Trying to pray to two mutually exclusive gods

             by Jim Buxton

               It seems that educational leaders are asking us to pray to 2 mutually exclusive gods at the same time: the god of breadth of content , and the god of content depth ("less is more")  Both gods represent what they call rigor, and both gods contend that it's good to pray to the other god as well.  However, is that really the case these days.  With each year, Social Studies teachers are able to cover less and less content, while many educational leaders say that that is just fine! Nowhere is the mixed messaging as much in evidence as can be seen by looking at the Praxis Social Studies Content test.

                 Out of the 27 states that demand passing scores on the Praxis Social Studies Content test, RI and Connecticut have the highest passing scores at 162.  The spectrum of passing, or “cut”, scores ranges from 146 – 162, with South Dakota (146) and Alaska (150) bringing up the rear.  As you can tell, states have control over the cut score they set for a passing score.   Other northeastern states which demand passing scores on the Praxis Social Studies Content test are Maine, Pennsylvania and New Jersey all of which set 157 as the “cut score.”

                The high scores for RI were set as such by RIDE under Deborah Gist in 2009, and went into effect in 2011.  Gist stated that she was intent on raising RI’s “cut scores”, for all the Praxis tests, to the highest in the country.  In defense of her policy, Gist stated that “we know that while there are many factors that contribute to student success, teacher’s own academic achievement in an important factor…. This change is just a tiny step in an entire strategy we have to raise expectations for our educators at every point in their careers.”  (Jennifer Jordan; Dec. 2009;

http://www.nctq.org/docs/Plan_to_raise_standards_for_teachers_proceeds-_The_Providence_Journal.pdf)

The move was a reaction to the 2009 RI “cut score” on the Praxis I, which was amongst the lowest in the country, alongside Mississippi. 

                Gist also contended that RI could afford to raise the bar knowing that many would not pass because, as she said, “we don’t have a shortage of teachers. We have a surplus of teachers. This is the time to do this, when the system can afford to be more selective.” (Jordan, 2009)

                Now, I don’t have a problem with RI having high scores.   I do agree with Dave Byrd, director of URI’s School of Education, who said in 2009 that he was comfortable with boosting the cut score requirement for the Praxis I test.  Byrd went on to say that he is not convinced that it is necessary to make the scores the highest in the nation.  He stated that “above a certain level, it (the test) no longer predicts the quality of the teacher.”  Byrd continued:  “These are tests that evaluate your ability to do math, (for example), not to teach math.” (Jordan, 2009)

                What I do have a problem with is a rapid increase in the cut scores of the Praxis test in Social Studies at the same time that we are dramatically reducing the content we are teaching in HS Social Studies classes.  (See Blog post on reduction in HS Social Studies breadth of content.)  The people who are advocating a “less is more” approach to Social Studies education are the same people who are raising the cut scores for the Praxis Social Studies Content test.  They’re asking us to pray to two mutually exclusive gods at the same time:  teach less in greater depth in high school, and know a broad range of content when it comes time to qualify to teach HS Social Studies. 

                So, what does a student need to know to pass the Social Studies Content test.  The areas they will need to know are:  US History, World History, Government and Political Science, Geography, Economics and the Behavioral Sciences, which could include Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.  The test involves 130 multiple choice questions.  In the Economics section, there will be about 15 questions.   On the Praxis web site, there is a sample, 40 question test which includes 4 questions related to Economics.  The topics of these 4 questions are:  the Gini index, laissez faire capitalism, Keynesian economic theory, and a question which asks “how many sectors is the US economy divided into?”  Here are topics of another 6 questions on the sample test:  the 1988 campaign of Michael Dukakis, the Chinese Mandate of Heaven, the presidential election of 1896, Bartolome de las Casas, Marbury vs. Madison, South Vietnam in the 1960s and topographical maps.  Let’s take something like South Vietnam in the 1960s.  I think all Social Studies teachers, especially those over 50, would agree that that is a very important topic, yet how many US History teachers have enough time to cover Vietnam these days?  One could argue that the student should learn this Vietnam information in college, but are we then  "passing the buck."  What responsibility does HS Social Studies have in regard to teaching a significant breadth of content?  What is RIDE's point of view on this matter?

                So, in summary, my contention is that RIDE is telling us that depth of content is important for the 17 year old Social Studies student, and not breadth of content.  Yet, we’re asking  the 20 year old Social Studies teacher wannabee to know all sorts of specifics about a wide variety of Social Studies topics.  The test is clearly a Breadth of Content test, and not a "Less is more" test!   Additionally, we’re asking them to prove their breadth of Social Studies content knowledge on a test that costs about $115.  Take it 4 times in order to pass and they’ve shelved out $460. 

                As with many issues I bring up on this Blog, I’m not sure what the solution is.  Do you have any suggestions?