Fallacies of Standardized Testing

The first round of standardized testing season is almost upon us, which I know because our lead SAC (school assessment coordinator) has made her rounds to let seniors know what they're going to be taking this year. I feel sorry for her; although she was an English teacher by training, and she's a darned good administrator, she has the stress-filled job of mining data and understand state assessments. Here, in my humble opinion, are the fallacies of standardized testing:

1. Our schools are failing. Standardized testing shows what students can and cannot do.
Let me say right now, I don't think ALL public schools are failing. Are there some? Sure. But standardized testing does not help those schools, except by identifying their struggles. Poverty? English language learners? Large class sizes? Lack of parent involvement? Violence? Societal ills? Sure, those contribute to failing schools, but the greater issue is societal. A standardized test doesn't measure whether a child had breakfast or not before coming to school. Nor does it measure an argument with a parent, a night sleeping at a relative's house, or an inability to complete homework. Our schools are merely reflective of a larger picture, society, and that is failing.
2. Everyone will read and write at grade level by _____(fill in the year). Not everyone is doing this in our schools. Why? Well, it's not because teachers are lazy and aren't doing their jobs. How about the student who arrives at a school, unable to read, speak or write in English, and then is expected to perform at grade level? How about a student who comes to first grade and doesn't know numbers, letters, colors, or have other basic skills? What about primary classrooms that are so full, a teacher cannot reach each student and provide individualization?
3. Comparing one year's test scores to the next year's test scores. Interesting tactic. Let's see, one year I have a class that thinks, speaks, writes at or above grade level, and the next year, I have a group of students barely able to concentrate work. It makes no sense to compare one year to another. It makes greater sense to follow those students from year to year to see how they improve or why they don't. However, our current system of standardized testing does not allow us to truly track those kids. Sure, we have programs like SOARS, a program that keeps the data in one place for our perusal, but when we sit in our meetings and discuss our performance as a school, no one is focusing on the individual student; instead, the focus is on one year to the next. To wit: last year our juniors performed extraordinarily well on the ACT. This year, the district has set our performance goal at or above our score from last year. Never mind we aren't working with the same group of students.
4. Standardized tests provide data for college readiness. No they don't, here's why: many of our students refuse to comply with the standardized test in front of them. I've watched them finish a test that's supposed to take sixty minutes in 15 minutes. I've seen answer sheets where students took a tremendous amount of time and effort to bubble a pattern of obscenities. Even the ACT in Colorado is required by the test, therefore our ACT scores are usually lower than the national average. Not every student wants to go to college nor should go to college. Plus, unless college has changed since I was an undergrad and a graduate student, not many colleges ask me to bubble my answer. Few standardized tests require critical thinking. Fewer standardized test require difficult reading material or complex writing skills. If I recall, those were the skills I needed in college, not how to bubble an oval/square/rectangle accurately.
5. Releasing tests to teachers will result in more teaching to the test. Well, duh. If our jobs are on the line, and we are expected to produce amazing results within our maelstrom of humanity, then we will use those tests as guides for our curriculum. I teach Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes, and we have assessments at the end of our courses. However, those groups actually and shockingly release tests to teachers. Do I teach to a test? Sort of. I have an idea of the test's structure, but I have the freedom to chose how to approach a variety of material and skills to prepare my students for those tests. I don't spend exorbitant time strictly prepping for a test; instead, we write, discuss, and work on critical thinking and analysis.
6. Putting standardized test scores on student transcripts will encourage them to try harder. This makes me laugh. Most high school students know which tests are necessary for college admission and which are not. They will try only on those that are important to them. The PARCC test is not important to them, nor is it important to colleges and universities. It is only important to the Department of Education and school districts.

Here are some realities about standardized testing:
Since we began standardized testing, I've noticed those held accountable for scores are teachers. Students grow stressed as pressure is placed on them by teachers and administrators to do well on these. Our jobs are tied to student performance, and for many teachers, so is our pay.Students are not held accountable for doing poorly; they are passed from one grade to another, and the only ones who are lectured, demeaned, told they aren't working hard enough are teachers. Administrators' pay is also tied to how students perform on these tests. No growth, no bonus, at least in my district. I hear parents and community leaders gripe about how young people don't know how to problem solve, write, think for themselves. And while I'm not silly enough to believe standardized testing is solely responsible for these problems, I do believe it is part of the problem. Standardized testing is expensive and cuts time from classrooms. How many billions of dollars have been wasted with state testing? How many billions of dollars could have been spent elsewhere rather than on tests?

Most concernedly, there is talk about tying graduation to student performance on standardized tests. I am concerned about drop out rates. If a student can pass classes but doesn't test well, how fair is it to refuse graduation? Will dropping out become preferable to trying to pass a state assessment?

We Americans have fooled ourselves for the past 14 years of No Child Left Behind and standardized testing. Our students aren't better; they are simply better test takers.

Underestimating teens

I know a lot about teenagers. They are often self-centered, but that's because of their brain's development. They want to be treated as adults unless they feel unfairly treated, and then they prefer their parents intervene. They want good grades but don't want to work too hard. Their social lives rule them. However, they truly hate when an adult bullshits them.

One of the saddest parts of this entire school board debacle is to see students, people who feel invincible, struggle to convey their message to the board. Instead of getting attention, they are dismissed, called "pawns," and told they don't understand what is going on. No one likes being treated with condescension, but it is particularly difficult for teens. As the board continues to treat them dismissively, our teens are increasingly riled by this behavior.

Today, for example, the board president visited our school to answer student questions. However when my students came to class, they were more frustrated than before the meeting. Out of all students who attended this meeting, only four questions were asked, and they felt as though their questions were not answered. One student was irate by the seemingly inattentiveness of the board president, while others were unhappy with the circuitous and meaningless answers both board members gave them. Why bother to attend these meetings if the true idea is the importance of our 'pawns.' Adults who don't work with teens seemingly don't understand they hate bullshit. Those same adults underestimate teens' capacity to grasp complex problems and critically think about them. However, if our district continues to move toward limiting subject matter and testing more, soon no one will have to worry about grasping complex problems or thinking critically.

Our board president stated that he doesn't think teens are tested enough, and he advocates MORE standardized testing rather than less. This is the problem with politics in education; more testing does nothing for students and though politicians of his ilk seem to believe teachers will magically have more time for teaching with more standardized tests, any educator knows this isn't true.

The sheer stupidity and condescension exhibited by our board of education and our superintendent make me angry. Even more, our students are angry, and they too pay taxes. Soon, they too will be able to vote. And with any luck, they will research backgrounds of politicians and understand the ramifications of amendments and bills, and be smart voters.