In Defense of Testing

[Juanita Doyon <Jedoyon@AOL.COM>]

Any opinions on this? (yeah, right)  It seems to me a pretty comprehensive
and practical plan, that could be a big improvement over the current testing
mess.  If it replaced rather than added to the state mish mash of assessments.

http://www.educationnews.org/In%20Defense%20of%20Testing.htm

In Defense of Testing

I am a public school educator, and I believe that a valid and reliable
method of testing students
Marilyn Keller Rittmeyer, Northwestern University

I am a public school educator, and I believe that a valid and reliable
method of testing students is necessary to adequately inform parents and
educators about the children's intellectual development. I favor value-added
assessment, but suggest a simpler approach than Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment.

Many nationally normed standardized testing instruments offer to provide
either grade level equivalencies or percentile ranking for reports. Though
grade level equivalencies can be misleading to parents, as well as to
educators, and clarification would have to be provided, using grade level
equivalencies allows for some interesting analysis.

I recommend that all students in Grades K-10 take a survey battery within
the first few weeks of the school year, so that beginning grade level
equivalency can be established. The time required for such a test is
approximately 1.5 hours. At the end of the school year, a parallel form of
the survey battery or a comprehensive core subject battery (longer and more
informative) should be administered. If the comprehensive test is
administered, the time for testing approximately doubles. Gain in grade
level equivalency can be determined for each student. Testing experts at
Riverside Publishing Company have told me that a student who starts the
school year below grade level equivalency can be realistically expected to
gain 6-8 months after a normal 10-month school year. Students who start the
school year at grade level are expected to gain 10 months grade equivalency
after 10 months instruction. Students who start the school year above grade
level are expected to gain 12-14 months grade level equivalency after 10
months instruction.

Students who have a handicapping condition or limited English proficiency
can be tested using a lower level form of the nationally normed test than
their same-age peers would be administered.

Though nationally normed standardized tests are not tied to specific state
standards, research has proven that students have greater achievement on
nationally normed standardized tests if the school they attend is using
rigorous standards (See John Hopkins Study on Core Knowledge Schools at the
Core Knowledge Foundation website). Though criterion-referenced tests based
on the state's standards are not essential to improving classroom
instruction, standards can still guide the instructional program.

Some people will claim that too much testing is being done. But my
recommended testing program requires only 1.5 hours in the fall and a
maximum of 3 hours in the late spring. It is important to administer the
survey test in the fall so that summer achievement gain or loss can be
monitored. Also, no one will accuse the teacher of "teaching to the test"
for the fall administration; the fall test will be a true reflection of the
students' long-term achievement. Parents and educators need objective test
information on an annual basis so that trends in achievement can be watched.
Wise parents take their children to the pediatrician on an annual basis to
have their physical development evaluated against norming charts, thus, any
problems are identified and dealt with early on. Children's intellectual
development deserves to be tracked annually throughout a child's early years
for similar reasons. If we only have objective test data every few years
instead of annually, we may lose valuable time during the child's schooling
when intervention was needed.

Test data should not be used for individual teacher evaluation or merit pay,
because many factors inpact student achievement. The test results can be
used, along with other criteria such as teacher input, to guide
instructional decisions for individual children and the results can be used
to develop a school improvement plan.

As for reporting to the public, I suggest that each grade and each school
and each district be evaluated by the average gain made by three categories
of students: those who start the school year below grade level, those who
start the school year at grade level, and those who start the school year
above grade level. By focusing on the gain in achievement for three
categories of students (below, at, above grade level), the staff of the
school will focus on the instructional needs of individual students. We will
be able to compare schools more honestly, because we will be comparing
similarly achieving students in each school. If the average gain is not
equal or better than the gain recommended by the publisher of the test, the
school has some explaining to do. On the contrary, if the gain is
significantly higher than recommended, exemplary programs of instruction
will be identified as models for other schools to use.

I hope that decision-makers will give serious consideration to my
recommended testing program. The current one-size-fits-all approach to
testing either guarantees a test that is too easy for most students or is so
difficult that many students fail. Wise educators and wise parents know that
all students benefit from a rigorous instructional program, but that they
don't all achieve the same verbal or quantititative literacy at the same
pace or at the same time. Tracking students' annual gain in intellectual
development on a nationally normed standardized test provides important
information to parents, educators, and to students.

Marilyn Keller Rittmeyer
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA mkr@nwu.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.