Commentary—

When ‘The Test’ Takes Over The Classroom

By Laurie Borst

In a Washington Post article from March 14 titled “No Child Target Called Out Of Reach,” Robert L. Linn, co-director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing at UCLA, observed, “There is a zero percent chance that we will ever reach a 100 percent target. But because the title of the law is so rhetorically brilliant, politicians are afraid to change this completely unrealistic standard. They don’t want to be accused of leaving some child behind.”

“No Child Left Behind” certainly sounds like an admirable goal. But is it attainable?

To prove that they are focused on bringing every child up to a proficiency goal, schools administer standardized tests starting with students in third grade. Every year through eighth grade, the CMTs take over the classroom — for two weeks. Some schools give the students practice tests the week before.

All other learning is relegated to the back burner. On March 2, Read Across America Day was supposed to be celebrated. What a marvelous idea. A day devoted to reading. But did our schools participate? I am aware of only one that did. The rest were busy practicing for The Test.

Now, what is wrong with this picture? A day to celebrate and encourage reading is usurped by preparation for a test to assess reading ability.

It is interesting that the Post article was published on March 14, which is often celebrated by math teachers as “Pi Day.” (Pi is that thing you learned about in math class that went on for millions of places after the decimal, never repeating — most of us only know out to 3.1416 without looking it up.)

Math teachers can use it as a teachable moment. Fractions, percentages, decimals, area of the circle — a host of topics can come out of it. But, forget about it. CMTs were being given on Pi Day. And when those were finished, then it was time to review for tomorrow’s section of testing.

Back in 1997-98 when I was going through the education program at WCSU, portfolio assessment was the big, new thing. Samples of students’ work would be collected throughout the year. At the end of the year, each student’s progress could be assessed by the improvements represented in the portfolio.

When was the last time you saw your child’s portfolio? It is too subjective, unquantifiable. You can’t prove your school is meeting the goals of NCLB this way.

Don’t get me wrong, standardized testing does have its place. For those who are not spooked by test taking (and many students are), standardized testing is an easy way to shine. Some people’s minds can easily read a question, scan four multiple-choice answers, discard the two that are obviously wrong choices, and analyze the remaining two for the most logical response.

But many students freeze on these tests. So much emphasis is placed on them. This is what makes each school and school district look good on paper. To that end, schools stress good habits — get a good night’s sleep before the tests, eat a healthy breakfast, destress (yeah, right). Signs pushing these ideas are posted all over our schools. Shouldn’t these be regular habits for children?

But are the children really considered in the push to excel?

Reed Intermediate School has been identified as not making “Adequate Yearly Progress” after scoring below standards in reading. Reed had a high number of identified special education students who took the test. A high number, but not high enough to not count them in overall scores — an interesting twist in this whole numbers mess.

Because of this, Reed, an exemplary school, is on the “bad list” of schools that need to do more to reach those mandated proficiency levels.

I wish someone could explain to me why students who have been identified as special needs students take these tests in the same manner as mainstream students. Doesn’t the very fact that they have been identified as special needs tell us something? Should these students take the same tests in the same manner under the same time constraints as their mainstream peers? Common sense would say No.

When I was teaching middle school science, I had a student with an identified learning disability. The tests I gave my students were always a mix of multiple choice, matching, labeling, fill-ins, and an essay or two. This particular student could not properly process what she read and synthesize an answer on paper.

When she reached the essay questions, she and I would move to the back of the room and she would verbally answer the questions, much more eloquently than if she had been required to write her answer.

Students do not have cookie cutter minds. They learn in different ways, at different rates. They demonstrate their learning in different ways.

So, what to do? How to solve this problem? I don’t have the answer. But it is obvious to me and the many educators I know (who won’t discuss this on the record) that the system isn’t helping much.

Perhaps if the powers that be in Washington put as much energy into innovative thinking as they do spin, image, and damage control, maybe something will improve.

To quote a great American writer, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing’s going to get better, it’s not.”