Testing in Education

Those of you unfamiliar with the "nuanced" details of testing in education, brace yourselves. As a teacher, I understand the basic premise and won't bore u with the obvious objections. I agree that tests provide a way to asses if the goal was accomplished. (Never mind that we should not assume that those who score below par have learned little or nothing.)

Let's start from the positive premise that most teachers/schools are motivated to educate (not merely entertain) students, reasonably well & that education (although having many investors & shareholders) is not a business with any kind of traditional competitive model.

From this premise we can use testing (assessments) as a method/tool for indicating success. How much success can be accurately measured if these students are NOT, IN ANY WAY accountable for their scores, which will appear nowhere in grades or transcripts? So who is accountable? the principals, & (to a lesser degree) teachers.

It would be like the CEO of a company having profits dependent on the total # of products created, but having NO way to track that data but to supervisors responsible for groups of 200 employees. Beyond bullying the supervisors s/he would have to rely on the benevolent goodwill of the individual employees (who will generally receive the same paycheck regardless of individual output or hours worked).

You can quickly see the trouble. Most of the problems with tests would be solved by consolidating them & putting them on students' transcripts. How?

Johnny works hard all year, earns an A. Does his best on the test, scores basic (C). Parents howl. Maybe we have to accept that Johnny has a great work ethic, just doesn't recall or test or handle pressure as well. Fine. At least we have a more complete picture to send to the college.

What about the more common case that Suzy slacks off, passes with a C, scores advanced (A). Therein lies the untapped potential. How many students would score so much better if they stood to gain? Doesn't change the grade on transcript (which is an idea I have used a few times) because it should still reflect her poor work ethic, this (again) giving a more accurate picture of the whole student.

What are we doing instead?? Spawning a whole greedy industry of test administrators, printers, scorers, etc.

As a teacher, I have 10th graders subjected to a CAHSEE reviewing 8th grade standards, (& their 8th grade scores are in admissible, why??) CST on Science TWICE, some will take AP also. Then 11th grade: now SAT, AP, CST. 12th grade, nothing if student has passed CAHSEE, is satisfied with SAT, & not taking AP.

Does it REALLY take a genius to figure that if CA is going to use 8th grade as a litmus for graduation, if the students score proficient in 8th grade, that's acceptable? That AP tests should take the place of CST? That CST should collaborate with SAT & put it all on the student's transcript for colleges? REALLY??!! (I feel like Seth & Amy on SNL).

I'm willing to bet that if there were a way to correlate SAT scores to 11th grade CST scores at any given high school we could find a pretty clear "motivation" gap (as opposed to the race/income based "achievement" gap we educators are sick of being blamed for.

I truly believe consolidating the tests & holding students accountable to them would not only save $ but start to reveal more ways to truly & meaningfully improve education & effectively fund greater success.