Opposition to Testing Continues to Accelerate

31 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Peter Smyth says:

   July 20, 2014 at 8:17 am

   It seems to me the “testing debate” conflates too many issues into a single anti-testing stance which leaves us in an untenable position.

   We have the problem of high stakes testing and the misuse of data for everything but the child’s learning.

   We have the excessive testing driving a low level test prep curriculum.

   We have the problem of poor quality or unknown quality testing products.

   We have the culture created by testing of cheating and manipulation of data that is more widespread than we want to face.

   But while dealing with the above and more, most of us who have been in education for awhile know that assessing student learning, providing feedback, even making judgements about students based on assessments, judgments that mater – all his has been part of what we do. Most of us use information from the assessment to inform what we do. If assessments measure what we value in learning, I can accept the motivational effect of assessment and feedback. Studying for a grade is not so far out if the grade reflects what we think should be learned. Good assessment, good feedback, and the support to act on that feedback can change behavior for the good.

   So when we oppose “testing”, I think we need to be clear about what we oppose. Uncomfortable as I am to admit it, I’ve seen great improvement in customer service at some of the companies I deal with – and it coincides with the rise of those tacky customer surveys we get after calling ATT or Apple or visiting the Honda store. But I think this assessment supports what well-intentioned employees want to do; it would not by itself make chicken salad out of chicken you know what.

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     July 20, 2014 at 9:24 am

     “If assessments measure what we value in learning, I can accept the motivational effect of assessment and feedback. Studying for a grade is not so far out if the grade reflects what we think should be learned. Good assessment, good feedback, and the support to act on that feedback can change behavior for the good.”

     Educational assessments, especially standardized tests, “measure” nothing as they are not measuring devices. Not all that is valuable can be “measured”. Most agree that the teaching and learning process should be valued. The teaching and learning process is not amenable to measurement.

     “Studying for a grade” is an atrocious practice. I fight against that educational malpractice everyday-“Is this for points?”, “What do I have to do to ‘raise my grade’?”, etc. . . . External motivation, especially studying for a grade, will result in very shallow short term memory/cognition as once the grade is “made” then that information can be discarded (although to what extent and how is not known). We should be instilling a desire to learn first and foremost through logical curriculum and getting to know and understand each student to help them learn how to motivate themselves-not telling them how but helping them understand the importance of self motivation and desire in the teaching and learning process.

     And the if in “. . . IF the grade reflects. . . ” is quite large. We can never know exactly what is going on inside the mind of the learner so that grades, in and of themselves are nothing more than mere guesses with no verifying mechanism. Grades are a harmful educational malpractice. We need to get beyond that archaic malpractice.

     Reply
     • Peter Smyth says:

       July 20, 2014 at 10:07 am

       Ah, Duane. You probably need to work on your close reading and listening before throwing out those bid words. Epistemological? Sound good.

     • Duane Swacker says:

       July 20, 2014 at 11:42 am

       Peter, FYI!

       *Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη – epistēmē, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος – logos, meaning “study of”) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which any given subject or entity can be known. (from Wiki)

       ** Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. (from Wiki)

     • Jim says:

       July 22, 2014 at 3:27 pm

       So if a student is tops in the nation on the Putnam Exam there is no reason to think that their knowledge of mathematics might be above average.

     • Duane Swacker says:

       July 22, 2014 at 3:47 pm

       What is the Putnam Exam?

     • Peter Smyth says:

       July 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm

       I agree, Jim. I even bet the Putnam Exam measures worthwhile mathematics. And measures it fairly well.
       And it would be a “standardized test”.

     • Duane Swacker says:

       July 22, 2014 at 5:31 pm

       Jim,
       See response to Peter.

   • Duane Swacker says:

     July 22, 2014 at 5:31 pm

     Peter or Jim,

     How is the Putnam exam (whatever that is) a measuring device? What does it measure? What are the units of measurement used? What serves as the “standard” for the unit of measurement? How is that unit defined?

     Reply
2. Duane Swacker says:

   July 20, 2014 at 9:34 am

   All those involved in FairTest should read and understand what Noel Wilson has to say about many epistemological and ontological (the how do we know if what we know is true and is a valid representation of the manifestations of the world which we perceive) fallacies and errors involved in educational assessment.

   “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700

   Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)

   1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as uni-dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.

   2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).

   3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.

   4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”

   In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.

   5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.

   6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
   7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”

   In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
   My answer is NO!!!!!

   One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:

   “So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”

   In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.

   Reply
   • Jim says:

     July 22, 2014 at 3:29 pm

     Duane – Philosophical scepticism doesn’t get you anywhere.

     Reply
     • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

       July 22, 2014 at 3:47 pm

       Love the esoteric and analytical minds that read the same things that we do, Jim.
       But in the end, it is Diane;s link that promotes the conversation, allowing all of us to enter a teacher’s room and talk.

       One meets many types in a teacher’s room from the brilliant and the dedicated, to the pompous and the delusional. I know… I taught for more that 40 years, and in 12 of those years I subbed in a suburban school district that was 3rd in NY State. IN 2 High Schools, and Jr H Schools I taught English and art, and in 13 elementariness I taught kiddies how to think, hoe two learn and introduced them to the way the world works… and the language that helps us talkative apes to grasp what is afoot.

       I am a lifelong learner, and at the present I am learning the digital darkroom because I am a travel photographer now that I no longer teach.

       I am still practicing my skills as a human being, and having trouble mastering the acceptance of blatant lies, falsification and the belligerent attitude that I encounter when I disagree with someone’s opinion or deeply held and cherished perspective on observable reality.
       Susan Lee

     • Duane Swacker says:

       July 23, 2014 at 7:39 pm

       Scepticism is the foundation of all free thought and free thinkers. I hope I don’t need to give examples throughout history where “scepticism” has lead to more “enlightened” world views.

       What Wilson, and what I “believe” (having been shown by Wilson) is not scepticism but analytical thought that proves the complete invalidity of the educational standards and standardized testing process.

       Since you don’t believe that please prove to all that what Wilson has proven is false. He has shown the psychometricians to be wrong/false in their insistence on the validity and reliability of those educational malpractices.

       It’s up to you to prove otherwise, so have at it and have fun!

   • Jim says:

     July 22, 2014 at 3:45 pm

     Duane – You react to psychometrics like a Christian fundamentalist to the theory of evolution. Since you know the truth independently of looking at the empirical evidence you simply ignore a century of empirical research by many eminenet psychologists.

     Reply
     • Duane Swacker says:

       July 23, 2014 at 7:46 pm

       Well, Jim, you’ve got completely backward for it is you who has the “fundamentalist” position of psychometrics, not I. I’m a fundamentalist for truth and free thinking, not some archaic dogma (all religions) or even newer dogma (psychometry).

       Wilson has proven that the “empirical evidence” of psychometry in regards to educational standards and standardized testing is very lacking to the point of complete invalidity. What is it about Wilson’s work that is false?

       So prove Wilson wrong. Refute and rebut his points that you believe to be incorrect.

3. NJ Teacher says:

   July 20, 2014 at 9:43 am

   Peter Smyth,

   Customer service is improving. Are you kidding? I have recently had the opportunity to call Sprint, E Z Pass and Avis. I made numerous calls, spoke to numerous ill informed people, and was given other numbers to call. One situation was resolved because I resorted to raising my voice, another one the rep took pity on me and the third remains unresolved. Credit card companies talk nicely to me because I have good credit. Yes, I answer all those stupid surveys.

   Reply
   • Peter Smyth says:

     July 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

     NJ Teacher, that sort of shows that the surveys done make the have nots better. Maybe the lesson is that in any kind do assessment, it’s meaningless unless there’s support for actually making things better. Or maybe the customer service gap is getting wider.

     Reply
4. Susan Lee Schwartz says:

   July 20, 2014 at 11:27 am

   Thank you Diane for this kind of post, with the links. 50 states and 15,880 districts make it hard for the American public to see what is going on, and the billionaires club knows this.

   Reply
5. Texas Teacher says:

   July 20, 2014 at 11:52 am

   I’m glad the opposition is picking up steam. I also think we have to be careful in how we word our opposition. I’ve been told many times (even by other teachers) how teachers are against testing because they don’t want anyone to find out they are not doing their jobs. People don’t understand all the logistics of it. The fact that our state-of-the-art Science Lab is now used purely for tutorial pull-outs during the school day. Our laptop and ipad carts are strictly used for required weekly time on our reading and math programs.That all teachers in our district-from Pre-K to PE are now having 50% of our evaluations based on the scores of one test (the same weight as year-long ratings in instructional and professional strands of the evaluation combined). I have to teach my Kinder students how to bubble in answers on scantron sheets and have them attend after-school and Saturday tutorials to prepare them for the big test.

   That’s the part of testing that I think a lot of us are opposed to-not just being held accountable. But that being the only way we are held accountable. I think we have to make that more clear.

   Reply
6. Linda says:

   July 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm

   College textbooks, which I’ll use as an all-encompassing term for the bundled materials students are forced to buy, have a price that equals or exceeds the cost of tuition, at many public colleges. The publishers’ excuse for a price, in the hundreds of dollars, is that part-time faculty require more supplements to support their teaching. The right-wing’s answer then, is to increase payments to publishers and rely on day laborers for teaching.
   The logic results in publishers behaving daily, like animals in a feeding frenzy. The only difference between piranha and them, is the latter’s attempt at disguise.
   The disingenuous arguments about K-12 testing are the same, with the addition of an overlay of Tea Party loathing for anything that doesn’t enrich the 1% and the diminishment of a profession dominated by women.

   Reply
   • Peter Smyth says:

     July 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm

     Linda, your logic is … imaginative. I think most Tea Party grassroots people, of which I am not one, aren’t too fond of the 1%. The Kochs are,of course.

     Reply
     • Linda says:

       July 20, 2014 at 11:22 pm

       Peter Smyth,
       The Center for Media and Democracy researched, in great detail, the funding for Tea Party groups. Check out their website for the report.
       Journalists at other sites make the point that the Koch’s appear to want to distance themselves from a connection to the Tea Party.
       While the journalists don’t offer a reason, your misassumption may reflect the motivation.
       An article in Bloomberg News quoted a guy, who ran a political advocacy organization that received money from the Koch’s.
       After the author directly quoted the person, she quoted a Koch, who was unaware the guy had identified the source of his funding. The Koch said, “We didn’t directly give money to the organization.”

       Why there are so many obfuscating layers of funding, could be answered by the 1%, or we can speculate. Many websites show the labyrinth of political funding so, my imagination was not required.

7. NJ Teacher says:

   July 20, 2014 at 1:50 pm

   Linda,

   Why would part time faculty require more materials? The credentials of part time faculty generally meet or exceed those of full time faculty.

   Reply
   • Linda says:

     July 20, 2014 at 11:06 pm

     NJ Teacher,
     First, the “requirement for more support” is not my argument, it is the publishers’.
     Second sentence, no.

     Reply
   • Linda says:

     July 20, 2014 at 11:39 pm

     NJ Teacher,
     Do you make the erroneous claim that TFA’s have equal or better credentials than classroom teachers?

     Reply
8. larry says:

   July 20, 2014 at 4:58 pm

   “Imagination is more important than knowledge”
   — by Some DAM Poet (with some dam help from Albert Einstein)

   For what we know and understand
   Knowledge takes us by the hand
   For all that is and ever shall be
   Imagination sets us free

   Others may disagree, but I’ll take Einstein’s word for what’s most important:

   “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” — Albert Einstein

   How does one test imagination and creativity?

   Does the process of testing destroy the very thing that is most important*?

   (*The Einstein/Heisenberg Educational Uncertainty Principle in the context of standardized testing )

   Reply
   • Peter Smyth says:

     July 20, 2014 at 5:57 pm

     Ah, but some kinds of knowledge give us the tools to imagine and create.
     Sometimes imagination and creativity kick in when you reach the end of your knowledge.

     Reply
     • larry says:

       July 21, 2014 at 1:52 am

       No disagreement there, but it is important to note that Einstein actually did not say “knowledge is not important.”

       He said “Imagination is more important than knowledge” specifically with reference to sailing off into new uncharted territory.

       The great mathematician David Hilbert (who corresponded with Einstein on the equations of General Relativity, but readily admitted that the theory was Einstein’s alone) said something similar:

       “Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four-
       dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein
       did the work and not the mathematicians.”

       Einstein used his imagination to step outside the limits of current knowledge to invent entirely new concepts of space, time and gravitation.

       It’s well worth reading what Einstein had to say about education (for example in ‘Einstein: Ideas and Opinions”). Einstein was very critical of the emphasis on testing.in his own school experience and would almost certainly be critical of what is going on today.

       “One had to cram all this stuff into one’s mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year.” — Albert Einstein

       Others are free to disagree, of course, but I am with Einstein on this point — and I believe I am in fairly good company 🙂

       Having both studied and taught science, I know all too well the effect that testing can have on students’ enthusiasm, curiosity and imagination. It can put a damper on them if not kill them outright.

     • Jim says:

       July 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm

       larry – I’m not really at all familar with the General Theory of Relativity but the story I heard once was that Einstein had a conversation with Hilbert about what the relativistic law of gravity should be whereupon Hilbert came up with it in a few days using variational principles. But Hilbert agreed to not to publish this result.

       If this story is true then coming up with the relativistic law of gravity must have been pretty easy for Hilbert.

     • Peter Smyth says:

       July 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm

       It was … relatively easy.

9. retiredbutmissthekids says:

   July 20, 2014 at 7:57 pm

   Wow, Peter, I think that the correct term for “when you reach the end of your knowledge” is…death.

   Reply