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.