Education is Not a Zero-Sum Game!

Education is not -- or should not be -- a zero-sum game.  In a zero-sum game, anything gained by one participant has to be lost by another participant or participants and the net change is zero.  For example, in an election, when two people are running for the same office, the total number of votes cannot exceed the number of voters so an increase in votes for one candidate results in a decrease in votes for the other candidate.  There are many situations in life where that is the case.  If you and I both interview for the same job and you get the job, I do not.  If we both bid on the same house and your bid is accepted, mine will not be.  Competitive situations are often zero-sum games.

There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game.  If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently.  If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level.  In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game.  Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers."  If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game.  The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth."  The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.

The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth."  Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth."   It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.

This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education.  Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers?  I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high.  Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools?  Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?