March 13, 2004

UNPLEASANT TRUTHS:

Standardized Testing: The General Patton of the Testing Wars (Nicholas Stix, 3/10/04, Mens News Daily)

For years, the American public has been force-fed a diet of test-bashing by the establishment media, the teachers’ unions, professors of teacher education and well-financed anti-testing organizations, in which test-bashers have twisted existing data, ignored contrary data, and fabricated data outright. So reports Richard Phelps in his brilliant, new book, Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing.

As Phelps tells it, Kill the Messenger “is as much about censorship and
professional arrogance as it is about testing.” The author contends that the
teachers and administrators who control the public education monopoly, and the teacher education professors who monopolize teacher credentialing, oppose standardized testing in order to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. “… it is disturbing, because school administrators and education professors represent a group of public servants who should serve as models to our children. We pay them high salaries and give them very secure jobs. Then, we give them our children. Is just a little bit of external, objective evaluation of what they do with our money and our children really asking so much?”

Influential test-bashers include Walter Haney, Linda McNeil of Rice
University, Harvard’s Howard Gardner, University of California president Richard Atkinson, writers Alfie Kohn and Nicholas Lemann, the privately funded organization, Fair Test, and the taxpayer-funded organizations, CRESST at UCLA, and Boston College’s CSTEEP. (CRESST stands for “National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, and Student Testing”; CSTEEP stands for “the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.”)

Phelps argues persuasively that objective, external, standardized,
high-stakes testing is the best measure we have of how much students have learned, and how well teachers, curricula, and textbooks have done their respective jobs. The tests give us a tremendous amount of information on children’s academic strengths and weaknesses, so that we may help them improve. “Objective” is in contrast to classroom grades, which are increasingly subjective, politicized, and inflated. “External” means that school officials with a stake in the results do not control examination grading. “Standardized” means that a test “is given in identical form and at the same time to students in more than one school, and all the results are marked in the same way.” And “high stakes” means that test scores have consequences, so that the test serves as a powerful motivational tool. Alternatives such as classroom grades and “portfolios” of work lack the advantages of standardized testing, while being much more vulnerable to manipulation and cheating.


The real problem with testing is that it demonstrates two politically unacceptable things, that public schools aren't doing a very good job and that kids have a wide range of abilities. These both obviously threaten a vision of egalitarian progressivism.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 13, 2004 6:30 AM
Comments

The real problem with testing, Orrin, is that I tore 'em up.

Given your view of my dimwitedness, something's got to be wrong with the tests, no?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 13, 2004 6:06 PM

Harry:

You became a writer, no? You can't be a total dimwit.

Posted by: oj at March 13, 2004 7:31 PM

Oh no? Susan Sontag. Nina Totenburg. Paul Feyerabend. John Pilger. Michael Moore. etc.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 14, 2004 2:59 AM

You put your finger on it, Harry. As OJ points out, we can't have a frank national discussion about education, so the President is pushing us in a rational direction without explaining all the nuances. But no matter what, half the students and half the schools are going to be below average.

What can we expect out of public elhi education? Indoctrination into citizenship, a culture of getting to where you're supposed to be on time and prepared and a sorting for which kind of further education, if any, the student is best suited for.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 14, 2004 12:51 PM

Pretty close, David. Public education was always mostly a socializing institution. Until recently, the educational component was secondary and not really necessary for most -- Rockefeller didn't have to go to college, did he?

Times change. Now to be employable, you actually have to know how to do things.

But you also need to be socialized.

Chopping up the country into mutually suspicious and uninformed ghettoes of ideology is a good way to end up like France.

A friend of mine, who grew up in a small town in Virginia, pointed out that his town had a village idiot, village drunk, village atheist, etc.; and that you had to learn to get along with all of them. In the atomized society Orrin wants to have, you don't encounter anything who doesn't think the way you do, you don't learn to be adaptive.

The model for the education he wants has already been tried, in the South, and it was a disaster in every way.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 14, 2004 8:43 PM

Companies teach people how to do things because the public schools fail--that's the other back doior to privatizing the system eventually. Why not just run schools for them when they're kids instead of inheritting them at 18.

Posted by: oj at March 14, 2004 9:03 PM

Only public schools don't fail. Some students fail.

A large majority succeed.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 15, 2004 10:12 PM
« DOES ANYBODY EDIT TOM WOLFE (via Buttercup): | Main | THE LONG MARCH: »