Three comments on testing

From the “Local South Metro” section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 17, 2009

Buy books instead of tests

In considering spending for education let's all take a good look at the high cost of testing. As an example, let's assume that each test taken by each student costs their district $30. If a district has 20,000 students, that is a cost of $600,000. What really is the best way to impact learning with that $600,000? Is testing students, compiling scores and reporting scores to the state the best way to enhance student learning? Would students be better served if the district spent that money on textbooks, providing a $30 textbook for each student to use all year? If that 20,000-student district were allowed to reduce the number of tests by half for one year, there would be a savings of $300,000. Following our example, if a district has 1,000 students, the cost of testing would be $30,000. If the district were not required to spend $30,000 on testing that money could support an additional staff member in the classroom. What are students getting for our thousands of dollars of testing? Would we impact student learning more by providing textbooks instead of tests? What do you want for your child, a textbook or a test?

KATHERINE KOCH-LAVEEN, ROSEMOUNT
The writer is a chemistry teacher at Apple Valley High School.

and

I want a nation of citizens who are less inclined to think that the “truth” can be captured in one of four feasible answers—a,b,c, or d. I mention “feasible” because in constructing such tests it is crucial not to have one “right” and three absurd alternatives. They are designed to produce differentiated responses. There’s a peculiar science/logic to this arrangement. On both IQ/ability and traditional achievement tests we’re promised ahead of time a population that fits a normal curve. We’ve replaced these in K-12 schools with judgments about benchmarks, which must still rest on a numerical rank order based on a, b, c, d. The big new invention is that there is often no technical back-up for the validity or reliability of such exams. Many big-name psychometricians shun them.

from "We Need Schools That 'Train" Our Judgment" by Deborah Meier on Bridging Differences

and

From First Grade Takes a Test by Miriam Cohen, illustrated by Lillian Hoban

Someone in the Obama administration said that crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Might our current crisis in education and educational funding be an opportunity to look hard at the value received for the money spent on standardized testing?

I am enjoying and learning a lot from Sir Ken Robinson's book The Element. It's one of those books that every politician, parent and educator should read, but sadly few will. Book report soon.

Comments

[Ric Murry]

Doug,

I'm reading though The Element too. I am about ready to start a Book Report too.

I'll probably use a similar format that I recently used with Teaching As A Subversive Activity.

Wanna work one together?

[Charlie A. Roy]

@ Doug
I've finished up the Element and it is a great read. It will make our summer reading list this summer for our faculty read. I long for the day when educational institutions cease to be bullied by politicians and their corporate cronies in the world of test prep. Standardized testing is a business not an instructional tool. The results should guide instructional choices. The current system doesn't allow this to happen. The results are not immediate.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Ric,

I didn’t read this until after I posted – sorry. You are welcome to plagiarize however ;-)

All the best,

Doug

Hi Charlie,

I thought Robinson made the “testing as business” case well in The Element. Glad to hear your staff will be reading. Now how about politicians and the great unwashed? I just posted my review. You are mentioned!

Thanks as always for the comment,

Doug