Let’s Rethink The Model of Standardized Testing

[flashl]

Editor’s note: The discussion of California policy needs to be informed by knowledge of what it takes to provide high quality learning, says NAM contributor Lisa Gray-Garcia. Gray-Garcia is the Communications Director at Justice Matters.

Is it possible to achieve educational equity for low-income students of color in California? A recent study titled, “High Schools For Equity,” shows that it is possible, particularly when schools take the initiative to create meaningful curriculum for their students, and allow them to show their understanding of material through assessments other than standardized tests.

...

All of the five schools do college preparation classes with their student bodies, and, perhaps most important of all, the school’s staff invest themselves in the students’ and their families’ lives beyond the walls of the classroom. For example, the multiple teachers and lead advisors assigned to each student at June Jordan not only call home and speak to parents and children regularly, they also visit their homes. During these visits, they sit down and help with homework and also probe into other issues that are creating an obstacle for the student’s learning. The advisors are always mindful that the learning environment doesn’t end with the school day.

But as inspiring as these schools are, they are undoubtedly the exception. A close look at the schools in the study reveals to us just why they are so rare.

For one thing, the state’s uneven teacher preparation system turns out too few teachers with the skills to provide this kind of learning experience. And once teachers get to a school, they are not given the time to do the kind of quality planning and ongoing learning that is needed to inspire and support the success of all students.

Low-income students of color are increasingly judged by “high-stakes” standardized testing alone. Yet, this study suggests that rather than helping low-income students of color to succeed, standardized high-stakes testing in fact has the opposite effect.

...

In the majority of California classrooms where the majority of students are low-income children of color, subjects that used to be considered mandatory like social science, history, science, music, art and physical education, have been stripped from the curriculum entirely, leaving only the so-called “basics” – math and English. The reason? High stakes testing preparation. When policy makers talk about the education of students of color, they often set the bar especially low — if students of color develop minimum competency in basic skills, then that is good enough.

Children are then sorted and segregated by their ability to “pass the tests,” and in some cases are even “pushed out” of their school entirely when they are unable to do so.

This leaves kids with interest and talent in areas other than math and English, or those who are academically disinclined, without the skills they need for basic employment, let alone higher education.

New America Media

[LWolf]

1. I never needed to rethink it.

I knew the drawbacks from the birth of the "standards and accountability" movement.

I would certainly like the rest of the world to do some re-thinking on the subject, though.

The "data-driven" obsession leaves out so many factors that tests don't measure. Our data is incomplete, and in many cases, misleading. We shouldn't be using BAD data to drive policy.