John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, follows the bizarre twists and turns of education policy in Oklahoma. Since the election of Ryan Walters, MAGA extremist as State Superintendent, the changes have been dizzying.

Thompson writes:

Following the lead of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters announced that the state will stop statewide standardized testing. Instead, school districts should benchmark assessments that they purchase from private vendors.

Walters did so without receiving the approval of the U.S. Education Department’s authority to choose testing vendors and assessment schedules. He also ordered the change without consulting with educators and school patrons. In other words, Oklahomans will not get to answer questions, such as:

Would they prefer state tests that hold schools accountable for Walters’ standards regarding American exceptionalism and Christianity?

Or would they prefer benchmark metrics about evidence that President Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, and more than 40 references to Christianity and the Bible?

Seriously, Republicans and Democrats both expressed skepticism in regard to Walters’ impossible order.  Even the Texas legislature is also divided between those who want to compare student outcomes to specific state standards, as opposed to comparing Texas students to those in other states through a norm-referenced test.

But Oklahomans need to discuss a more fundamental question:

Why in the world do we have state tests for accountability purposes? Is there any evidence that those tests have done more good than harm to teaching and learning?

During the first half of my career, educators remembered the damage done by 1980s teach-to-the-test. In the late 1990s, when State Superintendent Sandy Garrett and her science-driven team protected the autonomy of teachers, and in 1998 when percentage of Oklahoma 8th graders who were Basic or above, according to NAEP reading scores, was eight points higher than the nation’s, teachers were given an aligned-and-paced curriculum guide. However, my school’s principal had the autonomy to tell us that she knew we wouldn’t use it but asked us not to throw it away.  It could be valuable for new and/or struggling teachers. So, we were just asked to keep it on file in case a central office administrator, with a different view, dropped by our room.

Of course, the effort to get every teacher “on the same page” to improve standardized test scores was disastrous – resulting in skin-deep, in-one-ear-out-the-other instruction documented, in part, by the collapse of NAEP scores.

On the eve of No Child Left Behind, John Q. Easton warned the OKCPS that no school improvement was possible without first building a foundation of trusting relationships. Afterwards in the parking lot, our district’s great researchers agreed with Easton. But they correctly predicted that when NCLB forced us to replace Norm Reference tests (NRT), that couldn’t be taught to, with Criterion Referenced Tests (CRT) that could be taught to, that our data would be corrupted.

Accountability-driven, competition-driven Corporate School Reform was doubly destructive because misleading metrics became one of the weapons that helped drive excessive levels of school choice. It created schools like mine with intense concentrations of extreme, generational poverty and students who endured multiple traumas, known as ACEs.

And that gets to the next conversation that we need – is there any conceivable way that school grade cards could give accurate information on the quality of educators who committed themselves to the poorest children of color? Is there any way that the benefits they might provide to students in higher-performing schools could ever match the damage they do to students left behind in the highest-challenge schools?

Especially today, when immigrants are being terrorized and mental health challenges are increasing, and chronic absenteeism is surging during a time of budget cuts, who could deny that grading schools is, at best, a distraction?

For example, we need comprehensive and expensive team efforts to address chronic absenteeism. Was there any way that punishing schools for chronic absenteeism, as well as the effects of the increased stress students are experiencing, could be a solution? 

Getting back to the bipartisan conversation we need, teachers unions, numerous Democrats, Republicans, and education leaders have a long history of opposing high-stakes testing. And Senator Julia Kirt (D) explains:

“Absolutely we should have a conversation about what testing is appropriate and when, and we’ve been bringing up that conversation up for years. … But him doing it this way, I don’t think complies with state law, and it makes us all have to do a bunch of scrambling to figure out what’s happening.”

And as Republican candidate for State Superintendent Rob Miller says, when “testing becomes less about improvement and more about sorting and ranking schools. That’s not accountability, it’s a road to nowhere.”

Or, we could trust Ryan Walters’ road to Christian Nationalism …