Overstatement #3: Standardized Testing is Irrelevant and/or Harmful
In my state it was the WASL (“Wassle”). The state test that supposedly began as a gauge for teacher competence and magically morphed into a gauge for student competence and then finally became a graduation requirement that more than half the state’s seniors failed to meet, was so reviled by parents and educators alike, that it was tossed out in favor of a “new and improved” HSPE (“Hispie”) for high school students and MSP for the lower grades.
I was happy to see the WASL go and skeptical that the new test would be an improvement. This is not because I think testing is irrelevant. Rather, this particular test came with a lot of political baggage and was obviously arbitrary. A majority of Washington state students had never performed to the test’s standard, and when legislators put their collective foot down and made the test a graduation requirement that over 50% of the state’s seniors subsequently failed, the governor refused to enforce the requirement and encouraged the legislature to delay the state requirement by law. “If at first you don’t perform, never mind” is an interesting twist on the old adage about perseverance.
In the state of Washington, neither private school students nor homeschool students are required to participate in state assessment tests. Homeschool students must be evaluated annually by a test of some kind. (Although, that law is not enforced to my knowledge or in my experience.) Because I am already aware of my children’s educational progress relative to their peers and to the expectations of the colleges I hoped they would eventually attend, I had no concern about their performance on standardized tests, nor any need to have them tested for my own peace of mind. As such, the WASL was as good a test as any to meet the legal requirement and it was convenient.
There are many reasons that my children might have struggled with the WASL. First of all, I refused to prepare them or “teach the test”. Some parents argued with me that to teach the test was to teach relevant concepts, so how was teaching the test any different than teaching subjects? If you believe that the WASL competently tested developmentally appropriate material than I suppose that argument is valid. However, if like me you believe that the WASL tested well below what could be reasonably expected of a healthy average student of a particular age or grade, then they should be able to pass the test without preparing for it. That was my logic, anyway. So, while my home educating peers picked up the prep packets from their local districts, I ignored the impending tests and got on with our regular coursework. Secondly, as I discovered through reports from my children, the test was poorly written, ambiguous, required particular, popular and arbitrary methods of problem solving in addition to the correct answer in certain subjects like math, and were asked to reflect and write on ideas and topics that my children could not culturally relate to. Third, my children are what I would consider of average intelligence. They are what we think of as A-B students: disciplined, hard working, healthy and engaged, but not Mensa level gifted thinkers. I know that many of you will argue that “average” is a “C” student, not an “A-B” student. But I am not using the school system’s definition, I am using a more factual definition. Grades do not reflect intelligence. They reflect a combination of intelligence, effort and cooperation, with effort and cooperation having far more weight than intelligence. Often times a “C” reflects the boredom (lack of cooperation and effort) of the smartest kid in the class. So, I stand by my assessment that my children are fairly average in intelligence. Their SAT scores were not high enough to earn them Ivy League educations or academic scholarships, but good enough to get them in most universities. Finally, before taking the WASL, I let my children know in no uncertain terms that I did not care how well they performed. Had they completely failed the test, there would be no consequences at all. There was no pressure or even encouragement to perform. Despite all of these disadvantages, my children passed the WASL easily.
They are not unique. An HSLDA article from October 2004 entitled “Academic Statistics on Homeschooling” reports that homeschoolers routinely outperform traditionally educated students by over 30 percentage points. They cite many studies to support their claim. So what drives the opposition to standardized testing? Why is testing one of the leading homeschool (and general education) controversies? I’ve collected several objections to testing that I would like to address.
Tests only show how well kids take tests
Every statement that sounds true is often at least partially true. The problem I have with this statement is the word “only”. If you have ever studied logic or debate or if you have just thought about it enough, you will recognize that statements employing universal terms like “only”, “every”, “always”, “never”, “all” and “none” are always usually misleading. Certainly tests show how well students take tests. That seems obvious, doesn’t it? But the only “testing skill” that may skew the accuracy of the test’s determined objective is the ability or lack thereof to perform under pressure in a particular environment. (Other skills are required for successfully taking an academic test, but they are skills the student would need to succeed in the most basic educational environment: how to read, how to follow instruction, how to use a pencil, etc. ) It is important for all children to learn how to perform under pressure in a particular environment. But if that specific skill is not the test’s objective, and influences the demonstration of skills the test is designed to assess, then the test results will be inaccurate.
Ok. But is there nothing else the test can tell us? A student who scores on a standardized test in the 90th percentile for math, and in the 30th percentile for reading, would know that any pressure he felt from taking the test affected him more in the area of reading than in math. The test would verify that he is more competent in math than in reading and that his mathematical reasoning exceeds that of most of his peers at least in the specific areas tested. Whether or not the student can benefit from this knowledge or whether this is information he did not already know is beside the point. The test is assessing more than his test taking skills.
Tests are not reliable
…and we are? I don’t know about you, but I am not certain I can accurately assess my children’s strengths and weaknesses. I don’t think most people can accurately assess their own. When I was in college my mother insisted I would make an excellent teacher and I thought she was insane. Here I am twenty five years later teaching my own children and loving it! If doctors cannot accurately diagnose many illnesses and disorders, and teachers cannot accurately assess whether or not a particular student has a learning disability, if psychologists cannot accurately assess whether someone has a personality disorder or a mental illness why are we dismissing something as benign as a written test simply because it may not be 100% accurate. I wouldn’t expect it to be. I would simply expect it to give me sense of how my child is doing. The inaccuracy of any given test on any given day is the reason that colleges will allow student to take the SAT more than once. It is no secret that tests can offer skewed results. Tests should be used only as one piece of the assessment puzzle and should be combined with other data in determining the progress and skill set of any student.
Tests only show how well kids have prepared for that particular test, and my children need to focus on material not reflected in the test.
This two-part complaint assumes first that only those who prepare for a test take it. My kids never prepare for standardized tests because that would defeat my purpose for the test. I use tests to verify for myself that I am sufficiently preparing my kids beyond average expectations. It doesn’t tell me whether or not my kids are performing up to their potential, or as well as they “should” by some standard I adhere to. It only tells me that I am sufficiently keeping them above mainstream standards. (The SAT and ACT have a different purpose for us, and so for those tests my kids have prepared.) As long as the test is taken cold, it will give students an idea of the concepts they have internalized – the concepts they really know.
In response to the second part of the complaint, most standardized tests assess skills that all children, regardless of interest, personality, talent and future plans require to participate in society. The skills normally tested are basic. No standardized test designed to assess progress in primary or secondary school is going to ask students about the half life of plutonium, or real estate law or how to perform a triple lutz jump on the ice. If my child has a strong interest in geology or history or veterinary science, his interest should not keep him from learning basic math and language skills.
The tests must be administered in an unfamiliar environment.
Barring a disability, humans adapt naturally. A healthy student who cannot adapt needs the opportunity to practice.
The methodology does not conform to my child’s learning style.
Learning styles show a propensity toward processing information received in a particular manner – most commonly either aurally, visually or kinesthetically. They do not necessarily process information exclusively in a particular manner. Most people utilize multiple methods for receiving, comprehending and processing information. Some students’ learning style will give them an advantage over other students but then so will their intelligence, history, upbringing, personality and a host of other factors. So, again, use standardized tests as a gauge rather than a rating.
My student has a disability that prevents him from completing the test within the required time, or under the conditions that the test is administered.
This is the easiest objection to address. By law (the Americans With Disabilities Act) standardized tests must accommodate the needs of learning disabled and handicapped children. (My student will be unable to finish etc.)
I am not interested in changing your mind about whether or not your children should be tested. Hopefully, I have relieved some minds from needless worry regarding testing. My main objective is to discourage home educators from forwarding arguments that are poorly supported, weak or untrue. If you have an aversion to testing, I understand. It is your right, and in states that do not compel homeschoolers to test it is (happily) not even your issue. But I applaud those who simply want to make sure they are responsibly gauging their children’s progress, and do so with an objectivity that recognizes the benefits and limitations of any and all evaluative media.
No comments:
Post a Comment