Reader Arthur Camins offered this comment about the renewed debate about testing:
I am cautiously optimistic that the Obama Administration has taken tentative steps to reduce over-testing. However, I don’t see evidence that there is a fundamental shift the values and goals that frame their education policies. Over-testing is certainly a huge problem. But, the type and role of testing is a bigger problem than the number of assessments.
As I argued here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/01/what-if-we-approached-testing-this-way/), if we expect learning improvement, we need to shift the focus of assessment from consequential summative assessment to daily examination of student work that informs both students and teachers. In addition, we need to abandon the evidenceless idea that judging teaching effectiveness based on value-added measures of student performance can be a lever for improvement.
Further, the Administration’s continued support for the expansion of charter schools is a fundamental threat to equitable democratically governed public education and the value of community responsibility (http://www.arthurcamins.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Education-reform-and-the-corrosion-of-community-responsibility-_-The-Answer-Sheet.pdf). Finally, while there is certainly a range between Democrats and Republicans, no one in the Obama Administration, nor any of the presidential candidates have challenged the winners and losers philosophy that has dominated education policy for the last several decades.
It is time to say, “Haven’t We Done Enough! Must We Have Winners and Losers Even in Education,” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-camins/havent-we-done-enough-mus_b_8292806.html) The Administration’s announcement on limiting testing is evidence of power of organized citizens, such as the Opt Out movement. It’s time to expand that influence to demand changes that will actually make a difference in the lives of our children. Our only hope for a different course of action in informed voters who demand different policies.
http://www.arthurcamins.com
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The administration’s proposal to limit testing is clearly an acknowledgement of the effects of the opt-out movement, but it is a dishonest and manipulative one, intended to distract and mollify parents while dishing out the same intimidation, scapegoating, false premises and outright lies that characterize so-called reform.
LikeLike
I’d love to believe this Diane, and my first reaction, like many of us, was to hope for the best and accept it at face value, concede that the Obama Administration had finally “come to their senses” and declare victory.
But, as I looked into it, I thought that it seemed too good to be true. A vociferous proponent of ultra-testing, like Arne Duncan, wasn’t going to turn 180 degrees on this highly contentious issue so quickly.
Unfortunately, I was correct. Here’s the Real Story, reaffirming that the struggle for our schools and our kids, will continue, perhaps with more to fear and fight:
http://tinyurl.com/ng3enag
LikeLike
What is there to look into? The face value of the proposal is a cap of 2% of classroom time. That’s essentially where we are now.
LikeLike
Remember the saying:
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. It is time for a viable alternative to the testing fiasco. Good educators know what to do. It will take massive change as the system was never designed to serve all kids. 2% is a small step in recognizing the big test is meaningless and assessment must be local and immediate
LikeLike
What percentage of time do Sidwell Friends and Chicago Lab devote to high stakes, standardized testing?
LikeLike
Interesting question. I don’t think that’s ever been discussed here.
LikeLike
When an auto-maker wants to build a better car, improve on manufacturing and construction, they DO NOT go out and first build a “better” test track to drive it on. NO, they go into the assembly line and analyze, diagnose and fix any step in the production sequence that is currently not efficient or productive. Building a harder test track to drive a car that has not seen improvement along the assembly line is folly, and a waste of time, money and resources (oh, but those that built the new, useless, test track get rich).
Not to mention, this is an insult to those that work along the assembly line because their collective knowledge, wisdom and experience in building the cars was never solicited, never harnessed, completely ignored.
Cars, and students, are better constructed and developed when those actually working in the assembly line are asked about what is working and not working, what are the needs of students, what are better materials and processes to improve the development, what steps in the sequence need remediation or tweeking, etc. Most of all, assembly-line workers (aka, teachers) must be empowered to become a vital role in the improving system, not the test-track maker.
Constructivism (which we all learn about in grad school, but rarely see in monolithic top-down institutions) posits that the member of a team is most empowered, most productive, most catalyzed with a sense of self-efficacy, when they input is solicited and valued in any reform attempts.
Making different or “better” driving test-tracks for cars that have seen no improvement in the assembly-line processes only creates more wrecks on the tracks, and makes the company look pretty foolish. Along with damaging cars, children.
Maybe there are those that desire this because they want to put out of business a company; so they send in covert spies to tell the management “forget the assembly line, build hard test-tracks”?
LikeLike