Re: In Defense of Testing

[Monty Neill <monty@FAIRTEST.ORG>]

It is important to get a sense of how kids are progressing in something as vital as reading. But the norm-referenced tests are extremely limited and often inaccurate measures. All too often their very presence and the implication they are the "gold standard" leads directly to misuse, such as narrowing instruction to fit the tests. Such tests won't solve the "bedlam" problem but as presented by Bush are a substitute for actually addressing what it takes to enable schools to successfully educate all students. 

Monty Neill 
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Juanita Doyon <Jedoyon@AOL.COM>
    To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
    Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:23 AM
    Subject: Re: In Defense of Testing
    
    
    In a message dated 2/14/01 9:58:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
    monty@FAIRTEST.ORG writes: 
    
    
    
        Bad 
        measures badly conceived usually put to ends more harmful than helpful 
        (e.g., tracking with many kids on dead end tracks). The info is usually too 
        little and too vague to be of use to teachers -- a good teacher might 
        occasionally find a small nugget of info, hardly worth imposing the test.
    
    
    But, what if the tests were not used for "high stakes" but were only used to 
    give teachers and parents a better idea of where a child was and whether he 
    was improving?  Ideally, of course, parents and teachers are close enough to 
    each child to know, but the reality is that a vast number of children move 
    from school to school and teacher to teacher (and sometimes even parent to 
    parent), so wouldn't entry/exit tests help schools better meet the needs of 
    kids?  If the tests were designed with this goal in mind?   
    
    It seems to me that an appropriate use of the term "standard" should have 
    more to do with a level of service, offered to each child.  Each child 
    deserves to have adults around him who understand his needs and what 
    education structure suits his needs today and tomorrow.  The reality of 
    testing in Washington is that testing is life-- the rest is details to 
    improve the testing.    Statisticians are running the show-- except they 
    aren't authentic statisticians, they are wannabe statisticians.  I doubt 
    seriously if Terry Bergeson truly understands the difference between norm 
    reference and standards based, yadda, yadda, yadda.  She barely understands 
    the politics of unions and teachers and parents-- and there she's a true 
    player! 
    
    If we make local control the issue and trade 50 state mandated tests (meaning 
    50 per state, not 1 per state) for 10 that at least have the chance to be 
    meaningful to parents and kids and teachers, wouldn't we be ahead of the 
    game?  Here we are giving pre and post tests in reading in just about if not 
    every grade or semester, in summer school, in after school and before school. 
     Anything WASL related gets extra push from Kindergarten on.  One assistant 
    told me the other day that she had been administering Kindergarten WASL 
    prompts.  (I took her a specially requested "WASL Sucks!" button yesterday.)   
    In between we have ITBS at 3rd and 6th and 9th grade.  There is a state 
    reading assessment at 2nd.  WASL science is supposed to be repiloted for 8th 
    and piloted for 5th this year.  This doesn't even take into consideration the 
    Lap and Chapter 1 tests that are routinely given to every child.  Gotta keep 
    those numbers up and get that federal money.  Gotta get those free and 
    reduced lunch forms filled out. 
    
    It's funny, when my twins both failed the basic, opposites reading test at 
    the end of 1st grade, and were recommended for LAP, I had to wonder if it was 
    because we have reduced lunch status, but I was more inclined to believe it 
    was because of the 57 student, full inclusion, team taught classroom where 
    all the desks were shoved in one side and there were absolutely no phonics 
    involved.  Don't get me wrong-- reading should be a mix of instruction, but 
    in the midst of bedlam, no reading method is successful.  The report card 
    grades had been great, by the way.  Talk about parental wake up call! 
    
    Anyway, back to the testing thing.  Wouldn't a pre and post test aid in 
    parent/teacher communication?  And wouldn't a test that parents recognized 
    from their own school days be an appropriate tool for individual student 
    measurement?  And maybe we're talking about school based testing utilizing 
    state provided materials.  I don't know.  I just think it's something to 
    ponder as an offer of alternatives, when the playing field opens up a little. 
     Obviously, WASL is a goner, as soon as federal money is officially tied to 
    test scores.  WASL is a perfect example of a good idea mutating into 
    something unconscionable.  Our writing assessments that were pre-WASL weren't 
    bad at all, except that nobody figured out the parent communication piece 
    there either-- funny how that happens.  For a while every teacher was going 
    to be a teacher of writing.  Now, every teacher is just a teacher of WASL!    
    Site based strategic planning also mutated into state mandated WASL 
    prompting.   
    
    WASL Schmasl, 
    Juanita