http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-lost-years.html?m=1
Peter Greene asks a crucial question: What have we gained–or lost–because of our society’s obsession with standardized testing for at least the last two decades?
When did it start? Before No Child Left Behind was signed into law in January 2002, but not with the same intensity or the high-stakes that took hold since 2002, when the power of the federal government was used to pummel state’s and districts to comply with federal mandates.
This is one of Peter Greene’s most powerful posts. I urge you to read it.
Greene writes:
“After years of hearing how kindergarten has been turned into the new first grade, you’d think at the other end of the K-12 pipeline we would find highly advanced students. And yet– not so much
“I am not going to report a ton of research on this, because the available research is bogus and part of the actual test-centric problem. What I can tell you is what I, as an actual real live classroom teacher who knows actual real live classroom teachers, see and hear.
“This is the result of accelerated early instruction done primarily in the service of test-centric schooling (“We have to get them started early– otherwise how will they be ready for the Big Standardized Test??”)
“It is lost years.
“By the time these same start-em-early push-em-hard students arrive at high school classrooms, they are behind compared to the students that we saw twenty-five or fifteen or even ten years ago. They know fewer things, have fewer skills, and express lower academic aspirations.
“Why? I can offer a couple of theories.
They have learned to hate reading.
“They have learned that reading is this thing you do with short, disconnected, context-free selections, and when you read, you are not looking for something that sparks interest or enjoyment or curiosity or wonder or the pleasure of feeling your brain expanded and grown. You read so that, in a moment, you’ll be able to answer the questions that someone else wrote– and by “answer” we mean from the potions given the one answer that someone else has decided is “correct.” There will be no expression of your own personal insights, and never the possibility that there’s more than one way to understand the text. It is a stilted, cramped way to approach reading, and it means that students grow up with a stilted, cramped notion of what reading even is, or why human beings actually do it.
“With some luck, some students will still discover the joy and, yes, utility of reading– but they will discover outside of school, and they will not expect that the kind of reading that they love has anything to do with the test-centered “reading”: they are required to do in school. That higher level course has additional “reading”? Then I surely don’t want to sign up for that. And since the real task here, the real point of the whole exercise is not the reading, but the answering of questions about the reading– well, I bet I can find a time-saving way to cut that corner. Because after enough years of this, many students conclude that “reading” is something to actively avoid.
“There’s no pleasure there, no discovery, no ideas to mull and discuss, no characters who help us pick apart the thorny questions of how to be human in the world. Just clues for answering the BS Test questions.
“Their years are shorter.
“The school year is now shorter. It is shorter by the number of days involved in the BS Test. It is shorter by the number of days spent on pre-testing and practice testing. It is shorter by the number of days spent on instruction that is only being implemented because it will help get them ready for the test.
“By the time we’ve subtracted all those days, the school year is a few weeks, a month, maybe even more than a month shorter. It was only 180 days to begin with. The test-centric school has amped up a feature of education that has always frustrated teachers– the 180 day year is a zero sum game, a bathtub full to the absolute rim with water. You cannot add something without removing something else. A really feisty or frustrated teacher might turn to an administrator who just said “Add this to your class” and say, “Fine– what exactly do you want me to stop teaching?” But mostly we’re expected to just make do, to perform some sort of miracle by which we stuff ten more rabbits into the hat.
It doesn’t work. Every year students get less actual instruction than they used to, which means their teacher next year finds them a little bit behind, so the school year that used to start on Day One now starts on Day Thirty after the students are caught up– and then it ends on Day 160 because, you know, testing. So the following year those students are that much more behind. And so on, and so on, and so on.
“In the end, kindergarten may be the new first grade, but for many students, twelfth grade is the new eleventh grade.
“There are certainly students who escape this effect, and there are certainly clever teachers who mitigate it. But mostly the injection of toxic testing into the bloodstream of US education has had the predictable effect– it has weakened and damaged the entire body…We have wasted over fifteen years of education; some students have seen their entire schooling consumed by test-centric baloney.
“Yet we keep plowing on, keep committing to Testing Uber Alles. We are losing students, losing education opportunities, losing the chance to awaken some young humans to what they could be and could become– instead, we are still trying to mash their spirits flat under the heavy testing hand. We are losing years that we cannot get back, cannot give back, and this is not okay.”

This to me demands immediate attention from ed reform if they want to present their work as “data based”:
“Two recent studies have found thousands of students may be placed in remedial community college courses that don’t really need them. Are you one of these students?”
We were inundated for years with claims that huge numbers of college students required remediation. This was promoted endlessly in ed reform. It is the justification for a LOT of ed reform.
The tests were bad. They were shunting millions of kids into remediation that didn’t belong there. Shouldn’t they all be retracting the statements they made based on remediation rates? If your “movement” is based on “data” don’t you have to correct false claims you made? Or were the remediation rates really useful to the political agenda of ed reform so there won’t be any corrections of claims they made?
This is HUGE:
“that although students are assigned to these remedial courses based on placement test scores, many would have been able to earn a “B” or better heading directly into college courses. The findings are significant because the large majority of students who take remedial course in community college do not end up finishing their program and earning their degree.”
They over-relied on these crap tests and it affected millions of people! This testing DIRECTLY harmed millions of community college students. Worse, it was relied upon to make national policy. It demands a correction from the people who promoted it or they are not credible.
https://www.communitycollegereview.com/blog/too-many-students-placed-in-remedial-courses-studies-say-yes
LikeLike
Those bogus remediation figures were cited by “reformers” funded by self-interested billionaires. Gates, Broad, the Waltons, and others wanted to show that US schools were failing. These fake numbers were part of the argument in favor of charter schools that feature tech-based “blended learning” staffed by low-salaried rookies.
Gates wants fewer teachers at lower salaries, and so do his billionaire pals. This is how bad tests and shady statistics serve a purpose in the oligarchs’ long game, which is to lower their taxes and get even richer.
If you don’t believe it, take a look at Trump’s cabinet, his “health care” proposal, and his proposed budget. Tax cuts for the rich (and more power for the powerful) are the top priorities. With Trump’s election, the long game got shorter. And based on his comments about Trump, Bill Gates seems pretty happy about it.
LikeLike
As a member of a college mathematics faculty,I feel the need to respond to this comment. I teach at a small four year college in NY. We administer a mathematics placement test to all incoming freshmen. The test we use was created in house and covers basic skills from algebra, trigonometry, and pre calculus. Questions are asked in a straightforward manner (unlike the current NYS common core based regents exams). Any student may take a statistics class(taught outside the mathematics department), regardless of placement score . However, we use the results of the placement test, high school coursework and individual discussions with the students to place students appropriately in the remedial algebra, college algebra, pre calculus, calculus sequence. That said, fully 25% of our incoming freshmen place into remedial algebra–some should probably be placed lower than remedial algebra, but we do not offer such a course. These students truly need the remedial work. The reasons why these students place low are varied. Some have not taken math courses for two years and have become rusty. Some students never really learned the material (the percentage of points required to pass the NYS regents exams is quite low and the tests are so poorly designed that scores are meaningless). I am continually bombarded by emails from companies who want to sell textbooks that combine remedial coursework with college credit coursework. Perhaps in some non STEM fields this approach works, but you cannot teach calculus to students who haven’t learned how to add fractions or who don’t understand basic laws of exponents. I do not blame their teachers. I blame a state system that shoves a scientific calculator in the hands of every fourth grader–before they’ve learned their multiplication tables, before they’ve learned how to add fractions, and before they’ve gained any practical sense of how numbers work, because apparently solving convoluted word problems is more important than understanding how numbers work. (Some never learn these basic skills–I have students in my classes who need a calculator to multiply 2 times 3). This same state system requires every student in algebra to have access to a graphing calculator with equally disastrous results. Calculator overuse is only a small part of the problem. The insistence that all students follow what used to be considered a college prep track and the subsequent rewriting of standards into a bizarre jumble of topics in which necessary skills and techniques are deemphasized in favor of solving pseudo “real world” applications are certainly major contributors. The regents exams have become a weird mishmash of questions with teachers left trying to guess all the permutations of how a question about a concept could be asked. I am afraid I have wandered off topic a bit. Anyway, many students truly do need remedial work that cannot be accomplished as part of another course. We do our best to get them through it and get them where they need to be mathematically. We are not 100% successful. Some simply do not have the ability, some do not make the effort, and saddest of all, some are just too far behind.
LikeLike
Peter is on the mark, as usual. So are many of the comments on his post.
There is another absurdity. Economists have conjured a measure of “days of learning” ( or weeks, or months, or years) based on tests scores and standard deviations in these. These metrics are widely cited as if they were proof positive that all is well in education, especially if the “proofs” are offered in support of the wonderful things accomplished by test-centric charter schools. The circular reasoning is astonishing and too rarely questioned.
LikeLike
I agree with Peter and want to add another observation: the impact of standardized testing on attracting teachers to the profession. I have observed a decline in the number of student teachers and have witnessed the best of educators leaving the classroom. Many teachers are discouraged by the emphasis of teaching to the test and the impact of correlating student test scores to teacher performance. The best teachers are those who have a love of life-long learning and share this with their students!
LikeLike
Peter is correct. I have been teaching for a long time, and have seen the degrees of testing emphasis. With each ratcheting up of pressure to succeed on a test come a class that has severe deficiencies more obvious than the last. This year the seniors are more severely impacted by their testing-oriented education. Right on Peter Greene.
LikeLike
The No Child Left behind Act changed the culture/environment/paradigm of the student-teacher relationship and the teacher-administrator relationship. Before NCLBA, teachers were more like coaches. Whatever the student achieved, it was fully his/her result. NCLBA made the teacher accountable for child’s result. This shifted the dynamic. Teachers now had more at stake then the students. In many states, the tests students took to satisfy NCLBA requirements had no impact on the student’s grade. With the mandate to increase graduation rates, the results of the tests did not even influence the child’s graduation. Yes, this is an overly simplistic perspective with many nuances. I like the analogy of weather conditions. The Ice Age shifted the environment resulting in a change in the food supply with consequences to many life forms. And this new environment prohibits old forms to be rejuvenated. It may sound counter-intuitive that the first move to improving the academic ability of our students is to take away all teacher accountability measures that are connected to student achievement.
LikeLike
“All we got was rot”
Decades of testing
And all that we got
Is public investing
In lies and in rot
LikeLike
I’d add: anti-direct instruction mania. Teachers continue to be told that they should talk less. Better to let kids struggle with texts and math problems. This is a recipe for learning less. From Homeric bards to African griots, adult talk has been the main conduit of learning for all of human history. It is stupid to relegate it to the margins.
LikeLike
The aim of education should be above-all to create Knowers. Teachers need to nourish young minds with essential knowledge by whatever means that are effective –lecture, video, field trips, reading assignments, etc. Instead we’re trying to create Readers, forgetting that the aim of reading is to gain knowledge. What we’re creating is Bad Readers who hate reading and know nothing.
LikeLike