In recent years, standardized educational testing has loomed large and often monstrous in the American psyche. Few people argue that there’s no valid need for objective assessments of student achievement. The world is driven by data, and the need for data in turn drives testing. How much testing to do, and what kind of testing provides accurate data, are billion-dollar questions.
There’s a line, and on one side of it – the broader side – is too much testing and too little learning. Lately, the requirements seem to fall on the wrong side of the line. State statute requires that 95 percent of Montezuma-Cortez School District Re-1 students participate in 27 federal- and state-mandated assessments in order for the district to preserve its accreditation.
That’s a big stick, and continued poor test scores leave Re-1 in a weak position to protest. Re-1 needs a way to demonstrate that student performance is improving. Having students take standardized tests seriously and do well on them is the way that’s done. The board must push the tests and hope for the best.
Let’s accept that standardized tests aren’t going to disappear completely. Public education, funded by tax dollars, can never be divorced completely from assessment. Determining whether instruction, curriculum, materials and activities are effective in preparing young people for the future is a logical use of data. Applying that data to future choices is essential.
But the proliferation of tests is an illogical and counterproductive consequence for poor achievement. The more time students spend taking tests, the less time they’re spending learning the information and skills those tests are supposed to measure. Educators are absolutely right in insisting that the huge investment of classroom time spent on test-taking could be better used.
There’s more to education than formulas, and the challenges facing Re-1 are more easily identified than solved. As the state education department and the school district work together to identify and implement educational strategies, it’s very important to analyze the ways in which Re-1 isn’t the same as many other school districts. What works there may not work as well here. What worked here in the past isn’t working as well now.
It’s too simple, though, to say that the challenges are greater so the standards must be lower. The truth remains that not all schools and teachers and strategies are equally effective with all children. There’s no question that some do better, even accounting for differences in student populations. One valid use of data is to help match up the variables.
It’s time for the larger educational community, well beyond Re-1, to find its balance on this issue. Identify a relatively few tests necessary to accurately determine the success of a student’s education. Recognize that the list occasionally must be recalibrated. Acknowledge that the data won’t be perfect and that other indicators – parents’ and teachers’ observations, students’ success in higher education and employment – also provide valid information.
Somewhere, there’s a sweet spot, an optimum combination of instruction and assessment. We must learn to test effectively and efficiently, never forgetting the opportunity cost. Gather sufficient information for documentation and decision-making. After that, more information is too costly to justify.
