This morning Mr. Tyner posted an article on RealClearEducation.com surveying the use and value of End-of-Course assessments in public schools. His comments are well-informed from his research as a fellow at the Fordham Institute, however I think he misses the point in one key way.
First, though, Mr. Tyner references the testing situation in Mississippi public high schools twice in his work. His opening paragraph references the current public comment period on eliminating the US History end-of-course (EoC) test. I personally do not know what the outcome of the elimination discussion will be. Teachers were polled in an official Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) survey all over the state, and the response was overwhelmingly in favor of removing the test from the student’s graduation expectations.
I must also point out that Mr. Tyner is factually incorrect about the testing situation in Mississippi. He comments, “In [Mississippi], despite the state requiring just three state tests of high schoolers (plus the ACT), the U.S. History EOC is the only state test that can be eliminated while keeping in compliance with federal law, so anti-testers have targeted it all the same.” In our public high schools, students are required to pass FOUR state tests (Biology, Algebra 1, English 2, and US History) to earn a standard diploma. Students are not required to take the ACT – the Mississippi legislature pays for every junior in the state to take the ACT, but this is in no way a graduation requirement, nor does it impact earning a Mississippi diploma in any way other than as an option in lieu of a passing score on the EoCs.
Now to the actual issue at hand. There is certainly a trend among parents and some education leaders to reduce the amount of standardized testing required of students in public schools. MDE is in a conversation with stakeholders from across the state to address this complicated concern, and I am personally very proud of the committee formed to that end and the work it has already accomplished.
There is a subtle nuance that must be made in this argument, though. Parents generally do not differentiate between state-mandated yearly tests (including the English/Language Arts and Math tests required in grades 3-8, science tests in grades 5 and 8, and the aforementioned EoCs in high school) and interim benchmark testing performed at the discretion of the local school district. A parent (and a student, for that matter) doesn’t feel a difference between a benchmark test and the real thing when a child is heading out the door for the bus. Rather, in the parent’s mind the school is testing their child with yet another standardized test.
Some districts in Mississippi do over-test. Too much benchmarking in the name of data collection and teacher accountability has exactly the effect on students and parents one would expect – exhaustion with testing, apathy toward accountability, and a general malaise about the assessment process. If my child had a major benchmark test every two weeks to “practice” for the real thing and to generate data for teachers and administrators, I’d be burned out too.
Mr. Tyner makes an informed assessment of the current conversation about testing across the country (his misunderstanding about Mississippi’s testing policies notwithstanding), and his scholarly work on EoCs is certainly valuable and worth every administrator’s time to read. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the issue at hand is one of public opinion, not research. Parents in Mississippi are tired of testing. But they are tired of testing because districts are over-testing their children.
Are intermediate benchmark tests valuable? Absolutely. My district tests twice per year (once in November, once in March) to assess where students are at that point in the year relative to the standards our teachers are required to cover. One of these assessments (the November benchmark) is as short as a regular classroom unit test. We take the results of these benchmarks to adjust instruction and to target students who may need intervention to make their yearly academic goals. These tests are at the heart of what we do with our curriculum.
We must keep in mind, then, that the official, state- or federally-mandated tests are not the issue. The issue is testing writ large, and it is an issue that parents are genuinely concerned with, and for good reason. Let us not throw the good out with the bad; let us be mindful of how often students are encountering a testing environment, and separate that from the more academic (and I think clearly answered) question of whether or not we should test at all.
Comments
Post a Comment