Let’s Talk About Tests…Part I
- Jan
- 23
Part I – Pros vs. Cons
Yes, for those of you from the original hip hop generation – this was a play on that famous Salt N Pepa song “Let’s Talk About Sex”.
Why? Because it seems that these days, talking about testing and NCLB is just as emotionally charged a topic as sex! But, as is my usual modus operandi, I’m gonna talk about it anyway. Why? Because we have to solve this for the children.
My purpose here is not to throw out testing entirely, but to curb it and make it more effective.
My purpose here is not to villify those who believe in our current paradigm of high stakes, multiple choice, superficial standardized testing, but to change minds and create an accord.
My purpose is to look at the aforementioned combination of words: high stakes + superficial / multiple choice + standardized = we have a problem.
My purpose here is not to transform our schools into environments where there is no evaluation, no grading – I think evaluation is necessary for teaching. But I think that evaluation needs to measure the progress along a line toward the actual desired product – students who can process information, take initiative, and innovate.
Before we truly solve this problem, we absolutely have to look at the reasons and the “pro” side of standardized testing. The reason – these are issues that we cannot escape and therefore must acknowledge in order to come up with solutions that actually work. I sincerely doubt that all of those who fought for and then approved NCLB and the move toward excessive standardized testing are stupid. I think it’s more likely that they were uninformed, unimaginative and had really complicated issues to solve. Any two of those three ingredients spell a recipe for disaster. So, let’s dig a little deeper….
What Made Us Think “Yes to Standardized Testing”?
1. Kids are competing for spots at colleges / universities from wildly different school systems, such that grades alone can’t be a fair separator.
2. We live in a culture that values superficial, number based measurement – i.e., if person “x” has more money, they must be better than person “y”.
3. We didn’t want to continue rewarding bad schools that produced bad results.
4. Testing companies can make a lot of money and therefore put a lot of money toward lobbying.
5. We wanted to find a way to measure across the board what kids were learning, without taking up too much instructional time.
6. Stuff that’s easy to measure is easy to measure.
7. It was an effort to measure the achievement gap between different socioethnoeconomic groups.
8. It confers the ability to create systematic reporting – resulting in clear information about how kids are doing (on standardized tests).
What Makes Us Think “No to NCLB Type Standardized Testing”?
1. Multiple Choice tests do a poor job of testing the processing skills, creativity, and reasoning of a young student.
2. When standardized tests are made the most important of measures, the natural reaction is to “teach to the test”. This does not result in independent thinkers, but instead in well trained “regurgitators”. This phenomenon is found repeatedly in “incentivization” paradigms.
3. The realization that that to think the following is wrong: “Since other successful countries engage in large scale standardized testing, then this must be why they do better”. This thinking completely ignores the factors of higher comparative teacher pay and greater selectivity in teacher training programs, placing all of the importance on standardized testing.
4. The evidence against high stakes standardized multiple choice testing looms large.
5. States have purportedly taken the strategy of adjusting their standards to “curve” the test scores.
What I want to do is bring the two sides closer together. There is a much happier middle ground between “NO TESTING” and “WE NEED MORE TESTING”. The true issue is not whether to do standardized testing – but how the tests are constructed, how often they are done, what importance they are given in evaluating schools, and how important they are in funding major influencers in a child’s education like teacher salaries.
In my next post, “Let’s Talk About Tests…Part II”, I will discuss some possible solutions I think could work. For now, let’s hear your thoughts…
7 Responses so far.
Leave a Reply
I don’t have a problem with standardize tests. Its how we’re using them that’s the problem. I think the country does have a basic set of minimum skills students should have and to date no one has come up with a more viable way of measuring that for the country.
However, instead of using them as a tool for alerting the government which school systems are in trouble and need added assistance, we do just the opposite. We use them as a gatekeeper that determines whether or not a child is deserving of higher education. And even dumber to me, we use them as a means of punishing under performing school systems by basing their funding on test results. It just seems so completely backwards to me to do that, as opposed to using it as a red flag for a proper evaluation. Maybe if they did, they’d realize that overcrowded classrooms with outdated materials may contribute to low test scores as opposed to just assuming that its due to bad teachers and administrators. Common sense would dictate that these school systems need more funding, not less.
I totally agree with Some Random Dude above. It boggles the mind that under-performing schools are penalized rather than given more support. I don’t even need to get into WHERE these under-performing schools usually crop up.
But your statement “stuff that’s easy to measure is easy to measure” is a major problem I have with standardized testing, which is that it’s a pretty lazy way of evaluating children. One test on one day really can’t give you a good picture of a student’s potential and relying on it for that is absurd.
I’m very curious to see your solutions tomorrow.
I agree with both of you on the points that:
The exclusion of funding for schools based on standardized test scores is an asinine way to solve our educational problems.
Unless of course, one of two things holds true – that you don’t believe in public schooling and want it to fail. Or that you believe the real problems are insurmountable (like increasing teacher pay / selectivity, improving the school environment, providing for public safety, lessening the extreme concentration of wealth, making sure all citizens feel valued).
Standardized, multiple choice tests are usually really lazy ways to test children
Although, our current administrative structures (including local, state, and federal) don’t really lend themselves to testing in more meaningful ways. Which always brings us back to the scan tron.
While I think education should be fiscally responsible, I don’t know that it should necessarily hold as a priority being fiscally frugal. I think the ROI is huge on education, and we need to treat it like the sound investment that it is. After all we spend way more on other, less fruitful investments (remember the “Star Wars” project during the Reagan years?).
And money is what we will need if we are to build a better testing system. It DOES need to be standardized in SOME way, because of the competition issues I outline above. This is the only way to achieve fairness. No, true standardization can never be reached, but we can make our best attempt to approach it.
I believe the largest problems are 1) The high stakes of the testing, 2) That it has undue influence over curricula, and 3) The design of the testing.
More to come later tonight….
@Tracey and Some Random Dude (tee hee because I know who you are) – here is another link discussing this. This one is hilarious, because in their “pro” or “yes” column, they say the following, which is the most laughable statement I have ever heard on this subject:
(On standardized testing): “It motivates students to really learn the material rather than just memorize for tests.” What?!?
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/school_testing.htm
[...] Part I, I spent all my time indicting our current system of testing, investigating the pros and cons, and [...]
As a 20 year veteran of the test prep industry I have to say I mostly agree with your points and position on testing. I also appreciate highly the way you’ve choose to present the issue in a clear balanced fashion despite your clear leanings. Before my commentary I want to make clear my assumption because i think its significant. It seems the discussion here is focused on statewide in school testing not on national admissions testing which in my experience are a very different monster with very different issues. Here are my thoughts on these tests:
1. Standardized tests need to be more rigorously created, vetted, and consistently scored.
Can we even call it standardized testing if every state and nearly every school district creates its own test, has its own curriculum, has its own scoring system? Can it be a valid test if it is full of typos and subjective language, which not only confuses children but I’ve seen questions which confuse teachers? Can it be called a standardized test if the scoring is subject to political shenanigans and spin (see the flip flopping and re-scoring of NYC tests)?
2. Standardized tests do what they are designed to do, but are used to do too much.
I dont object to standardized testing as long as it used for what its intended for. Such testing provides information, basic, narrowly revealing information but information nonetheless. Standardized tests are like the 40 time in football and free-throw percentage in basketball, its a great way to learn about one area of a person talent. However the current model in education is to use them to select a NFL or NBA team.
However if the tests are on grade level and appropriate than they are very revealing because the skills these tests test are so basic a student who knows what he is supposed should do well easily on these tests. Each time I look at a statewide tests and compare it to the standards for the grade level I’m often hard pressed to understand why a student who performs well in the classroom would not dance and skip his way through the test. Most of these tests do not have much sophistication or trickery they are fairly direct and aligned in content to the state standard so other than the format which should not throw a competent student off his game what would cause an entire district to perform well-below average. If a child has been properly taught to add than any addition test should be a non-issue as long as its on level so again we circle around to if the test is designed appropriately (thats a big if) than there must be some other factor.
[...] obsessed with standardized test scores. See my two posts on this, Let’s Talk About Tests Part I and Part II – not just for my thoughts but for the thoughts of others and some valuable [...]