1/18/2000

Unfair Testing Practices

In response to the article about Fair Testing, one reader's comments touched on many of the issues swirling around testing practices in our schools, so I decided to highlight those issues via her letter. We need a variety of testing approaches for instructional purposes, in my opinion, as well as for graduation and admissions requirements. We also need to keep performance standards high, even if it means that some students will have to repeat some of their subjects to reach higher levels of mastery before moving on.

Here is one mother's opinion about testing, viewed through her family's experiences:

"You hit on a hot topic on this one! The emphasis on cooperative learning and criterion-reference testing (in an attempt to create fair testing) is garbage from what I can see.

"In theory, both may sound good, but the practice results in ensuring low standards and carrying students who don't want to or can't do the work. The Connecticut Mastery Test is a joke, a criterion-referenced thing that results in "teaching to the test," which is as unfair as testing gets. Our schools are making sure kids know how to take the test, but not making sure they know basic skills.

"I saw the "new math" in action when I volunteered as an aide in a third grade classroom -- it's ridiculous! And why on earth does any educator think grade school kids should rely on calculators? Learning math is not just learning to compute: it's also learning another way to think, to analyze. Letting kids use calculators for basic addition/subtraction operations tells them they don't have to learn to do math in their heads. I've also looked at the "real life applications" schools like to tout as justification for this garbage: those real life applications tend to be silly, fictitious examples that just make kids laugh. That teaches them that unless they are coddled, they don't have to learn.

"As for "cooperative learning:" putting a group of kids together and telling them to do a project for a shared grade is basically guaranteeing that one or two students will do the work so they don't get penalized for the lack of effort of the others. Bad idea!

"Back to the Connecticut Mastery Test: according to a lawyer (can't remember her name) with the state Board of Education (BOE), the mastery test standards have been very low (just look at some of the questions on the test and reasonable people can tell that), and each new generation of the test is supposed to raise the standard a bit. So that means, in the interests of "fair testing," we will have sacrificed at least one generation of kids.

"As for the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT): both of my older kids ended up in "alternative education" programs before their sophomore years. Neither was able to take high school biology -- both got as far as 8th grade science. Both of them achieved mastery level in the science portion of the CAPT. They each also achieved mastery level in the math portion, after not having the math classes they would have had if they had been in the regular classroom. And they each achieved mastery in the "Interdisciplinary" portion of the test. Neither of them met the goal on the English portion, due to the essay part.

"Both of these kids, by any other measure, including standardized testing elsewhere, teacher observation and classroom performance, are strongest in the academic areas of verbal and writing. Yes, my kids are smart. But math and science are areas that are not intuitive. If the student isn't exposed to the concepts and lab practices, they can't, in a timed test, teach it to themselves. So what do their CAPT results demonstrate? Standards for sophomore high school students are no higher than what the 8th grade curriculum used to be.

"This nonsense about fair testing is all designed to demonstrate government commitment to minorities. Problem is, it's the wrong approach and is much more discriminatory than the "old way." Lower standards and easier testing says minorities can't be held to the same standard as white kids. Nonsense!

"Society needs to deal with the economic and societal issues that present obstacles to minorities, not lower the standards. Lowering the standards just hurts everybody, which is why the US performed so dismally on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMSS). To read more about TIMMSS see: http://red.www.nsf.gov/EHR/REC/timss/June97.htm.

"Even Congress is worried that the US will not be able to compete on a global basis if we don't raise the standards in the classroom (check out the wording in bills proposed in both the House and the Senate: H.R. 637 and S. 505).

"Well, I could go on (and already have), but it boils down to a simple plea from me to you: don't buy into "new and improved."

"To offer a suggestion: A valuable tool for learning and assessment of skills and mastery that isn't used much is independent study. Talk about the opportunity to let each child learn at his/her own pace! Independent study could also help with curriculum and space issues. Hire one Independent Study teacher and you can remove 50 to 75 students per semester from study hall "warehouses," using the same space already available (library and study hall rooms), as well as allowing them to study subjects not available because not enough students will sign up. Independent Study could also be combined with mentoring, allowing more regular classroom teachers to supervise/grade work produced in such an arrangement. Such an arrangement would not only improve offerings to regular needs kids, but also be of immense benefit to gifted kids, LD kids and ADD kids, all populations currently left out or underserved. And, it would offer these populations more of what they need at less cost than the special education services they end up needing as a result of the emotional difficulties that arise from their academic needs not being met. It's a win-win approach, so why isn't it used more?"

***

"Standardized testing is a political bureaucratic waste of my children's time. Whether we want to believe it or not children are being taught to a test. A test which is bought and making someone a lot of money. Our experienced teachers should be evaluating these children with appropriate tests which they develop or choose and through assessment of their work. Dr. Howard Gardner of Harvard has written a lot on this and so has Alfie Kohn. I wish someone would start reading the research and start making positive changes for our children's sake."

***

"I am concerned that the timing of your column on fair testing will lead readers to believe that your criticisms are directed toward the CT Mastery Tests (CMTs), as this is the time they are being released in schools. While some of the criticisms are valid, the fact that they are criterion referenced standardized tests, developed with standards set by a community of educators does separate them. Questions of use and bias are important, and Connecticut educators and politicians need to be vigilant to the potential abuses, but we need to applaud their usefulness in raising standards and driving good instructional practices and strong curriculum for all of Connecticut's students."

***

Another disgruntled parent wrote about the time limits imposed on students taking standardized tests. She commented, "The most obvious problem of standardized tests that I as a parent and many students complain about is the short time limits given to each of the sections. For example, my daughter tells me that she understood every problem given but there was never enough time to finish them all. In other words, she would have probably scored almost 100% correct if she had had enough time to finish all the problems. I don't understand the point of this. Can you explain to me how a very short and rigorous time limit for each of these sections extrapolates somehow to what you call future academic success?

Please send questions or comments to bbruno@snet.net.