The results of Barlow’s Connecticut Academic Performance Tests (CAPTs) and  SATs are in, and the news should be of some concern.  In the CAPT, last year’s 10^th graders did not score as well in math and science as six other schools with similar demographics (known as DRG A).  In the SAT, Barlow’s average scores were lowest among these schools, and were noticeably lower in math.

This issue deserves a lot of discussion, but here are some of my basic thoughts:

First, we need to look closely behind the numbers to see what they really tell us about performance and achievement.  These scores are averages, and they are only a snapshot of a particular group of students at a particular time of the school year.  A difference of a few points between our scores and another school’s isn’t all that meaningful in any given year.

What really matters are the recent and long-term trends.  Unfortunately, the recent trend in Barlow’s test scores is essentially flat.  We need to find out why.

To be sure, if our scores are considerably lower than those of similar schools, we absolutely should find out if these schools are already doing something that we should be doing.  But the objective should be to improve our own performance for the sake of our own students, not to look better in a ranking system.

Second, raising average test scores should not be an end in itself.  If that’s all we wanted to do, we could simply require teachers to spend all their time “teaching to the test.”  Since we shouldn’t want to do that, we still have choices to make:  do we focus on improving the scores of students who are already performing at average or above, or do we focus on those who are below average?  In terms of raising average test scores, the first alternative would bring results faster and more easily than the second.

Of course, we want to say “do both.”  But given limited resources, we need to resist the temptation to chase test scores at the expense of working with underperforming kids who need help the most.

Finally, to improve test scores, I would focus on two key areas:

1.  Teacher Development.  After 20-plus years trying to guide my own kids through the educational process, I’m convinced that the quality of the teacher is the most important factor in learning, regardless of the subject.  (My son, who is now pursuing a teaching career, emphatically agrees.)  I will support programs to help teachers become more inspirational and effective.

2.  Individualized Attention.  We all have different learning styles, and the potential to improve our performance in response to the right approach.  Barlow already recognizes this.  I will support all efforts to make sure it continues.

(Redding Pilot, October 4, 2007)