Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2005 > October > 27 > Entry
Tested to death
Over at Jenny D’s blog she is mixing it up with an anti-testing blogger who runs Schools Matter. Jenny is very pro-No Child Left Behind, believing we need test data to see what’s really going on in the classroom, information that was largely hidden before NCLB.
I’m going to expand here on comments I posted at Jenny’s blog.
In support of Jenny’s view, the subgroup reporting requirement is a great example of how NCLB shines light where there was once only darkness. It says every school must report results for all its minority groups — black, hispanic, special ed, English language learners, etc.
Suburban schools, for instance, for years ignored struggling minority kids and trumpeted their nice-looking overall passing rates on standardized tests. Now NCLB subgroup reporting shows just how badly some of their kids are doing and exposes the need to address this real achievement gap even in within good schools.
But there is reason to be concerned about how our education systems are being reshaped around the new goal of passing standardized tests.
First, it takes an incredible amount of time away from classroom instruction.
My first grader’s teacher frequently assesses and reassess her class of 16 kids at various points during the school day by administering time-intensive, one-on-one exams that assess the kids’ reading and math skills. The time this takes is a continuing problem for teachers.
The rest of the class, during these times, works on their own rather than being engaged with the teacher.
And, even more concerning is the question of how good the information we get from standardized tests really is, particularly on state exams. In writing about standardized tests, here’s what I’ve found — the technology of testing is simply not up to the task of answering the questions we expect them to answer.
I’m talking about questions like — can these third graders read? A multiple choice state standardized test is an awful way to judge whether a nine-year-old can read. Yet we take for granted that the results of a state third grade exam can answer the question — can our third graders read? For an example read this from the series I wrote last year with my colleague Mark Fisher.
And where is all this testing going? It’s going online. Via computer, kids will take more and more assessments in class on top of state standardized tests. And increasingly, those tests will be scored by computer, even writing tests and test that require essay responses. To see how unprepared the testing industry is to score tests automatically, check out what happened when I put one of these programs to the test.
So these are some of the problems with the way the nation has tilted under NCLB. We have given over an incredible amount of classroom time to testing and made passing tests the primary end goal of our K-12 education operation. But there is no reason to believe this makes our kids better educated, or better economic competitors in the world market.
The counter argument is this: without these tests, how would we even begin to guess how our kids are doing? That’s often Jenny D’s mantra, and it’s a fair, and tough, question for the testing critics.
Maybe there’s a middle ground here. We certainly need some measures of student progress. I think we need MUCH better measures than we have now to make the judgments about kids that we are now making. Maybe all that will take is time and research.
On the other hand, perhaps an all-engrossing focus on standardized testing is tilting too far in the other direction.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Testing
Comments
By Nancy
November 5, 2005 11:14 PM | Link to this
Many years ago, I taught and tested. I kept all the test booklets open to the place needed for EACH child. I wrote the child’s name at the top of the page. I kept the booklets grouped according to the children’s work/study grouping so I could save time for teaching. One day, I came in my classroom to find a “supervisor” had closed all my booklets, stacked them in alphabetical order of the students names, and wrote a criticism of my records handling to the principal. It took me a long period of time, of my own time, to get all the booklets back in order of actually helping my students progress according to the “rules” and their actual progress in passing the required parts of each test. Testing processes should be taught to students, early in their school life. They have to be taught early on; to stand in line, to take turns, to listen to the instructions, etc. and then they can begin to learn the standard content of academics! The same process applies to test-taking. Too few people teach test - taking skills.By Mike McDaniel
November 2, 2005 11:25 PM | Link to this
How do we tell how kids are doing without mandatory, high stakes testing? That’s a fair and tough question? You’re joking, right? This is really Scrappleface, isn’t it? How do we tell? I propose a revolutionary epiphany that will change the face of education. First, we establish local geographical units, let’s call them “school districts,” and in each one of these “school districts,” we’ll hold popular elections for citizens to serve on “school boards.” These school boards will hire “superintendents,” “principals,” and to actually “interface” with the “students,” we will hire “teachers.” Are you with me so far? Good! We will require that these “teachers” meet high minimum standards for education, competence, ability, etc. We will also require that they periodically recertify themselves, usually at their own expense in their “spare time.” These “teachers” will be responsible for directly teaching “students.” They will be with them daily and will know them intimately. They will know their strengths and weaknesses, and will understand, that even if Johnny or Suzy fails one test, they are still capable. Who better than these “teachers” who we will make just through higher and higher and more and more hoops, to know the abilities and to certify the degree of education of their “students?” Well, what do you think? You’re right. As Steve Martin used to say, “Naaaaaaaaah!” Since we have hundreds of thousands of highly qualified educators available who have first hand, direct daily knowledge of the educational ability and progress of every American student, it only stands to reason that they must be ignored and denigrated, and bureaucrats and profiteers who know these precious individuals only as numbers on score sheets should determine their futures. Yes, Jenny D. is absolutely right. Without mandatory, high stakes testing, where would education be?By cathy
October 31, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Anthony:- thanks for the insights in your terrific post. ITA that parents need more involvement in their kids’ educations. TJE:- I’m glad you agreed with my earlier post; however, I’d like to suggest that critics of the NCLB Act include ‘liberals’ as well as ‘conservatives.’By Pigs
October 28, 2005 6:48 PM | Link to this
Excellent post. You stated much of what I have a problem with very well. I’ve had a post on this topic simmering in me for a while. It will come out soon!By Anthony
October 28, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
I am currently teaching Special Education Math & Science in a small rural district. I have no problems with my being held accountable about the instruction of my students. What I do have a problem with is how these tests are being used as a sole criteria in determining graduation. Another issue that I take umbrage with is the notion that without these tests, we would not have any idea of how our kids are performing in school. If you want to know how your child is doing in school, I have a suggestion: Take an interest in their school work. Talk to them. Help them do their homework. Be an involved parent. We have ample amounts of research that shows that the most influential factor in a child’s educational performance is the parent. I am all for highly qualified teachers, but what about highly qualified parents? Many of the kids that I teach lack the highly qualified parent. But we all know that there is no way to make parents meet a highly qualified standard. So in order to look like we’re addressing the education issue, we attack the schools, and punish them if they don’t make AYP. As to the issue of determing wheter or not your child can read, if you are an involved parent you know if your child can read. You don’t need a test to prove it.By tje
October 28, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
I agree with Cathy. I also believe that the NCLB is another way for the liberals to give a “warm fuzzy” to the kids who can’t or don’t do the work. What’s wrong with holding a kid back if they can’t do the work of the grade their in? How about teaching the fundamentals? It worked for me and the people in my generation and you know what? We can read, speak properly and learned early on that hard work and determination are what you need to succeed or just plain survive in this world! Why not just teach the basics and expect the kids to do it - not dumb down the entire school system to make those who can’t (and mostly those whose parents are no involved in their school careers) feel good about themselve but end up leaving school illiterate and unarticulate. But I guess that’s too much to ask - make a person work for what they get.By cathy
October 27, 2005 2:35 PM | Link to this
My teacher friends tell me that they have all but abandoned their true teaching skills. Instead, they spend virtually all their time coaching the kids to enable them to pass “the test,” at the cost of giving them a well-rounded education. I am not a fan of the current testing system.