As I read Dana Goldstein’s article about the advance of standardized testing into subjects like the arts and physical education, I began to get a queasy feeling. “This isn’t right,” I mumbled to myself. I thought of my grandchildren taking standardized tests in music and gym, and I shook my head. This isn’t right.
Race to the Top has promoted this movement to test every subject. Arne Duncan brandished $5 billion to encourage states and districts to judge teachers by the rise or fall of their students’ scores. The fact that there is no evidence for this method of judging teachers doesn’t matter. Bad ideas backed by big money have a way of catching on, no matter how mindless they are.
South Carolina has developed online tests for the arts, multiple-choice, of course. Florida is building tests of music and other pervormance arts that can be scored by machine, that is, by artificial intelligence. The vendors of these tests lobby to make them permanent, regardless of their quality.
Are they doing this at Sidwell Friends or the University of Chicago Lab School or Dalton or Exeter or Deerfield Academy? Of course not.
Is this what they do in Finland? Of course not.
What is the reason for testing the arts and physical education? It’s not to help students take joy in singing or playing a musical instrument or running fast or shooting baskets.
No, the purpose of all these tests is to collect data to evaluate the teachers! Wasting the students’ time with stupid questions and pointless activities and trivial measurements is just a way of gathering information so teachers of the arts and physical education can get a value-added score, just like teachers of reading and math.
Sometimes Americans do really foolish things. Sometimes they do these things because it is so easy to follow the crowd. Sometimes it’s because no one is thinking clearly. Sometimes they get caught up in nutty fads because someone is making a profit and buying legislators. Usually it’s because the people who launched these bad ideas have no moorings. They have lost touch with their own values. They do to other people’s children what they would never do to their own. They don’t listen to teachers. They don’t listen to parents.
History is not kind to people who do foolish, nay harmful, things and fail to exercise independent judgment. That’s why it’s best to say “no” when your conscience tells you to.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As a 30-year music teacher, I find this incomprehensible–and appalling. The core fallacies at work here: Teachers in elective (non-core/arts/vocational) subjects don’t assess their students. The only rigorous assessment is one that generates numbers.
I wrote a blog about this when Goldstein first started exploring this idea:
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2011/05/bonehead_assessment_101.html
Time to recycle it.
The other thing Dana Goldstein fails to examine in her article is the much larger context for assessment. She implies that the information gained from standardized tests in art, music, theater, and PE is useful, but never asks “compared to what?” Surely there’s a whole realm of assessment options for teachers to use — many that would be inherently much better than bubble sheets. Goldstein, who is usually a pretty competent journalist, is just plain lazy in this piece.
It’s ironic that these tests are surfacing as those who teach in these areas are being laid off in my district.
Sure is strange isn’t it? Wonder if the test makers realize just how much money they may be losing out on because money has to be spent on other tests in the other subject areas. After all, it is all about the profits that can be made.
The problem I have with testing is the same problem I have with the death penalty. I’m not sure it is immoral, I just don’t think there is a way to administer it fairly.
As to the tests, as with see with the recent Pearson pineapple episode, as we see with the political manipulation of standards in New York State, they is no way this can be done fairly. (A side thought, if we are evaluating teachers with the tests, why aren’t we evaluating testmakers similarly!)
And moving beyond basic literacy and mathematical skiils, this gets really murky. I remember the first science test that was administered in NYC publics schools to my then fifth grade son back in 2005. It was just a reading comprehension test where all the passages were science themed. They weren’t being tested on any knowledge or familiarity with scientific concepts, even grade appropriate ones. Every thing was in the passages.
I assume the other subject tests will be the same. What is the point except to drum up business for the test makers.
Now that is a career to go into now! My youngest is just about to enter college to study engineering. Maybe I can convince him to change to where the money is!
Dennis,
“I just don’t think there is a way to administer it fairly. ” There isn’t as the tests themselves are inherently unfair and the whole process has many points of error. See N. Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577
As a 30-year music teacher, I find this incomprehensible–and appalling. This movement is based on two fallacies: #1) Arts/PE/Vocational/World Language teachers don’t really assess student work and #2) The only trustworthy assessment is one that generates numerical data.
When Goldstein first started exploring this idea, I wrote this blog in response:
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2011/05/bonehead_assessment_101.html
Diane,
It is funny that you say that because my school is piloting the new teacher evaluation in NJ. NJ has chosen to go with the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) model in the teacher evaluation. So, with SGP, students are given pre-midterms, midterms, pre-final, and final to measure the growth of our students.
Here is the breakdown of how it is calculated
Q: How does New Jersey measure student growth?
A: New Jersey measures growth for an individual student by comparing the change in his or her NJ ASK achievement from one year to the
next to that of all other students in the state who had similar historical results (the student’s “academic peers”). This change in achievement
is reported as a student growth percentile (abbreviated SGP) and indicates how high or low that student’s growth was as compared to that
of his/her academic peers. For a school or district, the growth percentiles for all students are aggregated to create a median SGP for the
school or district. The median SGP is a representation of “typical” growth for students in the school or district.
However, since we do not have longitudinal tests in the high school, our district/school chose to create their own tests for every content area.
I’m talking dance, physical education, art, musical theatre, graphic arts, sculpture, play-writing etc. This week, our students are taking multiple choice tests mixed with open ended responses in dance and all those other areas I mentioned, and I found myself think, “this is absurd” yet I’m the only one saying anything. Am I the only one who thinks this is DEAD WRONG! No I am not, but I found out yesterday everyone else in our school is afraid to say anything. They are afraid to take a stand because they are not willing to suffer any repercussions from the administration. However we are doing our children a disservice by keeping silent.
So, I’ll stand alone and take the stand with one or two other teachers. It may not make a big impact, but I will make a point. We owe this to our children and future generations.
Okaikor
NJTAG Member
Bravo! Muy Bien! Okaikor.
Thanks for being brave enough to take a stand! Is your resume up to date? The powers that be won’t tolerate independent thought and dissent-HA.
The problem with all of this testing is that nobody is testing the testmakers. In reality, the people composing these tests were never given these tests and would probably not pass themselves. Second, it presumes that all testing is numberic, which of course, flies in the face of most teacher educuation models. It assumes that professionals are unable to conduct themselves professionally — ie. test their students in logical manner even though that it what they are trainded to do. As noted by others, this area is a huge moneymaker for the testing firms. In a day where there is limited dollars for actual teachers, it seems rather ironic that there is so many dollars to chase questionable tests. I think there needs to see who is being paid off by who because there is absolutely no oversight to any of this area. Nor is there any regulation of what tests are being given to unsuspecting students. I think most would be truly appalled if actual type,number, and cost of tests were reviewed.
Geez – and all this time I thought we were teaching creative arts. Imposing tests on the one area of our schools where the idea of creativity is still allowed will only serve to suck the life out of it. I see demoralized teachers and robotic kids in our future.
In Massachusetts, one of the early places to implement high stakes testing, another perverse side effect has occured. Social studies is feeling pinched. Because social studies is not specifically tested, schools and districts are using that as an opportunity to reduce the variety of courses that they offer.
In middle schools, the classes are being given to English, math and science teachers.
Ironically, it is the LACK of testing that is pushing this change and social studies support organizations are actually backed into the corner of requesting a bigger test emphasis so that course offerings won’t further erode with the associated reduction of a well-prepared teaching staff.
You might find interesting the recent President’s Message from Norm Shacochis of the Massachusetts Council for the Social Studies.
http://www.masscouncil.org/?page_id=439
I am a public elementary school music teacher but I also help out with our school’s Response to Intervention program. I was asked to work with children who scored low in “drama” on the standardized tests. I thought, “What?? What are they talking about?” Tell any of these third graders that it is time to go to bed and you will see plenty of high quality spontaneous improvised drama, as I am sure the parents could verify. If they scored low on drama, it is because of the way the test was written, not because they are not proficient at drama.
One of my music Benchmarks and Standards is to celebrate holidays. How should that be scored? How do I measure proficiency in that? Do I fail the Jehovah’s Witnesses because they don’t celebrate holidays?
Should I be measuring the response of a child to a Beethoven symphony? To the fact that he had a miserable life yet kept composing absolutely wonderful music despite his deafness? Should a child be assessed as she explores a xylophone or sings a spontaneous song of her own creation? Or he break dances for his friends to a cool rap? We are all aware of differences in quality of execution as we watch the children take turns performing, but should these differences be defined and charted? I don’t think so. What happened to “process, not product?”
io There are plenty of ways I evaluate the learning of my students on a daily basis. Unfortunately for the bean counters, many of these ways do not lend themselves to verbal expression and right and wrong answers. That does not mean they are vague or imprecise. I precisely measure the improvements in tone quality from week to week of a child playing the soprano recorder, but please don’t ask me to score or chart that. Is the child out of tune on the violin? By how much? What percentage did the child score? What does 80% proficient mean? Is 20% out of tune ok?
I worry when I see test questions that call incorrect answers correct because the people writing the tests are ignorant of the field they are testing.
Diane makes an excellent point: no one is doing this kind of thing at Sidwell Friends or schools like that. The assessment craze is focused squarely on ‘regular’ schools. Perhaps the underlying assumption is that while the better class of child can be permitted to develop at her own pace, and the better class of teacher can be trusted to run her own classroom, the ordinary folks need to be managed with a hard hand or we’ll all fall apart.
I hope to live long enough to see “History is not kind to people who do foolish, nay harmful, things and fail to exercise independent judgment. ” I feels more and more like the Nazi-ing of America. :<
That should , “It feels more and …”
In Louisiana, which is going to get real messy real soon, we have instituted SLTs (Student Learning Targets) as a way to measure our arts educators, of which I am one. Now, while there are certain “measurables” in instrumental music, I believe that we have all been doing just fine in assessing them. In fact, our product depends on how well we teach fundamentals. It is in our own best interest to do so. Reform? Right. Follow the money.
Kentucky has always believed that the Arts and PE/Health/Careeer Studies are important for all children to experience a well-rounded education. These expectations were part of our education reform in the early ’90s. Students did take tests, which were a part of the accountability model.
In 2009, our legislature “reformed” the reform, and part of that was the removal of tests in these areas. Why? Because they realized that teachers were spending all their time teaching vocabulary and basic “facts”, and the students weren’t given the opportunity to really experience these programs. I can’t tell you how many times I covered the class for the arts teacher and the students were watching the most videos about works of art and the cultures behind them. I’m not saying this isn’t important, as understanding culture and the art associated it with it can teach us so much. What I am saying is that this is ALL the students were doing. But, I digress. In 2009, the legislature changed the testing of these subjects to a program review of these subjects. The hope is that now the students would be able to experience what these programs have to offer–not just memorize a bunch of facts.
http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Program+Reviews/
From what I understand, the results of these reviews will go into our new accountability system beginning next year. Components of these reviews, which include the expectation of designing a way to track student growth within the subject, may be used for our new teacher evaluation sytem.
Are the program reviews the answer? I don’t know. It really depends on how they’re used. I think they can do some great things, and in my school we’ve been able to see some holes that we’re working to fill. But, unfortunately, I still hear of arts and PE teachers being let go. It’s really unfortunate that it’s the students that will end up on the short end of the stick.
“Bad ideas backed by big money have a way of catching on, no matter how mindless they are.” Unfortunately too true. But not only are the ideas “bad” but quite harmful to the students.
“No, the purpose of all these tests is to collect data to evaluate the teachers!” We should continually be reminding people that all the major organizations that deal with standardized tests, the American Psychological Association, the National Council on Measurement in Education and the American Education Research Association quite clearly state that the usage of standardized test results for any purpose other than what the test was designed is UNETHICAL (yes, that should be shouted out).
Evaluating a 5th grade math teacher using the scores from the end of year standardized test scores, since the test was designed to supposedly assess a student’s math skills and not the teacher’s teaching ability, is UNETHICAL. All of these teacher evaluation schemes like VAM or any similar method are by definition is unethical.
Let’s think this through a little. I would bet that almost all teacher’s contracts have a “morals” clause in them. Something to the effect of if a teacher were to use unethical practices in his/her classroom he/she could be and probably would be fired. So the powers that be want us teachers to participate in the unethical use of students’ test scores. Shouldn’t they fire us all???
Okay, so some, even many don’t like the idea of testing in the arts, but reality is, it is here or coming soon. The question I see is how do we become proactive and find meaningful solutions in our classrooms? I welcome the testing because I know that it means that the intention is to keep the arts. Now, what we need to do as art teachers is get loud about making a reasonable and valid test. Our tests do not have to be nor should they be merely text. Let’s remember that art is considered a core subject, just like math and reading. Let’s be grateful for this acknowledgment and treat our class like a core subject. While we do teach specific concepts, terms and techniques, we can find methods for formative assessment that we can fuse into the daily workings of the art classroom. I do see that using formative assessment strategies can slow down the production of art, but it could provide for a more meaningful experience for students, help students use assessment for learning to become responsible for their own learning and growth, protect art education, and allow art education to finally be treated with the professional respect it deserves.
Reblogged this on and commented:
The Pitfalls of Standardized Testing?
Another response blog: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2012/06/standardized_testing_in_the_arts_no_please_no.html
From the point of view of a bona fide music assessment expert.
Teachers of all subjects need to read the late great arts educator, Elliott Eisner. Yes, I agree with a previous poster who said the author of this article was being lazy when she said the arts needed to be tested but then didn’t say what needed to be done with those scores and defecit areas. The arts are primarily performance-based and that demonstration of understanding is assessed by performance…play that…paint that. Anyone who teaches the arts, however, would agree with Dr. Eisner that an artistic paradigm, which includes academic theoretical and critique facets, in addition to the performance areas, should be used instead to teach the arts, as a work of art or a band performance doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The artistic paradigm is perfect then for giving context to the performance, teaching critical thinking, and allowing students to become what Dr. Eisner calls an “educational connoisseur”. That’s what the other parts of the fine arts can do. Dr. Eisner believed every other subject could be taught with this artistic paradigm and he didn’t mean teaching math through singing songs about numbers. No, no, he meant that others subject mainly teach the theory part of that area of concentration. By including the critque, history, and performance of understanding, ta da (as we say in the music biz) you’ve got context, authentic learning, and hopefully an educational connoissuer in development. So if the arts and other subjects use that artistic paradigm I actually think you would have to use standardized tests at all. Just imagine if geometry students went out and did community service work through small construction projects designed to use subject matter they were covering. That would be kind of interesting and would stop all those pesky questions from students wondering if they would ever be using this stuff in real life…
I Just noticed a big typo in my previous post that negated my entire argument!! Near the end I said that by using the artistic paradigm to teach arts and other subjects I would think you’d have to use standardized tests at all. I meant to say “wouldn’t need to use…” yikes! could you make that change for me if my first post is accepted? Thanks!