More Than a Score Read Online Free PDF Page A

responsible for administering the MAP at Garfield—and likely the most vulnerable to district charges of insubordination—and yet she looked these officials squarely in the eye, shook their hands, and spoke with an evenness that belied any uncertainties she may have had.
    After a quick exchange of pleasantries, we got down to business. The superintendent told us his visit to our school represented a good-faith effort to start a dialogue with teachers. He told us that many teachers in Seattle used the MAP test and found it useful. He explained that in schools where the teachers took the test seriously, the kids did too, and the results were therefore more beneficial. He also told us that the best way to handle this situation was for teachers to participate in a newly formed district task force that would evaluate the MAP test and release a recommendation in the spring. Until then, he recommended we continue administering the MAP and revisit the question in the spring.
    When he finished, our team of highly trained educators used our pedagogical expertise in an attempt to explain why the MAP test was an inappropriate instrument for assessing our students. We knew Superintendent Banda was not responsible for selecting or purchasing the MAP test for Seattle, and as the new leader of our school district, we understood he probably was not fully aware of the sordid history and many shortcomings of this exam. We truly hoped our lesson plan for that meeting would help scaffold an understanding of why he should “scrap the MAP,” as our rally chant went.
    Jessica Griffin began our lesson by explaining how the MAP was not aligned to her curriculum and tested students on concepts she had not taught because they were beyond the scope of the course. Utilizing her mathematical expertise, Jessica then explained what it meant that the MAP had a higher margin of error than expected gains at the high school level: it rendered the test statistically invalid. She then checked for understanding by asking what the superintendent’s team thought of her criticisms of the test. There was no response. Mallory, whose PhD in education focused on the literacy of urban youth, explained the value of the formative reading skills assessment she used instead of the MAP. She voiced the critical insight that even if MAP data were a useful diagnostic tool, teachers do not receive any more resources to help the students who demonstrate deficiencies.
    Mr. Banda diligently inscribed our objections to the test on his yellow legal pad, yet neither he nor the two district officials flanking him had a single direct response to any of our critiques. At this point, I realized our visitors were not really engaging with the “lesson” we had prepared on quality assessment, and if this class period were going to be salvaged, our only hope was to employ an old teacher trick: the attention grabber. “Respectfully, you are at a critical moment in your career,” I said.
    You are new to this district and the decision you make in the next twenty-four hours will have a profound effect on your legacy in this school district. If you decide to carry out your plan to require administrators to remove students from our classrooms and take them to the computer lab, you will have made your choice to side with the corporate education reformers, some of the wealthiest people the world has ever known. They want the public schools to use standardized testing to evaluate teachers. Or you can cancel that plan and decide to stand with the unanimous vote of the teachers of Garfield High School, the unanimous vote of the student body government of Garfield High School, and the unanimous vote of the PTSA of Garfield High School.
    I noticed as I spoke that Superintendent Banda rolled his pen back and forth between his thumb and pointer finger with an increasing pressure that slowed its revolution, no doubt a technique he employed to decelerate his rising temper.