Poor Retention

Nick Hylla

Wisconsin Forest Resources Education Alliance

TPA 4/07

In WFREA’s most recent columns, I focused on two main ideas. First, to be effective educators, we must understand the mental models that influence our audience’s ability to learn. Secondly, if we desire to create an informed and engaged public, then teaching people how to learn is much more effective then teaching people what to learn.

In this article I will further the dialogue and propose a strategy to create lifetime learners in our K-12 students.

In February, the U.S. Department of Education released the Nation’s Report Card for High School Students. The Report consists of two studies: the High School Transcript Study and The Grade 12 Mathematics and Reading Assessment. In the Transcript Study, records were collected from 640 public schools and 80 private schools – making up a nationally representative sample of 26,000 high school graduates. The study examined the number of credits students were taking, the difficulty of their courses, and their grades.

The results are promising:

• In 2005, graduates had about 360 more hours of instruction than their 1990 counterparts.
• 2005 graduates took more advanced courses.
• And, their overall grade point average was approximately a third of a letter grade higher than in 1990.

The Math and Reading Assessment used a standardized test to determine how today’s high school graduates are performing compared to the graduates of 1992.

The results are demoralizing:

· In 2005, the average reading score for high school seniors was 286 on a 0–500 scale. This score was lower than the 292 average in 1992. Both male and female students’ scores have declined.

· The percentage of students performing at or above basic decreased from 80 percent in 1992 to 73 percent in 2005, and the percentage of students performing at or above the proficient level decreased from 40 to 35 percent.

· Less than 25% of high school graduates perform at or above proficient in mathematics.

You may be wondering, “How is it that students can spend more time in class, take more advanced courses, get higher grades, and still perform worse on standardized exams?”

The simple answer is poor retention.

How can students get good grades one week, and get poor grades when asked to take a test on similar information at a later date? Can students really lose knowledge and skills in a matter of months? What could possibly cause this to happen?

Educators know that people retain information best when they can relate to the subject matter, apply what they learn, and gain experience in ways that are applicable to their lives. Teachers understand that these methods of instruction are highly effective. Wisconsin’s K-12 schools promote them in their missions and visions. Unfortunately, they are often absent in today’s classroom.

The heart of the problem is that testing should never be the justification, motivation, or goal of learning. Yet, the more student performance declines, the more tests we demand. “Teaching to the test” ignores proven education methods, ignores the school mission, ignores the ability of the teacher, and ignores the students’ needs. These are all good reasons why tests alone cannot improve student performance.

Then why, despite all we know, do we continue to promote memorization learning from textbooks that are “guaranteed to increase student performance on tests?” While I am tempted to offer a number of cynical answers about the “market potential” of K-12 schools and the relationship of state and federal governments with the textbook and teacher training industries, there is a more promising answer.

We have yet to offer an accessible, affordable, and broadly applicable alternative.

There are a number of educational movements that are proving effective for individual classrooms and schools. These include environmental education, experiential education, service-based learning, project-based learning, and education for sustainability. All of these movements use issue analysis, solution building, group participation, student action, and personal reflection to empower learners and connect them with their community. Yet, these movements have yet to collaborate on a new vision for education that can create the systemic change needed in our K-12 schools.

It is commonly accepted in the education community that if we could re-design the way our schools operate, we would never design them as they are now. My question is, “What are we waiting for?”

For questions, comments, or suggestions contact Nick Hylla at nick@wfrea.org or 715-295-0458.