Bad Testing Drives Out Good Learning

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

BAD TESTING DRIVES OUT GOOD LEARNING
Teacher Magazine Opinion Column -- October 10, 2007
by Anthony Cody

In economics there exists something known as Gresham's Law. This axiom 
states, "Bad money drives good money out of circulation." In today's 
economic parlance, Gresham's Law is often described (as Wikipedia notes) 
this way: "Money overvalued by the State will drive money undervalued by 
the State out of circulation."

If we substitute "education" for "money," we can apply this adaptation 
of Gresham's Law to the situation American public schools now find 
themselves in. Our government, through No Child Left Behind, has made 
standardized test scores the "coin of the realm"—the legal tender by 
which teachers and schools are judged and evaluated. In a recent 
exchange on the blog "Teaching in the 408," veteran teacher Nancy 
Flanagan offered this perspective: "NCLB has put the bright lights on 
some pretty awful schools...but stops short of pushing 21st Century 
learning skills (synthesis, analysis, creativity, collaboration) in 
favor of the multiple-guess and fact regurgitation. NCLB has settled for 
rote presentation and narrowed curriculum, a disservice to kids who 
deserve more and better of everything—resources, teaching, attention, 
depth, etc."

Blog author TMAO replied: "There's nothing here that says ONLY teach 
basic skills. The law says AT LEAST teach those skills. If we can't 
handle the AT LEAST, of what value is the MORE?"

Does this logic hold up? I believe Gresham's Law sheds light on the 
question. Standardized tests measure skills in a specific way. If one is 
under the gun—facing the loss of funding, or even employment—one is 
likely to shift teaching to emphasize the form of learning that most 
efficiently yields the greatest gains on these test scores. This 
explains the burgeoning industry in test-preparation materials, and a 
curriculum that looks and behaves more and more like the tests.

The curriculum that results in deeper learning, as described by Nancy 
Flanagan, requires a greater investment of time and resources, and does 
not produce a corresponding return in terms of test score results. Good 
instruction is being driven out by bad, because the bad is more highly 
valued.

Gresham's Law also applies to decisions that are made within a school 
about who should receive attention and assistance. NCLB's accountability 
mechanism rewards schools that devote the most time and attention to 
students who are "on the bubble" in meeting basic standards and are 
therefore most likely to have a positive or negative effect on a 
school's Adequate Yearly Progress results. Recent research has revealed 
that as many as 3.4 million higher-achieving students in lower-income 
families are falling into an "achievement trap." They meet the basic 
goals but are not being pushed beyond that level to excel. Under NCLB, 
there's no payoff for doing so. These bright students start school 
achieving at high levels, but fall behind as they get older and wind up 
not fulfilling their potential.

The same might also be said about middle-class students who come to 
school far above average in readiness and achievement. They can meet the 
basic goals without any special effort by the school. Again, there's no 
NCLB payoff in challenging them at the highest levels. It's little 
wonder many ask as they get older, "Why do I need school?" Using the 
Gresham analogy, the mechanisms of NCLB force schools to overvalue basic 
goals and undervalue achievement beyond the basics.

A New Gold Standard

To rescue our schools from this devaluation of our education currency, 
we need to redefine that which is highly valued. Flanagan has made a 
start, with her list of 21st century skills: synthesis, analysis, 
creativity, and collaboration. Those defending standardized tests point 
out that their tests are efficient and "cover" the basic subjects. But 
in these times, when knowledge is expanding geometrically, "coverage" of 
a subject is an illusion. Students have to be developed as self-learners 
with the critical skills necessary to discern the value of information 
and build understanding using the skills Flanagan and others have 
identified.

Policymakers and the public want proof that teachers are making a 
positive difference in student learning. They want accountability. It's 
a reasonable expectation. So it becomes incumbent on educators who want 
society to value the best teaching and learning to go beyond pointing 
out the limitations of standardized tests, and offer a new "gold 
standard" by which student achievement can be and ought to be measured.

This is not a simple task. To measure student achievement using the 
parameters suggested by Flanagan, we will need deeper standards, a more 
nuanced (and more costly) approach to measuring student progress, and 
educators who are capable of doing skillful classroom-based assessments 
that have wide credibility and acceptance. The beauty of this approach 
is that it pushes teachers to become highly knowledgeable about the 
daily effects of their teaching—and therefore expands student learning 
rather than narrowing it.

Ultimately, the only way we can defeat the low quality education 
currency now in circulation is to thoroughly discredit it, and offer 
something in its place that everyone can agree has greater value.

- A nationally certified middle grades science teacher, Anthony Cody is 
now the secondary science content coach for the Oakland, Calif., Unified 
School District. He is also a leader in Project POSIT, a program that 
seeks to improve science instruction for grades 4-8 through partnerships 
with local science agencies.

http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2007/10/10/07tln_cody_web.h19.html