Re: testing debate in SF Chronicle

[Erwin Morton <e.morton@MINDSPRING.COM>]

Pete--

Suzanne Tacheny is:
- Executive Director of CBEE, and also, simultaneously,
- a member of the California State Board of Education,
appointed by Gray Davis.

That takes this out of the realm of "interesting debate".

--Erwin

Peter Farruggio wrote:

> Here's an interesting debate between an educator and a business flak.  Two
> interesting things to note about Suzanne Tacheny, just from what i read below:
>
> 1) I spot at least two times in which her subjects and verbs disagree
> (wrong conjugations).  I don';t think she can pass the new writing
> standards (or any writing standards).  She needs a remedial course with
> Elements of Style.  Great example of the sheer hypocrisy of these business
> standardistas.  As they did in Florida, we should begin demanding that ALL
> supporters of the high stakes regime pass the high school exit exam.
>
> 2) I think she misses the irony of her golfing metaphor (her concluding
> joke).  She receives personalized feedback and tutoring from an expert, and
> this improves her performance.  Right.  That's the way good teaching works,
> and that's what our underperforming kids need: up-close, individualized
> attention by expert teachers around real tasks (well, in her world golf is
> an essential skill!).  But she goes on to complete the metaphor by
> comparing this experience with the "feedback" we get from standardized
> tests!!!!
>
> ARGUMENTS
>       Do Tests and Add-UP
>
>       Sunday, September 2, 2001
>       ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle
>
>       URL:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/02/IN216072.DTL
>
>       In our drive to improve education, are we going overboard on testing?
> David Fleishhacker, a retired San Francisco educator,
>       argues that standardized testing produces standardized children,
> while Suzanne Tacheny, director of California Business for
>       Education Excellence, says testing helps kids and Parents. . DAVID
> FLEISHHACKER: Has any testing program demonstrably
>       improved education? On the contrary, the time needed and money spent
> preparing students for tests, administering tests, scoring
>       tests, reporting scores and analyzing the results of those tests
> drain resources needed for actual teaching.
>
>       If any correlation could be shown between the results of standardized
> testing and later success in life, then it might be worth going
>       through this process. But no such correlation has been demonstrated.
> The only clear correlation is that students who score well on
>       tests generally continue to score well on tests.
>
>       After schooling ends, success in work and in day-to-day life is
> measured by actual achievement, not by scores earned in a few
>       hours on a task demanding specific and very limited skills. Adults do
> not take tests to prove their worth, so the frequent
>       measurement of success at doing that only emphasizes a useless skill.
>
>       SUZANNE TACHENY: Let's define what we are testing and why. California
> has a testing program around some basic content
>       areas -- English language arts, mathematics, science and
> history/social science. Those subjects, especially reading and math, are
>       the foundations of the education the public expects public schools to
> deliver.
>
>       Testing ensures that students are making adequate progress in those
> areas and identifies the kids who aren't so we can do
>       something about it. That's the most important purpose: identifying
> those kids who are now falling through the cracks and improving
>       how we teach those kids.
>
>       Well used (and that is key), the results of tests help to cause
> teachers to rethink their expectations and approaches; they help
>       educators make better decisions about what they do and why. Most
> important, tests help parents by giving them an objective
>       measure of whether their child's school is delivering at least a
> basic level of education.
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: The school year might provide a "culminating measure of
> success" if all students succeeded, and succeeded
>       on a schedule. But they don't, and they can't.
>
>       Testing helps educators evaluate their work when tests are created by
> those educators. The tests we are discussing are not
>       created by teachers and so do not provide teachers useful
> information; they are created by professional test- makers outside the
>       classroom. The long-range effect is to push the curriculum toward one
> easily "tested," rather than one with intellectual breadth or
>       depth.
>
>       TACHENY: If educators look at the results in the context of their
> overall planning for the year, that is when it makes the most
>       difference. If all a teacher gets is a score report with no support
> to use that information, it will be just an annoyance.
>
>       This doesn't argue against testing. Now we are talking about how to
> make testing more meaningful to teachers. We need better
>       training, better support and more technology to support how the
> information is used.
>
>       You suggest that the only accountability should come from teachers
> creating their own tests to evaluate their own work. But
>       teachers aren't in private practice. These are public schools. We owe
> the public an objective measure of performance that is
>       common and comparable.
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: If we owe the public an objective measure of
> performance, we owe them something better than such tests
>       provide. Testing can demonstrate that students are ready to move from
> one level to another. When content is known in advance,
>       they can show eligibility for further education. Our form of testing
> is a massive, time-wasting, blunt instrument keyed to the lowest
>       possible standards, and the more testing, the lower the standards are
> set.
>
>       One cannot carve with a blunt chisel; one cannot assure quality by
> crude measurement. Infrequent testing, done well, would serve
>       us far better than annual testing, done poorly.
>
>       TACHENY: I don't agree. I've taken these tests and find the content
> challenging and appropriate. California uses a "basic skills"
>       test, and we have also been testing against the state-adopted
> learning standards, which most teachers agree are extremely high.
>       California just released the results of the California Standards Test
> and 70 percent of the state's students were below the goal of
>       "proficient." This hardly lowers the standards!
>
>       Research shows that if a child can't read by third grade, they aren't
> likely to finish high school. If that's happening, someone should
>       intervene. Infrequent testing misses too many kids. Testing every
> year, as California does, makes sure that no child is ignored. It's
>       also a better measure of progress.
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: Yes, make sure kids can read. But any teacher knows if
> they can read -- without these tests.
>
>       Why assume that current testing of reading is effective? Decoding,
> recognition and comprehension are not the same thing. Tests
>       reward test-taking skills, not foundations for higher learning. Can
> multiple-choice tests evaluate whether a student can conduct an
>       experiment or examine evidence? Do they measure the ability to
> recognize, and embrace, ambiguities at the heart of historical
>       study?
>
>       For simple recall of "facts," multiple-choice tests work, but this is
> not "usage" or "problem solving." If life were a TV game show,
>       such tests might show readiness for life. But life is not a TV show.
> Such tests document, and thereby emphasize and perpetuate,
>       that which matters least.
>
>       TACHENY: Parents and the public also want an objective measure to
> ensure that is happening. Basically, we are putting the
>       students against the wall and making a mark, then checking the next
> year to tell parents if the school is making progress.
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: That's an interesting metaphor about the mark on the
> wall. Make those marks and half of the students will
>       measure below average. For students, the damage of being so labeled
> is counterproductive. When a school or district is so labeled,
>       this sets off pointless efforts to avoid falling into that lower
> half. But somebody will. Nothing can prevent half of any group from
>       being below average, yet the political reaction to such a situation
> is, inevitably, more money spent, unwisely, to improve test scores.
>
>       TACHENY: So, we tell parents, "Give us your kids for 12 years, and
> when they graduate we'll see how they did?" We shouldn't
>       check progress along the way?
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: We need not tell parents, "Wait 12 years." Testing as
> students move from level to level in each subject is a
>       necessity, but that is something entirely different from classifying
> every student and every school at a moment in time each year. If
>       we tested responsibly before a student could advance, subject by
> subject, we would accomplish something useful. Annual
>       standardized testing does not accomplish that at all; instead, it
> substitutes broad, false measures of progress.
>
>       TACHENY: California's program provokes us to tackle problems that
> might not otherwise be addressed. For example, the
>       program identifies achievement gaps between different groups in order
> to close them. We know about these trends, but have
>       excused them for too long.
>
>       You mention end-of-course testing, which is one of the many
> improvements planned for streamlining California's testing system.
>       We're also adding essays.
>
>       By next year, the portion of the test that assesses state learning
> standards will be the focus of the accountability system. We
>       would also like to release more test questions to the public, so
> people can evaluate the content of these tests for themselves.
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: Adding the improvements mentioned could be a good
> thing. What I advocate, instead, is replacing what we do
>       with something better, not adding more mass testing.
>
>       It will be argued that there is no way to assure quality of any
> product without testing it. If children's minds were a product, and if
>       we knew exactly how we wanted children's minds to turn out, this
> might be a valid argument. But the image of producing
>       standardized children is frightening. The more mass testing, the more
> curricula become shaped to fit tests.
>
>       TACHENY: Because we have standards, a parent can go on the Internet
> (www.cde.ca.gov/board/) and see exactly what content
>       their children should be learning at each grade in order to be ready
> for graduation. The standards suggest that seventh-graders
>       should be able "to contrast points of view from narrative text,"
> third-graders "to differentiate scientific evidence from opinion" and
>       eighth-graders to "understand cause, effect, and sequence in
> historical events."
>
>       FLEISHHACKER: A multiple choice test is:
>
>       (a) A measure of ability to choose between alternative answers to
> artificially simplified questions.
>
>       (b) A choice of invented answers instead of analysis, over time, of
> alternative patterns of understanding and belief which satisfy an
>       individual's ethical, intellectual, and emotional abilities and needs.
>
>       (c) An unproven, invalid process by which life-long education is
> reduced to a momentary judgment, as if the pace of learning is
>       more important than its quality.
>
>       (d) A distorted snapshot based on the incorrect assumption that all
> children should possess the same knowledge and skills at the
>       same time in their development.
>
>       (e) All of the above.
>
>       TACHENY: Thanks for ending in good humor!
>
>       I had a laugh at myself this weekend, so I'll close with this story.
> I am learning golf and was chipping balls onto the green. An old
>       pro walking by pointed and asked, "What do you see there?" I'm new to
> the game, so didn't see anything. He said, "Your shots are
>       all short, but you keep doing the same thing. Change what you are
> doing and you'll get some in."
>
>       Now, I wasn't aiming for the flag; I was merely impressed that I was
> landing consistently on the green. That comment changed
>       my expectations, improving my performance.
>
>       Tests certainly aren't perfect, but are necessary. Used well, with
> support and training, testing acts like that instructor who made
>       me see things differently and evaluate my methods. When the test
> scores cause teachers to raise their expectations for their
>       students, then tests make a most profound difference for kids.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

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