Im getting testy about testing!

    Not an especially captivating title but I have reached the point of having to respond to the notion that standardized, federally-mandated testing to measure students' progress is an effective and meaningful policy; to butcher Mike Myers' skit, standardized testing is neither effective nor meaningful - discuss.

 

    It is time that the field of education and those related to it come to the conclusion that assessment should be left to the classroom teacher as a tool for creating meaningful, engaging, challenging curriculum based on the progress made by their students. Even though I agree with the idea that assessment should be used as a means to communicate progress to parents and other stakeholders - that should never come before the best interests of students. Standardized tests (CAT - 5, WASL, and the like) are not effective because they only take into consideration topics and question types that fit a certain type of student; thus the moniker, standardized. If it could measure all the different types of knowledge, ways of expressing that knowledge and importance of the knowledge children have - it wouldnt be a standard because one does not, and, in all practicality, CAN NOT, exist. Alfie Kohn wrote a book entitled, What does it mean to be well educated? This is just one of his wonderful books and I recommend it. The question is clear - how can knowledge be standardized and who sets the standard? Common sense will tell you that different kinds of knowledge are important depending upon where and how one lives. Pragmatically speaking, a standard cannot be set. But, for the sake of argument, let us accept that a standard has been set. How can the material be meaningful or meaningfully presented?

 

    Creating a standardized assessment that is meaningful can provide a challenge for even the best teacher because a good teacher knows what is meaningful to one student may not be meaningful to another so how does it become a standard? So the idea of creating a meaningful standardized test is virtually impossible, but creating a meaningful assessment to determine student strengths, weakenesses and progress is not impossible.

 

    I taught the primary level assessment course at a small university for about five years and I always emphasized that assessment should be meaningful, ongoing, continuous and developmentally appropriate. Since it was the primary level I did model authentic assessment strategies such as anecdotal records, observations, performance assessments, interviews and other collaborative types of assessment. But in discussions with my students after they moved on to the upper elementary assessment class, I reiterated those same ideas about assessment at that level. The only advantage to the classroom teacher that federal, "fill-in-the-bubble" tests provide is one of expediency. But, the NEED for expediency is artificially imposed by each level of administration.

 

    Over the past two months (probably because the school assessment reports showing progress or lack thereof have come in), I have seen news byte after news byte showing teachers, principals, assistant principals, parents who work as school secretaries changing grades or test scores. I suggest that they do that in order to save face in the light of scrutiny. Schools that are underperforming as judged by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) feel a great deal of pressure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or be reconstituted as per the NCLB Act. But so many of theses schools have children that face so many more challenges than just learning grammar, math and science. They come to school hungry, dirty, ignored, underserviced and exposed to a variety of violent influences. How can we blame teachers for children failing tests that are ineffective in measuring what these children actually know and meaningless to children whose lives are filled with far worse influences than many children in other areas know.

 

    The State (of Oregon for example) already has standards and expectations for students to meet, my suggestion is to let teachers meet those standards in collaboration with children and parents, using engaging curriculum and measured by the teacher, not for a standardized score, but for progress in each student's understanding of the topic.