More standardized testing will make smarter Americans

9 Comments

When you boil it down, the “education reformers” fundamentally believe that more tests will lead to better educational achievement.  They claim that testing forces teachers to teach the concepts that matter and it forces students to learn those concepts or risk being condemned to never getting anything but low scores.  The standardized testing debate is even a factor that led to the Chicago teacher’s strike.

These standardized tests are SO IMPORTANT to the “education reformers” that they demand that teacher evaluation systems include how well teacher’s students do on standardized tests.  Connecticut’s new teacher evaluation law requires that 22.5 percent of a teacher’s evaluation rating be based on the standardized test results, while Illinois’ new law requires that 25 percent of the teacher’s rating be based on the rests of their student’s standardized tests.

Forget the fact that poverty, language barriers and the number of students who require special education services are the single greatest variables that impact test scores.

Earlier this year, Paul Vallas, Bridgeport’s Superintendent of Schools and “Education Reformer Extraordinaire,” announced that hence forth students in the Bridgeport schools will go from having ONE two-week period of standardized tests, (the Connecticut Mastery Tests,) to FOUR  rounds of standardized testing.

Turns out that under Steven Adamowski, Connecticut’s other claim to the elite of “education reform,” Hartford schools had already moved in that direction.  Instead of testing every day for two weeks, Hartford students, he claimed, would also do better if they were faced with these types of standardized tests three times per year.

To pull off such a herculean effort, all teachers were shifted to testing duty, meaning all “specials were cancelled for the duration of the testing periods.  Apparently student’s minds are better focused when they don’t need to worry about attend things like art, music, physical education or other non-essential subjects.

In at least one confirmed case, when teachers complained that many students simply hadn’t acquired the language fluency to complete some of Hartford’s standardized tests (more than 40 percent of Hartford school children go home to households in which English is not the primary language), the administration instructed that Spanish/English dictionaries be given out to all bilingual students.

The problem being, of course, that many students hadn’t been taught yet how to make effective use of them, and furthermore, a significant number of students speak Vietnamese and other Asian languages.  The individual “test periods” weren’t even lengthened to provide students the time to look up words, even if they knew how to do that.

As teachers know, but apparently education reformers do not, some standardized tests must be taken by computer.  In Bridgeport, Vallas has pledged to conduct all standardized testing by computer in the next few years.  In Hartford’s case, Adamowski’s directive was that each building administrator develop a scheduled depending on the computer/student ratio.  Some of the better funded magnet schools have multiple computer labs, while traditional schools have only one.

In some cases, classrooms do have up to a half dozen, often older, computers.  In those situations, where there are as many as 30 or more students, one group would take the test, while the remainder would, “wait their turn”.

A recent article in the Washington Post estimated that the annual cost of standardized testing in the United States is somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion.

Texas, for example, shells out nearly $100 million a year on standardized testing and is on track to have spent $1.2 billion between 2000 and 2015.  All of that money goes to Pearson, the huge testing company.

Georgia pays McGraw-Hill $11 million for one test and Pearson $5.4 million for another.

In Connecticut, the total amount of taxpayer funds spent on standardized testing has not been revealed, but with the state and Connecticut’s cities and towns adding more and more standardized tests, we can safely assuming that spending on testing is the fastest growing area of education spending in the state.

One thing that is known is that text anxiety is a real issue.  Pearson’s 2012 achievement test manual includes three different reminders that it is the “Test Administrator’s” responsibility to notify the “Building Testing Coordinator” of any significant damage or contamination of an answer sheet due to vomit and that it is the Building Testing Coordinator, and not the Test Administrator who must determine how the situation will be handled so that the student can hand in a completed test.

Finally, as news reports are making clear, the use of standardized test results is a key issue in the Chicago teachers strike.  While the new state law in Illinois requires that 25 percent of a teacher’s evaluation be based on the standardized test scores of their students, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to increase that number to 40 percent.

And Emanuel is not alone in his belief that more and more of a teacher’s evaluation should be based on the standardized test scores of their students.

Here in Connecticut, the new teacher evaluation policy requires that 22.5 percent of a teacher’s rating be based on standardized tests scores.  However, Governor Malloy and his Education Commissioner, Stefan Pryor, along with their State Board of Education, were demanding that 45 to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation be based on standardized test results.

Diane Ravitch also has a post about the standardized testing issue today.  Definitely go read what she is adding to the debate – click here: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/09/11/value-added-nonsense/

Be Sociable, Share!

  • buygoldandprosper

    Are we missing the compensation of management and administration? Why just teachers taking the hit on test score results? It should be double for the big shots…
    This is all insanity that is just getting started as the big boys smell money to be made off the public.
    On a very small scale,I am already aware of teachers just giving the answers to the tests to classes…Dan Malloy would not object to that at all,I am sure.

    • JMC

      Good point. It is probably correct to assume that the “Reformers” need administrators as “useful idiots” to ride herd on teachers – for now. I assume that at present the “Reformer” heads do not exist in numbers great enough to dislodge and replace administrators. So they become “Special Masters” or Kommisars, just like those once placed over actual combat military officers in the former Soviet armies. Terror is an effective management tool where despotism is lawful.
      I would be very interested in reading accounts of the narratives and ultimate fates of administrators in these situations, if anyone knows of good reference articles.

      • Guest

        JMC, I am not sure if these are helpful. Aside from the fact that the reformist administrators move around frequently–like Adamowski, jumping from job to job every 4-5 years–some are “bought out” or removed. Check out this outrageous story–a Broad-trained Superintendent kicked out of Philadelphia, but not without the district having to buy her off for almost $1 million! Even when these people perform badly, they cash in! http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-21/news/29911911_1_ackerman-school-reform-commission-superintendent and http://thenotebook.org/blog/114028/district-hook-all-ackermans-payout
        New London’s current Superintendent has a very baroque history of having his contract bought out and finding temporary berths between his jobs… he has even intersected with Adamowski before! Beware Nicholas Fischer, and shame on New London for not looking more closely into his hiring/firing history…

      • JMC

        Guest – I read the articles you referenced. Interesting!

  • JMC

    Thanks, Jon
    Also a good article today listed under title of “Core Standards” in the CT Essential Politics section of ctdevilsadvocate.com

  • Margaret Rick

    The Courant reported that the cost for the CMT was 24.5 million. In response i wrote this op ed that they “could not use.”

    Do We Get Our Money’s Worth from the Connecticut Mastery Test?

    That’s the 24.5 Million Dollar
    Question! The 24.5 million is the price tag of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) according to the Hartford Courant.
    Actually, that’s just the cost to the state, just the tip of the budgetary
    iceberg. Cities and towns contribute undocumented millions in personnel costs.
    Administrators, reading consultants, teachers and tutors spend countless hours
    in preparing for and administering the CMT. So DO we get our money’s worth?

    For example, does the CMT help us
    do a better job of planning and implementing instruction to improve individual
    student achievement? Students take the test in March of one academic year and
    they are available to the teacher in the following academic year. Too much time
    has past for the results to be useful. So, No! Not helpful.

    If the results aren’t useful to
    help the individual, will they help districts? The information has the
    potential to identify the weaknesses of the curriculum or the instruction and
    allow for planning for professional development, curriculum revision and
    staffing to support identified areas of need. The timing is right for that purpose, because districts have
    the summer months to finalize those plans for the coming school year.

    Unfortunately, high stakes
    testing begets manipulation at best, cheating at worst. For instance, students can be assigned
    an alternative or modified assessment. If the student fails, it does not hurt
    the district’s rating. Robert Cotto, Jr. pointed
    out in his recent Connecticut Voices report, “some districts are routing too
    many students to non-high-stakes tests to skew performance results…He pointed
    to Hartford, where most of the noted gains are, he said, from shunting students
    away from the tests that count. “

    If manipulating the
    results won’t do, downright cheating will. The scandal in Atlanta and the one closer to home at Hopeville
    School in Waterbury attest to that. Manipulation of data and cheating provide
    flawed data. Districts can end up using this flawed data to make or validate flawed
    educational decisions.

    Yes, but at least we can use the
    results to evaluate teachers. Really? If high scores help one get a good
    evaluation, keep a job, get a promotion or even a bonus, isn’t that an
    incentive to cheat? Some teachers
    may erase answers. Others may allow more time. Still others may suggest to a
    student, “Maybe you should check that answer, “ when the student’s first choice
    was incorrect. Tests are administered by the teacher behind closed doors. Who’s
    to know? What if I’m a fourth grade teacher and I realize the third grade
    teacher’s results had to be inflated, I’d like to think that I would never
    cheat, but if my livelihood were on the line?…In the end, school-based
    administrators may end up using their flawed data to make flawed staffing decisions.

    When we’re really not sure of an outcome,
    we say “Can’t hurt, might help.” Unfortunately that isn’t true with the
    administration of high stakes tests, because whether they help or not, they absolutely
    hurt our most vulnerable students.

    Districts and their
    superintendents are judged by the results of CMT benchmarks, the percentage of
    students reaching the proficient level. Therefore, some districts choose to
    provide extra help to students only in the testing years, grades 3 and up, and
    specifically to those students who are just below the proficiency benchmark The
    expectation is that these students will advance enough to achieve a proficient
    score, increase the percentage of students meeting the benchmarks, and validate
    the superintendent’s initiatives.

    Our neediest students fall
    further behind, because districts demand that students spend countless hours
    doing “test prep.” This may help the students who are on or near grade level,
    but students who are well below grade level are “prepping” on materials that
    are written above their instructional capability, leaving them to practice the
    only strategy available – guessing.
    These students are being deprived of appropriate instructional time on
    task so that the “almost proficient” can make the grade and the central office
    administrators can claim success!

    Therefore, my answer to the 24.5 Million
    Dollar (Plus) Question is – No. We’re
    not getting our money’s worth. The
    shame is that educators know the problems and can offer solutions. It’s time
    for the bureaucrats to listen.

    • Guest

      The Hartford Courant cannot use anything that contradicts the party line, which is, Corporate Reformers Uber Alles!
      I’m glad you shared the op-ed here.

  • Querculus

    Jonathan, this is an important, well written, and well researched post.

  • Pingback: CT Essential Politics – Wednesday 09.12.12 - CT Devil's Advocate