Michael Deshotels

Having followed the work of Michael Deshotels for almost seven years, I’ve come to understand his work, support his message, and count him as a trusted education advocate and personal friend. I also appreciate and support the work of other education advocates such as Lee Barrios and Dr. Mercedes Schneider. All of these folks have worked to bring to light what is wrong with what is happening in Louisiana’s education system just as I have. I have learned that sometimes no matter how hard you try, your message doesn’t get the traction it should because people don’t care, don’t understand, or interpreted the message, wrong.

When it comes to state assessments, student scores, and school performance schools, I believe that the four of us agree that the published results are meaningless based on the following reasons.

  1. The outcome is predetermined.
  2. The expected level of achievement is arbitrary.
  3. The cut scores used to determine the level of achievement are arbitrary.
  4. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its life thinking it is a failure.

THE MESSAGE: Deshotels’ most recent publication, The LDOE claims steady growth in student LEAP scores, is a continuation of his effort to illustrate the invalidity of these scores. In his narrative, he points out that the average cut score for ELA and Math in grades 3-8 is 27%. The actual minimum number correct that a fourth grade student can get and receive a score of “Basic” is 21 of the 86 questions (24%). I note that the goal is “mastery;” however, “basic” is passing.

A student can get only 24% of the answers correct and earn “basic.”

While scrolling through the many shared posts of Deshotels’ article, I have noticed that many are misinterpreting his message. The reaction, in general, has been something to this effect, “Oh my God! He’s trying to make us think our kids are doing great!” or “This is why Louisiana is 50th. These teachers aren’t teaching our kids.” I can tell you this is absolutely NOT the message. Because of Deshotels’ work, we know the high achieving students continue to make great improvements despite not meeting arbitrary “high expectations.” We know that average students continue to make great strides, but many students on the lower end of this range are dropping off into the low performing range. We know that the number of low performing students continues to grow even though many of them are improving from year to year.

DETERMINING THE ACHIEVEMENT STANDARD: If you are a person who has struggled with your weight, or you are extremely disorganized, or you’ve never been athletic but want to run a marathon, the surest way to create frustration and fail is to only focus on your end goal. If you judge your progress by your daily failure to meet that goal, you will become increasingly frustrated, and eventually, give up. The recommended approach is to set incremental goals that can be achieved with reasonable effort and set a new goal when that one is met.

This is pretty easy to understand when judging your own achievement, but how do you apply this when judging the achievement of others? Here is an easy way to understand.

Coach Winalot has been a successful football coach for twenty years. He takes pride in selecting team members based on their current physical ability. He has strictly adhered to the requirement that team members be able to run a mile under five minutes and complete fifty push ups without stopping. Most years, he has had enough players to complete his team with a few extras, and occasionally, he has had to select a few that didn’t meet the requirement but were close.

This year, once tryouts were completed, Coach Winalot realized that of the seventy-five students who tried out, all but three met the requirement. This is a textbook example of when a standard should be raised. If most, or all, of the participants are able to meet the standard, then the standard must be raised. In this case, Coach Winalot must decide on a new standard for running a mile and push up completion.

For illustrative purposes, let’s assume that Coach Winalot decides on a four minute mile and seventy-five push ups. He would likely find that a number of students meet the requirement, and he may have to select a few who didn’t make it but were close.

Now, consider this. What if Coach Winalot had set his standards at a four minute mile and seventy-five push ups at the beginning of his winning career? It is possible that in twenty years not a single player could meet the requirement, or maybe, a handful did. Does this mean that the players he selected weren’t athletic because they didn’t achieve his standard? Absolutely not. Would this discourage those who can’t even come close to the requirement from even trying out? The reality is a football coach has the luxury of selection by setting a standard that excludes; even if it is unattainable. A teacher does not. That is why it is vitally important that academic standards be appropriate, have an achievement standard that can be reached by most students with reasonable effort, and be supported by evidence of research.

Parents should be aware that state assessment are not providing us with valid data that can be used to make important instructional decisions. We need to stop focusing on the invalid standard of accountability that schools, teachers and administrators are being held to and start demanding that our state leaders engage in the development of an accountability system that is based on research and promotes healthy growth in learning.

That is Michael Deshotels’ message.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *