Last week was extremely hard for all principals and teachers, as we faced a free fall in our "proficiency" percentages on the 2010 state tests, the most important indicator of success of the city’s accountability measures. And, it will become even harder when parents and studentslearn of the new scores and find out that many have moved from proficient (Level 3) to not proficient overnight. Mulling this over, and talking to colleagues in the week since the test scores were released, I have come  to two conclusions about the results and an important question about the future.

Conclusion 1: For years, educators I know have noticed that a Level 3 is not truly proficient. We have a Reading Lab in our school for struggling readers who were not succeeding in our middle school because of lagging reading skills. “But,” their parents would say, “my child has a level 3!”  These children were really struggling, but the tests were saying something different.

While as a principal, I was quite happy for the vast majority of our students to be testing at proficiency,  I think we all shared a nagging feeling that something was not quite right. And so, the new scores are a better reflection of where our students actually are.

Conclusion 2: In the long run, it is always better for kids when they know where they stand. New York State was bold in raising the bar, and in so doing, saying that mediocre (or worse) isn’t enough for New York’s young people;  it isn't acceptable that many high school graduates are failing when they reach college.  I agree. This readjustment lends a great deal of urgency to our work because no one should be satisfied with the percentages of proficiency we are facing. Despite disappearing gains that make us all look and feel bad, we need to circle up and make a game plan for how to push our students higher.

My question: Where do we go from here? For several years, we have been building a staff of educators who are interested in project-based learning that is tied to specific, measurable skills. We have been concentrating on maximizing the number of thinking minutes that take place in every classroom. We have consciously chosen NOT to follow a test-preparation curriculum, but rather a test-inclusive curriculum. Of course we want all students to become fluent readers and develop the necessary math skills  but we want much, much more as well.

Educators and parents want their children to develop scientific curiosity, to learn about the history of the world, to discover the arts, enjoy physical health and education, and do independent research.  I think the state wants this for its children, which is why the tests are becoming broader and less predictable.

And, because we know that schools will teach what is tested, I hope that the state and city will pursue assessment programs that are more reflective of what I know New York State’s citizenry wants for its next generation of artists, journalists, scientists, researchers, baseball players, bankers, historians, parents, good samaritans, doctors, and friends.

In other words, we need to flip the formula. While we clearly must push ourselves and our students in areas of basic proficiency, we also must pursue, with undiminished ambition, our larger goal of well-rounded – not test driven—standards for the education of our children. The assessments, then, will need to catch up with us.