A reader whose nom de plume is “labor lawyer” responds to the AP survey–claiming that parents approve of high-stakes testing–with these observations:

 

Anecdotal evidence (my own conversations over several years with well-educated middle/upper-middle-class parents), the overwhelming majority of parents approve relying, at least in part, on student test scores to evaluate teachers, including to discharge teachers. In these conversations, I argue that high-stakes testing is 1) too unreliable to use for evaluation purposes due to variables impacting test scores that are beyond the teacher’s control, and 2) counterproductive because it has too many adverse side effects (i.e., encouraging cheating, narrowing the curriculum, discouraging teacher-teacher cooperation, and discouraging teachers from accepting assignments in low-SES schools). Usually, my arguments fall on deaf ears.

These conversations suggest — to me — that most parents do not know enough about what goes on in a classroom today (particularly a classroom in a low-SES-area school) to recognize the many variables that can impact student test scores and that the teacher cannot control. Similarly, most parents have not thought enough about high-stakes testing to recognize the adverse side effects it has on education. Unless the parent is him/herself a teacher in a low-SES-area school, the parent does not have sufficient information and has not spent sufficient time thinking about the issue of high-stakes testing to recognize its unreliability and adverse side effects.

If you would have asked me 15 years ago about high-stakes testing, I would probably have said it was a good idea. Since then, I have discussed the issue with family members and close friends who have taught in low-SES-area schools and, since my retirement a few years ago, have followed the high-stakes-testing debate on the blogs. As a result of these discussions and research, I am now strongly opposed to high-stakes testing. However, very few parents/voters (other than low-SES-area teachers) have experienced this level of exposure tot he high-stakes-testing issue.

The main culprit here — in my opinion — is the main stream media that has reported at length on high-stakes testing while devoting virtually no time to in-depth analysis of the problems inherent in high-stakes testing. The main stream media usually quote a sentence or two from a teachers union official regarding the union’s opposition to the testing without presenting or examining the union officials’ underlying arguments. The main stream media then follows the union official’s comments with responding comments from a pro-testing advocate to the effect that the union officials’ are merely trying to protect poorly-performing teachers, leaving the reader/listener with no guidance re which side of the debate has the better arguments.

A second important culprit are the elected officials — city, state, and federal — who have seized on high-stakes testing as an inexpensive and superficially reasonable solution to the problem of poor academic performance in the inner-city public schools. These elected officials are under significant pressure to “do something” about the inner-city schools and are also reluctant/unable to spend much $ on school reform. High-stakes testing is an easy solution to this political problem. So, we’re not likely to see elected officials — who have ready access to the mainstream media — out there attacking high-stakes testing.

A third culprit are union officials (and ed experts generally) who attack high-stakes testing (correctly) but fail to suggest alternative procedures for identifying/improving/discharging poorly-performing teachers. Virtually every parent/voter during his/her own school days or during his/her children’s school days came in contact with one or more teachers who appeared to be performing poorly and who continued doing so, year after year. These parents/voters will reject out-of-hand the argument that there are no poorly-performing teachers and the argument that current methods of teacher evaluation are effectively identifying/removing the poorly-performing teachers.

Bottom line: Unions and ed experts should strongly advocate for peer-review evaluation systems (like that in Montgomery County, MD — a large suburban school system outside DC — that has resulted in the discharge or resignation-in-lieu-of-review of over 500 teachers over 10 years) while continuing to attack the high-stakes testing.