|
Submitted to FridayMusings by Livonia resident Al Churchill, a UAW retiree:
Finland, a perennial top performer on the international PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) test, commits each student to such a test only once in that student’s entire educational experience.
On the other hand, to the detriment of time spent providing quality classroom learning experiences for our kids, we test them into a stupor. Additionally, the test results are often presented to the public in a misleading way. Beyond that, some question whether standardized tests challenge students in all the areas that they should be challenged in. Finally, what does the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) show us about achievement over an extended period of time?
Looking at past Michigan standardized test scores one finds that, year after year after year, wealthy districts score high on that test while poorer districts reside in the lower reaches of results. It becomes obvious that income can be used as a proxy for factors outside of the school. One panelist on a Harvard University group discussing education called it the “iron-clad correlation” between socioeconomic factors and student proficiency. The Michigan Department of Education has stated that the most reliable predictor of student educational success is the degree of parental involvement in that student’s education.
What is crystal clear is that parental educational level, parental involvement in a student’s education, stability at home, nutrition, health care, neighborhood environment and other factors play a huge role in determining the motivation and persistence necessary for success in school. As the weight of these factors is different from district to district, valid comparisons across school districts cannot be made using raw scores alone.
The fact is that a school, whose raw score is high on a standardized test, may not be a school of high quality at the same time that a school scoring low may, indeed, be a high-quality school. It, mostly, depends upon the “iron-clad” socio-economic and parental involvement correlation with student success that is present in each individual school’s student population.
But test results are not to be used in a competitive race among different students, school districts or states. On the contrary, test scores should be used as a tool for educators to evaluate their personal classroom behavior, how well their class and individual students are doing and the degree to which the curriculum is aligned with the test.
At the very least, test results may point the way to a change in pedagogy, student responses to those changes and needed changes in the curriculum that improve educational outcomes. They are not part of an educational horse race, with winners and losers, such that both the Michigan Department of Education and the United State Department of Education use raw test scores as a measure of quality.
Then, there is the question of what these tests do and do not measure. They do not touch upon ability in art, physical education or music, and some other aspects of the curriculum. As a generalization, it is fair to recognize that the overuse of standardized tests narrows the curriculum.
A recent study, done by psychologists, at Harvard, Brown, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also found that a higher test score on a standardized test does not necessarily mean a higher thinking level.
Studying almost 1,400 students in Boston Public Schools, psychologists found that some schools raised students’ scores on the statewide assessment. But no improvement was found in what psychologists call “fluid intelligence” – working memory capacity, the speed of information processing, and the ability to solve abstract problems. Only 3 percent of the variation of those factors was attributable to schools.
In a period where knowledge and manipulating knowledge is increasingly important, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity generally, should rank high within a curriculum, accessed and isolated on local, state, and national testing. They are not.
Finally, what do these tests show over time? At a time when the typical urban student is administered standardized tests 112 times during their educational experience and at a time when a past Superintendent of Michigan schools proposed that students be tested twice a year, the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows reading scores in 2015 to have dropped five points since 1992. Math scores have been stagnant for a decade. Perhaps the Finns know something that we do not.
Our dependence upon big data and testing has been a miserable failure. It is time to replace an irrational overuse of standardized testing with quality classroom learning experiences. It is time to place politicians and reformers, who don’t know jack about how children learn, on the shelf and listen to teachers who do know when setting educational policy.
| 
