teaches us is that if you

want to forestall the day of reckoning, make sure

you are in charge of both generating and then

interpreting your own metrics.



Currently only a handful of private organizations

and companies operating in the United States have

the large banks of proprietary items developed,

and calibrated, in terms of fit with their own

internal statistical profiles. Consequently, only

these organizations have the ability to produce

tests that can be used to evaluate our movement

toward the psychometrically defined goals of the

No Child Left Behind legislation. Test publishers

are essential both to ongoing test construction

and to the interpretation of the results for

nearly all of the high-stakes tests developed in

the country.



With affiliates of these same publishers also

controlling the lion's share of the textbook

market here in Texas and around the country, one

might legitimately begin to wonder how, when it

comes to the academic side of schooling (as

opposed to school financing), anyone would

continue to describe the US education system as

locally, or even publicly, controlled.



The fourth lesson Madoff teaches us is to

surround oneself with true believers. Reputations

have to be on the line and this will make coming

to grips with what is really going on that much

harder. Some have speculated that even Bernie

Madoff, at some early point, might have believed

in his own seeming successes.



Those of us deeply involved in reforming science

and mathematics education, and who might have

once wanted to believe in the potential of

testing as a blunt but perhaps necessary

instrument of reform, are now forced to come to

grips with the full implications of the tests

being "insensitive to instruction" in a way that

vastly diminishes the role they can hope to have

as instruments of reform. We were wrong to help

sell the idea of placing so much trust in

institutions that, in retrospect, stood to

benefit the most monetarily from our continued

willingness to suspend disbelief.



Our professional reputations are indeed on the

line, making this the toughest lesson the

collapse of the Bernie Madoff empire may have to

teach. We hope the new administration can learn

from our mistakes well before belief in public

education's ability to serve the purposes of a

just, economically robust and democratic society

is lost.



Walter M. Stroup is an associate professor of

curriculum and instruction, an Elizabeth G. Gibb

Fellow, and the chair of the science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics education graduate

studies committee at the University of Texas at

Austin.

More Commentaries


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.