Thomas Ratliff
P.O. Box 232
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456
State Board of Education
Vice-Chairman
tel: (903) 717-1190
www.thomasratliff.com
The Disconnect Between the Test and the Curriculum
Almost all stakeholders on all sides of the public education curriculum debate agree on
one thing. Our standards are a mile long and an inch deep. Unfortunately, that might not
adequately cover the reality and absurdity of the situation.
I have been made aware of issues that bring into question the alignment of STAAR tests,
particularly the US History EOC, with the curriculum approved by the SBOE.
Based on a teacher “whistleblower” complaint sent to me, there were two questions on
this year’s US History EOC that were not explicitly addressed in the state mandated
curriculum, also known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
TEA has indicated that “names other than those specifically listed in the TEKS are
appropriate for testing so long as it is central to the knowledge or concept the item
assesses, is contained in the textbooks and a committee of educators approves the
question.” Who chooses the members of this review team? In whose judgment is
“central to the knowledge” determined? I thought this was the job of the SBOE through
our public process involving parents, educators, experts and done in public meetings.
Regardless of the process, I fundamentally believe it is unfair and unsound to test
students on items not contained in the TEKS that almost everyone agrees are already too
expansive. At a minimum, this only unnecessarily increases test anxiety when students
are confronted with questions they don’t know because they haven’t been taught!
Both of the examples described below bring into question whether the tests Texas gives
its students are aligned with the curriculum adopted by the SBOE, which also determines
what teachers are expected to teach. Moreover, this exacerbates the problem of not
providing students enough time to master content, rather than race through it on the way
to the state’s standardized test.
I am concerned that this situation reflects the “trip wire” mentality we have sought to
eliminate from our accountability system and it makes me wonder what else is on these
tests that go beyond the TEKS.
My hope is there is still time for the legislature and/or the State Board of Education to act
quickly and make it perfectly clear – we won’t test our kids or measure the performance
of our teachers or our schools based on content that isn’t in the TEKS.
Not printed or mailed at state expense
In exploring this issue with TEA, the facts are as follows:
A question related to Shirley Chisholm was on the 2015 US History STAAR although
she is not mentioned in the current version of the TEKS because she was deleted in 2010.
According to TEA, this question targeted the following supporting standard:
0226DZ: Identify the political, social, and economic contributions of women such as
Frances Willard, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Dolores Huerta, Sonia Sotomayor,
and Oprah Winfrey to American society.
In this instance, TEA has confirmed that Shirley Chisholm was in the textbooks and a
review team approved the question, but was not in the list adopted by the SBOE.
My concern is, if a teacher is required to provide all possible examples of all women who
have provided political, social, and economic contributions to American society, that list
alone could be nearly endless.
The second question on this year’s US History EOC was a field test question related to
Bull Connor. It was not part of the student’s score, but students don’t know which are
field test questions and which questions count towards their score. Regardless, I would
hope that field test questions are also aligned with the SBOE-adopted TEKS.
According to TEA, the Bull Connor question was designed to test the following
supporting standard:
0109GZ: Describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval
Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern
Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo.
Again, TEA confirmed that the question was considered appropriate because it related to
similar individuals following the qualifier “such as” and similarly had been approved by
a committee of teacher reviewers.
I appreciate TEA’s responsiveness to my concerns raised by these questions and I
applaud teachers who go above and beyond the curriculum to enrich their lessons, but
what happens if a teacher opted to discuss Barbara Jordan instead of Shirley Chisholm?
Should the student be punished for this by making a lower grade on a test required for
graduation? Should a district’s or campus’ A-F rating suffer because a question focused
on an unnamed, and untaught example?
In my opinion, we must be certain that the tests are evaluating what the SBOE has
decided are the essential knowledge and skills. These two examples draw into serious
question the validity of the test and its alignment to the curriculum.
Not printed or mailed at state expense