This article has been retrieved
times since August 19, 2000
This article has been retrieved
| ||
Volume 8 Number 41 |
August 19, 2000 |
ISSN 1068-2341 |
|
Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University
Copyright 2000, the
EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education. |
The Myth of the Texas Miracle in EducationWalt Haney
|
|
Abstract: I summarize the recent history of education reform and statewide testing in Texas, which led to introduction of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) in 1990-91. A variety of evidence in the late 1990s led a number of observers to conclude that the state of Texas had made near miraculous progress in reducing dropouts and increasing achievement. The passing scores on TAAS tests were arbitrary and discriminatory. Analyses comparing TAAS reading, writing and math scores with one another and with relevant high school grades raise doubts about the reliability and validity of TAAS scores. I discuss problems of missing students and other mirages in Texas enrollment statistics that profoundly affect both reported dropout statistics and test scores. Only 50% of minority students in Texas have been progressing from grade 9 to high school graduation since the initiation of the TAAS testing program. Since about 1982, the rates at which Black and Hispanic students are required to repeat grade 9 have climbed steadily, such that by the late 1990s, nearly 30% of Black and Hispanic students were "failing" grade 9. Cumulative rates of grade retention in Texas are almost twice as high for Black and Hispanic students as for White students. Some portion of the gains in grade 10 TAAS pass rates are illusory. The numbers of students taking the grade 10 tests who were classified as "in special education" and hence not counted in schools' accountability ratings nearly doubled between 1994 and 1998. A substantial portion of the apparent increases in TAAS pass rates in the 1990s are due to such exclusions. In the opinion of educators in Texas, schools are devoting a huge amount of time and energy preparing students specifically for TAAS, and emphasis on TAAS is hurting more than helping teaching and learning in Texas schools, particularly with at-risk students, and TAAS contributes to retention in grade and dropping out. Five different sources of evidence about rates of high school completion in Texas are compared and contrasted. The review of GED statistics indicated that there was a sharp upturn in numbers of young people taking the GED tests in Texas in the mid-1990s to avoid TAAS. A convergence of evidence indicates that during the 1990s, slightly less than 70% of students in Texas actually graduated from high school. Between 1994 and 1997, TAAS results showed a 20% increase in the percentage of students passing all three exit level TAAS tests (reading, writing and math), but TASP (a college readiness test) results showed a sharp decrease (from 65.2% to 43.3%) in the percentage of students passing all three parts (reading, math, and writing). As measured by performance on the SAT, the academic learning of secondary school students in Texas has not improved since the early 1990s, compared with SAT takers nationally. SAT-Math scores have deteriorated relative to students nationally. The gains on NAEP for Texas fail to confirm the dramatic gains apparent on TAAS. The gains on TAAS and the unbelievable decreases in dropouts during the 1990s are more illusory than real. The Texas "miracle" is more hat than cattle. |
Walt Haney, Ed.D., Professor of Education at Boston College and Senior Research Associate in the Center for the Study of Testing Evaluation and Educational Policy (CSTEEP), specializes in educational evaluation and assessment and educational technology. He has published widely on testing and assessment issues in scholarly journals such as the Harvard Educational Review, Review of Educational Research, and Review of Research in Education and in wide-audience periodicals such as Educational Leadership, Phi Delta Kappan, the Chronicle of Higher Education and the "Washington Post." He has served on the editorial boards of Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice and the American Journal of Education and on the National Advisory Committee of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I worked on this article over a period of more
than two years, literally dozens of people helped me in
numerous ways. At Boston College, graduate students Cathy
Horn, Kelly Shasby, Miguel Ramos and Damtew Teferra helped
on specific portions of the work reported here. Damtew
Teferra has been especially helpful over a period of nearly
two years in tracking down references and other source
material and in checking accuracy of data input. Ed Rincon
and Terry Hitchock both helped me more than once as I sought
to build the data set on enrollments in Texas public schools
over the last quarter century. Among many scholars who have
answered repeated questions and kindly provided me with
references and reviews of various portions of this article in
many different versions, I thank James Hoffman, John Tyler,
Jeff Rodamar, Angela Valenzuela, Bob Hauser, Duncan Chaplin,
Richard Murnane, Linda McNeil, Dennis Shirley, Anne
Wheelock, and Janet Baldwin. Diane Joyce, Lauren McGrath,
Anna Geraty, Courtney Danley, and Genia Young helped me, as
they do everyone else in our research center, in ways too
many to mention here. Also, I thank Jane
Hodosi of Market Data Retrieval who, under an
extraordinarily short deadline, helped me get the mailing
labels that allowed us to carry out two of the surveys
recounted here. Thanks too to Chris Patterson for
providing me with a great deal of useful information. Three
electronic mail correspondents—Audrey Amrein, Craig Bolon
and Alein Jehlen also provided me with helpful suggestions
and encouragement.
I also wish to express my appreciation to Judge Edward Prado.
Though I think he may have erred in his ruling in the GI
Forum case (as may be apparent from what is to follow),
during the four days I was on the stand in his courtroom, he
treated me with attention, respect and good humor. He even
had the good sense to tell me simply to "answer the
question," when the professor in me launched
into discussions of literature on topics on which I was
questioned. My wife, Kris, and daughter, Elizabeth, also
deserve great appreciation for their tolerance in putting up
with work that I told them many times would be
done long before now. Thanks also to Gene V Glass who
encouraged me to submit this work to Education Policy
Analysis Archives. As a former editor, I know how hard
it sometimes can be to pry manuscripts away from authors who
know that there are always other nooks and crannies to
explore.
Thanks too to nine anonymous reviewers from the EPAA Editorial
Board who
commented generously on a previous version of this article.
More than anyone else, though, I wish to express my
appreciation and respect for Al Kauffman. Over the past two
years, on several occasions I have cursed him under my
breath (and once or twice aloud), for getting me
involved with TAAS and education reform in Texas.
But after spending more than twice as long on this topic as
I ever thought I would, I have developed enduring respect for
Al, his integrity and good humor, and his quest for truth
and justice. I regret that I was not able to complete all
of the analyses reported here before the TAAS trial. But it
will be a long time before I let Al talk me into
working on another case, even if next time he tries to tell
me I am not his second choice as an expert witness.
Any errors of fact or interpretation in this report are, of
course, despite the enormous help of many good and generous
people, entirely my responsibility. No corporations, foundations or
anonymous donors have supported the research reported here.
But I do owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Boston College
for awarding me a sabbatical leave during the 1999-2000
academic year. Without the leave, there is no way I would
have been able to complete this research. I
did not do what I said I would when I applied for sabbatical
leave, but I hope that the work reported here will win me,
if not forgiveness, at least tolerance
for being distracted from well-intentioned plans.
And on the topic of forgiveness, I am almost certain there
are people I should have thanked here but could not
remember. Forgive me, please, but I simply had to
finish this work before returning to normal academic duties
in September.
Copyright 2000 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu . EPAA Editorial Board
|