.jpg)
Glamour's Women of the Year
UD vs. Northern Kentucky
Magic visits with area students
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > February > 24 > Entry
Test companies need a watchdog
So here’s a question about testing. If an idea become so totally accepted in the mainstream that opposition to it begins to dry up, does that mean it must be right? And does that mean we don’t need watchdogs anymore to ask tough questions and point out flaws and errors in the prevailing train of thought?
That’s apparently what we’re facing when it comes to standardized tests. Michael Winerip writes today in the New York Times that FairTest, one of the few national voices challenging the use or standardized tests as a sole gateway for judging student readiness for promotion, graduation, college or other purposes, is low on funds an in real danger of closing shop.
As NCLB has taken standardized testing to nearly every grade and every classroom nationally, those who at first wondered out loud if this is a good idea and later complained that it might be dangerous have, by-and-by, mostly yielded to the tidal wave of federal and political power behind the trend. And yet, as Winerip points out, FairTest continues to point out devastating mistakes these big testing corporations make that can actually harm kids and raise tough questions of fairness in the way the tests are created, administered and scored.
Even so, critics say they are so far out of the mainstream, they should be ignored. Blogger Alexander Russo, for instance, chided reporters last year for using a “fringe” group like FairTest as a source at all.
Here at the Dayton Daily News, we’ve written a lot about the impact of testing errors and problems of standardized test creation and scoring.
As the nation plows ahead with more testing-based instruction, I think journalists should ask more questions, not less, about how this largely mysterious process works and whether it is serving us well. And even if you think their point of view is nuts, it’s probably good to have a strong watchdog voice out there asking tough questions, too.
Permalink | Comments (11) | Categories: Testing
Comments
By Mary
March 1, 2006 1:51 PM | Link to this
First, why is a national curriculum such a gorilla in the tent? Second, I do not see why students have such a problem going to social studies and working after probably 2 hours of actual test taking. Suggest to them many of their counterparts in Japan are going to school six days a week and probably take a lot of standardized tests. I think China is big on standardized tests, also. So our students spend maybe 45 hours a school year tops in standardized testing. Isn’t that about how much they spend a week in front of the television or with video games?By Terri
February 28, 2006 2:38 PM | Link to this
First, Terra Novas are nationally normed. Second, relying on nationally normed tests moves us another step closer to a national curriculum.By Terri
February 28, 2006 2:20 PM | Link to this
The tests usually don’t take the whole day, but after testing for 2 1/2 hours no one wants to go to Social Studies class and work. So the day is generally “shot” by the morning of testing.By Mary
February 27, 2006 7:15 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Terri, for providing some specifics on testing. However, I am thinking the 18 days of testing you give as an example are partial days and not the entire school day. Also, if states and districts relied more on nationally normed tests, perhaps some of the testing could be eliminated.By Rick
February 27, 2006 6:51 PM | Link to this
Nelson, your comments are really puerile. Whether or not someone has spent time in a K-12 classroom is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether our schools are declining, improving or staying the same. Second, as a citizen I have freedom of speech. BTW, I have spent time in a classroom this last year, a college classroom. It is my understanding that American schools have improved, but I don’t have the information at my fingertips. I can tell you this, Dayton schools seem to be turning around, slowly.By Terri
February 27, 2006 5:22 PM | Link to this
Mary - students are over-tested. In one local district Junior High Students take the pre- and post-Terra Nova tests and the stated mandated achievement tests. They are also given quarterly exams mandated by the district. Some will also take a federally mandated international test. Since most of these tests cover more than one subject area they are usually given over a series of days. I have outlined 18 days of testing - 10% of the school year. Most schools are also having students take practice tests so that students can become familar with the testing format.On top of this of course are the “regular” chapter and unit tests. over tested? I think so.By Nelson
February 25, 2006 11:59 PM | Link to this
Hey Rick, answer two questions for me, please: What evidence can you offer to prove that students have benefitted from the “accountability” measures you seem to love so dearly? And how much time have you spent in a K-12 classroom in the last year? Yeah, I thought so.By Mary
February 25, 2006 4:37 PM | Link to this
Nelson’s comments have me scratching my head. I really do not think the problem is the tests (except for perhaps some quality issues here and there that can be improved). I think the problem is resistance to change and resistance to accountability and persistent carping about a few standardized tests here and there. I am guessing students spend very little of their time actually taking standardized tests. I think I have read that accountability measures such as standardized tests consume less than 1% of the education dollars. Standardized tests should be welcomed as an educational tool to identify areas of strengths and weaknesss for each student so that learning can be enhanced. Improve the content of the tests, if necessary, but quit carping about standardized tests as an accuntability measure. “Teaching to the test” is another persistent complaint that does not make sense to me. What was being taught before and what were the students learning before? I am wondering if the same people complaining about standardized testing ever have blood tests, eye exams, drive cars, or fly on airplanes. All other industries and professionals set up measurable standards and tests - many on an international basis in the interest of serving and protecting the quality of human life.By Rick
February 25, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Scott, FairTest does appear to be a fringe group;it appears to ignore the reason we have such testing. That reason is the absolute FRAUD foisted on Americans for several DECADES by the educrats. Again, I refer you to “A Nation at Risk.” Folks such as FairTest want to go back to the “good old days” when they could engage in such fraud and not be called to account.By Nelson
February 24, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this
Standardized tests have done some good, but the negative impact has now outweighed the positive. These tests assume all students learn the same way and can demonstrate their abilities accurately on a paper-and-pencil test. That’s simply not the case, and that assumption goes against everything we’ve learned in recent years about how children’s brains develop. More importantly, today’s fixation on testing has robbed students of the joy of learning, and it has robbed teachers of the joy of true teaching. In the long term, it will discourage the best and brightest from becoming teachers. Add the fact that testing companies are overtaxed and incapable of producing high-quality assessments that hold such an immense power over children’s lives. I’m convinced someday we’ll look back on this era and rue the day we placed so much trust and emphasis on this highly flawed measure of children’s abilities and their potential to succeed.By Mary
February 24, 2006 2:26 PM | Link to this
I have no problem with the media questioning the validity of specific standardized tests and how the programs are managed. However, the media should also question the validity of subjective grades and other standards applied throughout education, including grades given by teachers, valedictorian and class rank standards, bias of scholarships toward grades and “well roundedness” rather than standardized test scores, etc. As a student, I always thought standardized tests were a lot more objective evaluation of knowledge, understanding, and potential than teacher given grades that have a lot more leeway with subjectivity and bias. The only time I ran into what I thought might be a biased standardized test (I have taken many over the years) was a portion of the Medical College Aptitude Test that seemed to be socio-economic biased on some cultural knowledge in the fine arts. That was about 30 years ago. I do not think the concept of standardized tests is bad. However, both standardized tests and individual teacher constructed tests can be poorly constructed, and incorrectly graded by hand or scantron. We should demand higher standards and objectivity for both.