If not standardized tests, then what?

[Allen Flanigan <aflanigan@comcast.net>]

The editorial Bob cited below includes the common refrain that "Absent some
reliable measurement,
how can educators gauge how their students are doing?"
It's a common defence of the pro high stakes testing PR machine. And the
fact that they feel it will resonate with people reflects the kind of
society we live in.  The people making this argument take it as a basic
assumption that there must be some simple and cheap way of gauging this
thing we call "learning" and "education".  It is reflected in our constant
efforts to find a "magic bullet" pill that will allow people to eat a lot of
fatty foods like potato chips without suffering the negative health
consequences.

Some problems don't have easy answers, and policies which start from the
presumption that there is an easy, quick fix for every problem are doomed
from the start.  The answer to the question "how can educators gauge how
their students are doing", as well as how can communities know how schools
are performing, is to do the hard work of ongoing and thorough assessment.
Whether it is performing careful reviews such as those done by accrediting
bodies (NAEYC, for example) on individual schools periodically, or doing
ongoing assessment in the classroom combined with working to involve parents
and establishing good rapport and communication between school staff and
families (parents and children), having agreed upon standards and
expectations that everyone has input into and a stake in, etc., that is what
is needed, if you ask me.  There's no simple litmus test for gauging
something as complex and varied as learning.  There's no way to "objectify"
it and thus improve it, because learning is not subject to scientific
modeling, and eludes precise measurement.

Each school serves the community which supports it; and each ought to be
answerable and accountable to that community (and ought to enjoy its support
as well as endure its oversight).  The measure of school performance ought
to start with community expectations, and be guided and sanctioned by the
community.

Allen Flanigan

Parent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Schaeffer" <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>
To: "ARN Main List" <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:22 PM
Subject: [arn-l] Another Decent Editorial from a Major Paper


> The following is from a historically consevative-leaning newspapaer.
>
>
>
>            STANDARDIZED TESTS TELL ONLY SO MUCH
>       San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial - - January 6, 2003
>
> Pity the public school educators who are beset with a slew of scholastic
> prescriptions to improve student performance.
>
> Take high-stakes testing, for example, where a high-school diploma or
> admission to a prestigious university may hang in the balance.
>
> Two recent studies by researchers at Arizona State University and a
> Michigan-based think tank have concluded that such tests are actually
> hurting, rather than helping, student achievement. Having examined data
> from 28 states, including California, that administer these tests, the
> studies found a number of negative consequences.
>
> Chief among them is the teachers spending an inordinate time prepping
> their students for the test. No surprise there. Since schools are under
> intense pressure to succeed, there is far too much teaching to the test.
> Worse still is the specter of outright cheating by some schools as
> evidenced by scandals in New York, Massachusetts and Texas.
>
> The studies also showed declining student scores on the American College
> Test, the Scholastic Assessment Test, the National Assessment of
> Educational Progress and Advanced Placement.
>
> Another negative consequence was a drop in scholastic achievement in
> those states that have implemented high-school exit exams.
>
> Several years ago, California lawmakers were extolling the virtues of
> the exit exam. But that idea is losing its luster as policy-makers
> ponder the ramifications of requiring the class of 2004 to pass the exam
> before being granted a diploma.
>
> It's one thing to talk tough about holding high school seniors strictly
> accountable. It's quite another to take the political and legal heat by
> preventing thousands of them from graduating. That's precisely why there
> is considerable consternation in Sacramento about sticking to the 2004
> timeline. Our guess is that the state will delay its implementation,
> pending fine-tuning.
>
> This isn't to discount, much less dismiss the value of standardized
> testing. While no test is a perfect indicator of what a student has
> learned, the need for testing remains. Absent some reliable measurement,
> how can educators gauge how their students are doing? Parents are no
> less entitled to know how their children are faring in the academic
> basics so crucial to their success. The key, of course, is maintaining
> perspective.
>
> Measuring student achievement must be done in concert with clearly
> defined curriculum standards. That it has taken several years for
> California to align its test with those standards is disgraceful.
>
> A leveling of the academic playing field is no less crucial to the
> credibility of any scholastic assessment. Students who are most apt to
> fail the exit exam are those in poor schools with a high percentage of
> underprepared teachers. Life may, in fact, be unfair, as John F. Kennedy
> was wont to remind. But shortchanging economically disadvantaged kids
> with teachers who have neither majored nor minored in the subjects they
> are teaching is educational malpractice, pure and simple.
>
>