Digital Learning Innovators Object to Single Common National Test

Leading digital learning innovators have just released this letter warning that a single common national test would stifle innovations in learning.  Led by Innosight Institute, the organization led by  Clayton Christiansen and Michael Horn, authors of the 2008 book Disrupting Class, signatories to this letter are seeking to influence the design of the federally-financed national test now being developed by two consortia of states, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).

The letter has been signed by a host of academics, foundation directors, teachers, district administrators, superintendents, non-profit leaders, and education entrepreneurs , including Andres Alonso, Tom Vander Ark, Stacey Childress, Susan Patrick, Terry Moe and Bob Wise.  

This letter warns that these consortia are “doing nothing less than laying the foundation for the next era of American public education.” They say that the assessment framework developed by these consortia must support, not undermine, emerging models of innovative digital schooling.  They fear that “an assessment framework stuck in the factory-era relic of its predecessors would not only be orthogonal to innovative efforts like these, but could also serve to stifle further innovation—literally cutting it off at the knees.”

The letter makes three recommendations to the states and assessment consortia.  Here are excerpts, with my emphasis in bold: 

1) Create a dynamic testing ecosystem, not another one-size-fits-all assessment.  Rather than a single common test, the federal-funded opportunity offers the potential to create a vibrant assessment ecosystem comprised of multiple platforms, open-item banks, and multiple testing options that encourages deeper learning.  An assessment ecosystem, rather than a single common test, will give states the flexibility to take advantage of innovations in digital learning over time while maintaining interoperability and comparability.

2) Plan for innovation.  Interest in assessment systems, not just identical year-end or end-of-course tests, is a productive direction…..With the shift from print to digital instructional materials, an increasing number of students will benefit from the instant feedback of content-embedded and real-time, adaptive assessment….  Overlaying common interim or through-course assessments on these systems must not be redundant or, even worse, misaligned.

3) Adopt assessment systems that support transformation.  Education is shifting from print to digital curricula and from teaching age-cohorts to personalized learning.  New assessment systems should support rather than act as a barrier to competency-based learning…Consequently, next-generation assessments must be made available on demand when a student completes a unit or course and not at a pre-determined time on the school calendar.

We don’t know yet what the test developed by the state consortia will look like.  But this letter beautifully illustrates how centrally controlled efforts to improve education can stifle innovation.  Just as the promise of digital learning makes its debut in our schools, offering a whole new and exciting way to use assessments to further student learning, a federally-financed effort to achieve conformity and consistency across states may extinguish its amazing potential.   

We shall see if anyone at PARRC or SBAC is listening.  I doubt it.  They have their federal money and  their common standards.  They are unlikely to produce a “vibrant assessment ecosystem comprised of multiple platforms, open-item banks, and multiple testing options,” or create a test aligned with ever-evolving interim digital assessments, or to make the test available to students when they complete a unit.  The very fluidity, adaptive and quickly-changing nature of the Internet and of digital learning will make it very difficult for PARRC and SMAC to develop and design a test that will keep up with the pace of change. 

From where I sit, the only way to protect innovation and creativity and excellence in our schools is to take back local control over these standards and tests.  It is not too late for Washington state to withdraw from the Common Core Standards Initiative and its federally-financed assessment consortia.  Washington and other states can pass legislation like this one, which we passed at ALEC on December 1, 2011.  Washington state can also refuse to finance implementation and roll-out of this costly program.