Schooltastic

Testing is not evil, and neither are standards. Assessment of one kind or another is something I do constantly in my class. Teaching begins with an objective, followed by instruction designed to get students to meet that objective. A test is just a way to see if they got it or not, and that data is useful when planning the next lesson. Standards are, ostensibly, a common set of objectives for teachers statewide. We all teach with objectives, and we all assess student learning.

What is troubling about the tests, however, is how much depends on them. Schools can lose state aid if they score too low. School scores are also published, which could affect local home sales. Within the next two years, every teacher will receive a score out of 100, 20% of which is based on state test scores. This score isn’t linked to pay or disciplinary measures, at least not yet, but the practices like these have been in place in the South for years and are now migrating northward.

Imagine a doctor basing your care on only one test. It might be a particularly integral and informative test, but there is a lot more data he needs before arriving at a diagnosis, prognosis, and a plan for care.

Of course, we teachers have many more assessments than just the state tests to guide us in designing instruction. However, having so much riding on those state tests tends to focus the attention of teachers and administrators alike, risking the marginalization of all other data.

Overall quality of education and scores on standardized assessment are not mutually exclusive concepts. However, the more we make contingent on a single assessment, the more divergent those two become.