|
HIGH STAKES STANDARDIZED
NORM-REFERENCED TESTING Background Information
&
Position Statement “High stakes are for
tomatoes!” by Marc Pruyn, PhD[1] Associate Professor of Education Why High Stakes Standardized
Norm-referenced
Testing is Harmful High
stakes, standardized,
norm-referenced testing (HSSNT) is bad for children, bad for our public
schools
and not a good way to measure the “intelligence” (or academic
achievement
level) of our youngsters. Tests such as these (and their year-round
consequences) harm learners pedagogically, emotionally and
physiologically.
They are bankrupting the budgets of our schools and states (along with
the help
of a national war budget) and forcing us to teach and organize our
curricula
around methods that have not been empirically shown to be successful.
Finally, it
has not been demonstrated in terms of scholarship that HSSNTs actually
measure
“intelligence”; actually, if anything, the empirical data seem to
indicate that
all they can really ever measure is the test-taker’s ability to take
the test
(see, “What Do HSSNRT Really Test?”, below). While national and state
trends
may be in favor of this type of testing, I am not. And others feel
similarly
(see, “Resources,” below); and for good reason. These
national testing trends
and “pressures” coincided with the ascendancy of the George W. Bush
administration. And this is no surprise. Bush, as governor of The Year-round Consequences of HSSNT High
Stakes Standardized
Norm-referenced Testing produces many negative consequences. Not
insignificant
among these are there following, secondary, yet year-long and on-going,
negative effects: the re-formation/adaptation of state content
“standards” to the content of the tests; the creation
of pre-packaged curricula linked to the tests (usually published by the
same
folks that produce and sell [at a not inconsiderable price] the exams
themselves); the phenomena of “teaching-to-the-test”; a
teacher-centering of
the curriculum; and, a move away from constructivist (let alone
“critical” or
“transformative”) and meaning-based pedagogy that is the result of
using
pre-packaged, “teacher proofed” curricula. What Do HSSNT Really Test? We are
all familiar with
the “test-prep” courses and materials that exist to help folks do
better on
these types of exams. I personally took a test-prep week-end course to
assist
me in improving my GRE scores when I first wanted to enter graduate
school in
the late 1980s. And we unabashedly use test-prep materials in the
schools to
assist HSSNT aspirants in improving the scores they are likely to
receive. And
these techniques are often successful. (They were for me.) But, does
students’
quantifiable “intelligence” (a troublesome notion in itself) actually
improve during
the period they are reviewing test-taking techniques? No. They just get
better
at test-taking skills; as I did. So, how then can we assume HSSNTs
measure
“intelligence” at all or produce data for us that are helpful in any
real-life
learning/teaching endeavor? We cannot assume that they do. The only
conclusion
we can logically draw using the scientific method is that these kinds
of tests
only measure our ability to take them. It seems to me that this is
terribly
un-helpful (and expensive and a waste of precious time we do not have
to spare
in our schools and classrooms). Why Do We Feel Obliged to Administer
HSSNTs? The
decision to
administer HSSNTs rests with the state, the school district, the
principal and local
constituents (students, parents, community members, et cetera) who
allow it to
continue without protest. Although, it should be noted that many
communities
(students, parents, teachers), schools (principals), school districts
and even
entire states have boycotted these types of federally “encouraged”
forms of
testing (despite the fact that doing so might jeopardize their access
to NCLB monies).
Some states are even considering replacing HSSNTs with a criterion-referenced
exams. This would be an improvement; although,
if they were to remain “high stakes, standardized tests” (albeit
criterion-referenced ones) some of the dangers of the current
norm-referenced
testing would remain as possibilities (even probabilities). Wouldn’t it
be a
great if we lived in an educational world where we could trust the
professionalism, preparedness, rigor and smarts of the parents,
learners,
teachers and administrators at schools (or within school districts)
such that
they could be entrusted with the development and use of their own
high-quality,
accurate and organic (versus nationally imposed) evaluation strategy
for our
learners (via locally-devised measurement tools, portfolios, et cetera)? Well,
we could hope for
such a world. Even better than that, we could help to create one: if we
have
faith in each other and our abilities (and those of our children!); if
we
collectively organize; if we remain skeptical about, carefully critique
and
apply high empirical standards to state and national trends (HSSNT;
pre-packaged, teacher-centered, student alienating reading programs
[“Success
for All,” et cetera]; uniforms) as panaceas for community concerns and
challenges. Resources Background/Opinion on HSSNT,
“Standards” &
NCLB
HSSNT & Children with Special Needs
HSSNT & Second Language Learners
Position Statements on HSSNT
Research on HSSNT
Protesting HSSNT & NCLB
Wasting Money/Dubious Effects of HSSNT
Misrepresentation of Effects of HSSNT
in
HSSNT & Constitutional Concerns
Bibliography on HSSNT
[1] If you would like to dialogue with me on this issue—or mayhap do a wee bit of organizing—feel free to contact me. [2] For identification purposes only; this does not imply that NMSU, or its Regents, necessarily share the views expressed in this piece.
|
