Students are returning to K-12 classrooms for the fall semester. Most before Labor Day during the “dog days” of summer; even though this may be detrimental to academic performance. Public schools will continue to accept the same tired criticisms and unrealistic expectations; they shouldn’t.
State standardized test scores from the prior school year will be released after students have moved on to the next grade level. This annual ritual serves as a political exercise not a method to improve education.
Scores reinforce prior self-concepts and academic labels that become engrained within each student. Individual ranks by standardized test scores remain consistent throughout an academic career.
The farcical practice of annual state testing for grades 3-11 (in most states) began in the early 2000’s with the mandates of No Child Left Behind. This unnecessary tradition has continued in spite of the lack of evidence that it improves educational practice or student outcomes.
Feigned attempts at analyzing test data yield phony conclusions and sham presentations to district school boards and constituents. Talk of “data-driven instruction” is nonsense. Students do not get to see which test items were correct or incorrect; little to no learning takes place.
Raw scores and percentile ranks are meaningless unless there is a way to directly influence them. Test data are unrelated to instructional practice unless items and answers are released (very rarely) for analysis to match curriculum and instruction.
There are vast differences between state tests and classroom assessments. State tests are timed and cover a wide and vague curriculum. Preparing students for state tests is unproductive and a waste of instructional time. Test prep for college entrance exams (ACT or SAT) is meaningful as it may enhance opportunities for admission and financial aid, especially for low-income students.
Standardized tests are designed to produce a normal distribution of scores (bell curve). Half of students are above average and half below. The bulk of scores are between the 40th and 60th percentiles.
If proficiency is set at the 60th percentile, only 40% of students will be considered proficient or achieving at grade-level. In other words, standardized tests are purposely designed to produce a subset of students who will be designated as non-proficient.
Student motivation or instructional practice have little to do with test scores. Time parameters account for most of the spread of individual scores.
How quickly a test-taker can comprehend and process questions determines success or failure. Individual performance on standardized tests becomes an innate ability mostly unaffected by educational factors.
Grades are determined by classroom assessments. Based on units of instruction, they allow students to demonstrate learning and academic skills. Time to take tests and complete other assignments is more flexible and does not penalize learners lacking quick recall.
Opportunities for remediation, retests and rewrites improve academic performance. Supported by high standards and expectations, grades are a much better indicator of learning and better measures of academic performance.
State and national test score averages are consistent each school year; whether broken down by state, community or student demographic. Chasing improvement of test score averages is futile and unproductive. Educators need to stop accepting responsibility for an intractable measure.
Only the most naïve educators believe they have a strong, direct influence on state test scores. Ask veteran public school educators how many times they were involved in curriculum revisions or alignments to the state standards. Then ask them what effect it had on individual test scores. Socio-economic demographics are mostly responsible for a school’s test score averages.
Standardized tests measure some type of ability or intelligence. But they are limited as to their function in effectively ranking and sorting students.
Tests are an effective tool when teaching at the secondary level. By looking at reading levels in student files, teachers are able to discern whether low grades and comprehension are due to student effort or low reading levels.
Prior to 2001, it was standard practice for school systems to administer an assessment that measured reading, mathematics and IQ levels, once each in elementary and middle school. Score ranges and ranks for individual students remained consistent between 3rd and 7th grades.
This is not a call for the elimination of standardized testing in education. It is a call for common sense. It shouldn’t take more than 20 years to figure out that annual state tests yield redundant results.
It is time for state politicians and departments of education to eliminate unfunded mandates that are unproductive and do not improve student outcomes. Reducing the frequency of state tests would be a start. Perhaps Nevada can lead the way in the upcoming legislative session.
