Welcome 2017: Let’s Teach, Not Test

Anonymous--

Some testing for RtI is fine. We are doing too much and research is suggesting that RtI isn't paying off as well as we thought it would --perhaps even because of the over-testing. Giving kids increasingly intensive instructional support based on their demonstrated needs is wise and at least some of this decision-making could be based on analyses of work samples and teacher observation. However, tests every few months might help as well. More testing than that in reading; there is no evidence that it improves anything for the kids. 1/4/17

Love your blog and quote you often. Two points on this topic ...

First, Arkansas is very fortunate in that our State Director of Student Assessment (Hope Allan) strongly supports minimal testing. She often says, "Student growth comes from TEACHING, not TESTING!" And our district approach is "Don't test unless you use the results to monitor and adjust instruction." This is a HUGE change from just a few years ago when we literally devoted weeks to state-mandated, high stakes testing ... the results of which were ambiguous at best since the state used three different tests over a three year span (from Benchmark, to PARRC, to ACT Aspire). The new system isn't perfect by any means, but at least we're headed in the right direction.

Second, we've found that assessment can dovetail seamlessly with RtI ... but only if everyone, including students, clearly understands its purpose. And yes, I absolutely agree that over-testing can quickly invalidate RtI. Too often it's introduced with a top-down, compliance mentality ... and when it doesn't work, administrators tend double-down on testing, or throw the entire program out without ever exploring the root causes for the problem. In a world of quick fixes, sound bites, and instant gratification, that's not surprising ... but it is very sad. 1/4/17

Dear Tim,
What a refreshing article! I too have been concerned about the overuse of standardized testing, and the misuse of progress monitoring for years. However, I’d like to take it a step further. High stakes testing is politically motivated by the assumption that student performance is linked to teacher incompetence. It is perpetuated by pundits who are more concerned with their political agenda and constituents than the well-being and success of children. Mandated reforms such as NCLB did nothing to ensure equity in education. In fact, the reformist movement which has driven our national obsession with the corporate model of data and testing, has undermined public education and unraveled the public trust. The data from what has become the corporate educational complex has been skewed to support school choice and the conservative effort to dismantle public schools. The high stakes result of standardized tests have become a divisive tool which pits teachers against their students and administrators against their teachers as they desperately scramble to cover themselves in the discriminatory eye of the public.
In the end, the national obsession with testing is the undoing of decades of pedagogical research and everything we have learned about brained-based learning. The political emphasis on “test scores” has pushed education backwards into a results based (rote) mentality. It is far from the “21st century” ideals of project-based and differentiated education, and certainly not in sync with a 21st century brain that has been weaned on technology bytes and fast-paced brain-pop. It is an unnecessary distraction from the real work of teaching and it bogs down the immense resources of a well-trained work force with the crunching of data. Meanwhile, politicians polish their brass buttons with our blood, sweat and tears. Our time would be far better spent on designing standards based and engaging lessons with an emphasis on formative assessment that would teach our students how to read, respond and think across the curriculum.
Furthermore, the politicization of test scores has not served children in any way, and in my opinion, has only widened the achievement gap. It is nothing more than an insidious, racist and classist camouflage that perpetuates real estate red-lining in an effort to appease the far right, who are misguided in their belief that teacher unions are the source of the problem. It has perpetuated the myth that the failure of public schools is because of all those “bad teachers” and the unions that protect them. But worse, the publication of district test scores in newspapers has become a secret code abused by the middle class in their efforts to flee the challenges that public education presents. Public schools have suffered from brain drain and middle class flight in poorly funded districts, while those who are are able, to take advantage of charter and magnet schools and abandon ship. Rather than staying to fix the leak or at least offer life boats to the rest of us, families have turned away from public schools in the biggest marketing scam of the century – the move toward privatization. Our neighborhood and “struggling schools” have eroded into dystopian relics, or been closed for good. However, we don’t have a choice, but to welcome and accept the poor, the tired, the disenfranchised in the new colossus poem of public schooling. 1/15/17

Donna--

I disagree on a couple of points: (1) I don't think the accountability testing scheme is based on the idea that teachers are "incompetent," but instead on the notion that workers who are protected by unions tend to be lazy. Their concern isn't competency, but effort. I suspect that is the reason that the accountability testing scheme has basically failed. The problem is that while you can increase motivation with tests--people will try harder--it can only work if principals and teachers have a clear idea of what they need to do to raise reading achievement. I have worked with thousands of educators over the years and I think it is fair to say that most have no idea what steps they would need to take to improve reading achievement (except for getting different kids or remaking the society). That's why we see so much test prep--and we have long before these tests were actually high stakes (I was writing about this almost 30 years ago).

(2) These schemes are not the province of the far right--or, more accurately, of the far right alone. Unless Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and several Democratic governors of the last generation are part of the far right. George W. Bush put in a testing policy that allowed the federal government to intervene in districts by requiring extra tutoring for struggling students (paid for with federal funds) and educators screamed. Barak Obama reshaped those policies, requiring states to use the tests not to determine whether kids be tutored or allowed to change schools, but to fire teachers and close schools (and educators were pretty quiet about that). We have to stop being anti-stuff when one group of politicians embraces it, but for it or quiet about it when a different group of politicians signs on. These are good ideas or bad ideas--no matter which party is their champion at the moment. (For example, Republicans in 1990 supported test driven policies, but were against them in 1993-2001. Then they were for them again, etc.--The Democrats have taken the opposite journey. I guess that is just how politicians should operate--but researchers, teachers, teacher educators should not get sucked into that on issues that they have expertise on).


tim 1/15/17

As a special education teacher I know the value of assessment. Assessment provides teachers with data. Data helps teachers make informed decisions on ways to provide the type of instruction and educational assistance that the student needs to be successful. I feel like I am constantly taking data on my students’ IEP goals and objectives. This data is extremely important in determining whether a student is making progress and whether a revision to the student’s special education programming is necessary.

The school district where I teach makes almost all students participate in frequent instructional and accountability testing. I don’t feel that this is fair or appropriate for many of my students with disabilities. These tests can cause feelings of low self-esteem or self-worth for students. The test scores often do not provide data that is useful for special education teachers.

Because school districts are evaluated on how student perform on tests classes often turn into test prep sessions where students are denied authentic learning opportunities. Many students with disabilities do not receive rigorous instruction like their nondisabled peers do. We must find a way to ensure that students with disabilities receive adequate academic instruction and are appropriately assessed.