Because the topic of testing is one of the most timely and relevant intersections of policy and practice I’m going to take the risk that I am repeating some of the ideas that have appeared here and elsewhere. I’m trying to bring some of these ideas together, and hopefully I’m also adding something new. My frustration lies with our inability to find compromise, or even listen to each other for that matter. But we have to keep trying to talk, and we have to keep trying to listen. There will be some common ground.

I still have clear memories of taking standardized tests when I was in elementary school – for me it was the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or ITBS. It’s still etched in my mind: the new number two pencils, the sharpening, the interminable bubbles to be filled in, and little boxes for each letter in my name. From my first year teaching I have administered newer (and perhaps better) standardized tests to my students. There have been a few different iterations of year-end tests for my fifth grade students over the last ten years. Some years we have fewer test days, some years we have more. Some years we test on paper, some years we use computers. We all know standardized tests well – they have been with us forever it would seem, so what’s the problem?

I think a big part of the problem has to do with the fact that there is so much more money being spent on testing these days despite the fact that many school districts across the country struggle to keep buildings maintained, curriculum up-to-date, and classrooms adequately staffed. Testing hardly seems more of a priority than safe, well-equipped schools.

Another issue that has testing skeptics concerned is that growing trend of making high stakes decisions about students, teachers, and schools based on test results alone. There are a number of concerns in this area (including the socioeconomic predictor of test outcomes – see below), but simply stated we often assign these scores more value than they are worth. It may be that the margin of error is too large, or that the tests are not well aligned to standards, it may just come down to poor test writing. A student may just have a bad day. Why make big decisions for little children on the basis of these data points?

Advocates of social justice in education will note that standardized tests can be biased. Kids are not standardized. This bias is a fundamental problem that must be addressed. I referred to this issue in a previous post here. A Seattle education blog states the issue clearly:

“the truth about standardized tests is that they are a better indicator of a student’s zip code than a student’s aptitude. That’s because the wealthier, and predominately whiter, districts score better on tests. This is not a reflection of the intelligence of wealthier, mostly white students verses that of lower-income students of color, but of the advantages that wealthier children have—books in the home, parents with more time to read to them, private tutoring, access to test-prep agencies, coming to school healthy, well-fed and more focused, to name a few.

For these reasons, the achievement gap is better described as an opportunity gap. (here’s the article)”

Though it’s hard to get past that last point, practically speaking the loss of time to standardized testing is also a major issue. The tests I give to my students, the ones that follow naturally from my instruction and which I use to assess student growth and make timely decisions about my instruction are not the problem. But the tests that I can’t see and that I can’t get feedback from do not make a contribution to the growth of my students. It’s important too, to recognize that I’m not simply speaking to the loss of instruction in administering these tests, but the big picture of lost time that includes student test preparation, teacher trainings, administrator time, district office time, technology department time… and on and on.

It isn’t that testing needs to go away, but there are some issues with the way we are currently giving and using tests in this country. The powers that be need to listen to voices of dissent. Whether it is my voice or those of the parents who have formed the opt-out community, lawmakers have a responsibility to recognize and address these concerns. We have to move away from question of “should we or should we not use standardized tests”, towards a closer examination of how we should use them. I would argue that (like Finland) we don’t need to test every kid every year in three different subjects at multiple points throughout the school year. If it is reliable data we are after, we can test sample populations and draw the same conclusions. Student growth is not a short-term prospect, and if we start making short-term decisions about teaching and learning, then we’ve lost sight of our purpose. Sometimes it feels like we’re day trading with student data. Educating children is a long-term investment.