Kathleen Porter-Magee of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute explains here why the anti-testing movement is wrong. She describes what she calls four “myths.”
Myth #1: teachers should be allowed to teach what they want, or “let teachers teach.” This is a very bad idea, she says, because teachers will have low expectations if you don’t tell them what to do.
Myth #2: emphasizing testing causes “drill and kill” instruction. Nothing could be farther from the truth, she says, because the really successful students are those who get engaging instruction. Don’t pay attention to the hundreds of millions of dollars that districts and states are spending on test prep materials.
Myth #3: tests can’t measure what really matter. What they do matter is very important so don’t worry that they don’t measure everything. Of course, very few people say that tests should not be used, but that they should not be used for rewards and punishments. When used diagnostically, they can be helpful. When used for high-stakes, they corrupt instruction.
Myth #4: standardization doesn’t work. Porter-Magee likes standardization.
It would be easy to knock down each of these “myths” and her facile answers.
The real danger of high-stakes testing is that they ruin education. Children cannot be standardized. Each one is unique. Yes, standards are helpful as guidelines but not as rigid prescriptions. The greatest dangers of high-stakes testing are that they narrow the curriculum only to what is tested. They encourage states and districts to game the system. They promote cheating (e.g., D.C.). They are based on the pretense that standardized tests are scientific instruments. They are not. They are prone to statistical error, random error, human error, measurement error. No one’s life should hinge on these fallible instruments.
Porter-Magee should google Campbell’s Law and study it. Also, read Daniel Koretz’ book “Measuring Up.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
When did economic tools become the golden rule of society, trumping humanity?
When did human lives (especially the youngest, most vulnerable and politically powerless lives) become manufactured products with tighter and tighter tolerances, discarding anything that doesn’t meet quality control on the first pass?
If you want to establish general dates for the beginning of monetizing everything, here are some possible examples: the “bankruptcy,” aka the bankers coup, of NYC in 1975, when the dismantling of the post-WWII social democracy in New York began in earnest: the passage of Proposition 13 in California in 1978, which started the decline of public services in that bellwether state: the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980, which signifies the formal start of the Neoliberal regime in the US.
Here’s my thoughts. I’m looking forward to visiting Austan this week as anti-testing reaches a crescendo in Texas.
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2013/02/thompson-the-anti-testing-backlash-reaches-a-crescendo-and-that-is-great.html
I love the first myth. Why even bother going to school? I guess thats why TFA’s are so popular with these reformers, the younger you are and the less education you have the easier you are to control.
I take most offense with myth #2. If you look at the Consortium study, it is a weak study I analyzed some time ago. It relied on outside raters to observe and attempt to grade assignments turned in by teachers – the grading scheme relied on determining which assignments were driven to be more “intellectually challenging”.
The question I’ve always had about the study, is that when broken down into its most simple, fundamental notion, observers rated the worksheets, from teachers, as if this is some indication of the level of instruction.
It’s already been shown that raters that enter the teacher’s classroom show weak correlation between their marks and what happens on the outcomes of standardized tests of those same teachers. IOW, the correlation between raters, and outcomes on standardized test scores, is LOW.
I would bank more on those studies, which there were multiple studies of this sort accomplished through the 80’s, 90’s, and beyond (think Medley, Soar, et al.). If it is this difficult to correlate observer’s ratings, while they are in-person (within the classroom), how much more (or less) robust would it be to simply observe the worksheets teachers use?
The bottom line is the CCR study is WEAK.
This article is dumb.
We know that teaching and prepping for the test has a modest affect as outlined in studies examining correlation between SAT study materials and SAT outcomes. Millions of dollars are spent on these materials every year because they do somewhat help.
I also know from personal experience that teaching to the test increases outcomes. Even more dangerous is teachers, and other school officials, that glean content from the tests year after year, and purposely incorporate that content into their lessons. I call it teaching THE test, and it is more predominant than people think. You have to be part of the system, and on the “inside”, to see this in a better light. And dont think for a second that school administrators would stop this behavior – after all their hefty wages are based on these outcomes, along with their reputation in order to move up the ladder (which is the biggest concern for many of them.
Testing distorts instruction when it drives instruction. A simple analysis of Campbell’s study shows that when social inter-workings are subject to quantitative analysis, the participants in the social process will do what it takes to create the quantitative outcomes in order to make the process seem successful. In the decades of teaching, I’ve seen this over and over, in conjunction with the outcomes of standardized tests.
Of course, who cares about me, the lowly teacher/researcher?
Read, ” Yes, We Are STUPID in America!”.
Did you see the NYPost story on test results and summer school?? Walcott is now saying that those who receive a 1 will not be receiving summer school help and will most likely get promoted. Only the bottom 10% will go. So is 1 is now a score that can get you promoted, but a teacher will still be judged by those scores??? This all comes down to money.
And yes of course we teach to the test. We are given the benchmarks that will be tested and we work hard so our children will meet those benchmarks. While some will make wonderful progress, they won’t always succeed. But our job is to guide them and progress is a result of good teaching.
I’ve been killing the piece in it’s comments.
It really is quite atrocious, from beginning to end.
Ms. Porter-Magee, in her limited response to me, has indicated that she believes that criticism of her piece and the value of her piece indicates that I am not approaching it in the sprit of debate. Of course, she has to ignore her piece’s introductory paragraph to claim that she was interested in any debate.
My comments are long. But if you want to see the piece taken apart, they are there.
You did a great job. I have read and re-read your comments. You are knowledgeable.
I am sure the authors are intimidated, especially because you are speaking the truth.
Another really good resource is the book titled The Myths of Standardized Tests: Why They Don’t Tell You What You Think They Do. This book has a great explanation of why the use of standardized to judge students, teachers, administrators and districts is a waste of time and money.
I urge every viewer of this blog posting to click on the link.
Some posters have already made good points. I will add a few others.
As I know from personal experience—and as the authors of the Fordham blog posting are well aware—whenever a phrase like “oppose standardized testing” comes up the general public focuses just on the word “testing” or “test” and thinks that any kind of test or diagnostic or evaluation is meant. The reaction? “You don’t want to give students a chance to work hard and fail and then succeed and achieve and be successful later on in life?” The Fordham writers play into this misunderstanding because to do otherwise would shine a spotlight on what the objections are really about: high-stakes standardized testing that drive instruction and narrow the curriculum [not to mention the bu$sin$$ $ucce$$ that follows for edupreneurs!]. From someone uninformed about current debates about education, this would be understandable; by two supposedly well-informed experts, writing on a site that claims to be “Advancing Educational Excellence,” this is not simply dishonest but dishonorable.
It leads to worse. The first straw man they demolish, “Myth#1,” is “Teachers’ instincts should guide instruction.” I have been following ed blogs for four years now. I wish they would point me in the direction of where anyone—of any persuasion in the ed debates—has claimed this in the shallow fashion the authors imply. The www is a pretty big place, and I can’t claim to have read everything about anything on it, but perhaps they are referring to the same sort of instincts they employed to write what has turned out to be such a convincing piece against the kind of “education reform” they are advocating.
Lastly, look under “Myth#4” which is “‘Standardization’ Doesn’t Work.” They proceed to pull—not a rabbit—but a pink elephant out of the hat by using Pasi Sahlberg’s FINNISH LESSONS (2011) to support the kind of standardization they think is necessary. I grant them every right to state their POV and make their case, but enlisting Pasi Sahlberg in defense of their cause is about as effective as drinking poison to quench one’s thirst.
But don’t worry. I’m sure they won’t having any trouble enlisting Todd Farley’s MAKING THE GRADES in their next defense of high-stakes standardized testing.
And I am sure he would appreciate you flogging his book.
🙂
Actually, drinking poison would be a very effective way to quench your thirst. Permanently.
Just like rheephorm is a great way to permanently quench any thirst for education children may have.
If you tell teachers what to do, they will not have the creativity devices to make killer lesson plans. The plans that motivate students to learn, think and do! While there should be guidelines, set my the local school board, one does not need to test till the ends’ of the earth to ensure Ms./Mr. teacher is teaching.
OMG…big OY!
Those interested in more research based reasons to end the Standardized Test Movement should read a recent book titled The Myths of Standardized Tests: Why They Don’t Tell You What You Think. The authors are Phillip Harris , Bruce Smith and Joan Harris. The book is published by Roman&Littlefield 2011. The authors take apart the basic assumptions of standardized testing and expose the huge flaws and errors likely to be made in judgment in using these test numbers.
This is a well written and pointed text and will be an important message to all.