Worst anti-testing article ever?
Fellow edublogger Daryl Cobranchi sent me this article on Education News, which he thinks might be "possibly the worst anti-testing article ever written." If you don't know Daryl, he's been quoted in USA Today as being an expert on kittyblogs (just kidding, Daryl). Anyway, let's check out this article for ourselves:
...Unable to find competent education accountability standards in any of the 50 states, the No Child Left Behind education act (NCLB) weapons of mass public education destruction were devised for a new education marketplace...
Okay, I don't like the "weapons of mass destruction" analogy. It's just tossed in here as a cheap literary device, and the author, Daniel Pryzbyla, has yet to offer any support for why a federal act that was intended to improve education should be labeled as a "weapon."
Get rid of all the nonsensical frills of music, art, theatre, physical fitness, field trips and other non-academic squandering. Back to the basic 3 Rs – readin’, ‘ritin’ and ‘rithmatic. If you can’t perform on these tests in English, too bad. Sit in 2nd grade until you’re old enough to drive or your school shuts down. Above all else, no more whining!
Classic misdirection - or perhaps the straw man argument? NCLB says nothing about getting rid of every "nonsensical" course; just that the reading and math basics must be emphasized. Since when does emphasis on reading rule out art, theatre, and field trips? Obviously, the comment that kids might "sit in 2nd grade until [they're] old enough to drive" is meant to stoke fears that higher standards will result in massive grade retention, but it's a cheap shot. And doesn't the driver's license exam require you to read signs? If you're old enough to drive but still in second grade because you can't read, hell, I don't think you should be issued a license either.
Department of Education Secretary Dr. Rod Paige followed these hard-nosed tactics of the international political wizards down the hall at the Department of Defense after President Bush revitalized White House, Inc. Long before “September 11” and the search for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Bush’s advisors already knew “without a doubt” the appalling oil czar and vicious dictator Saddam Hussein (unlike dictators that agree with us) was stockpiling biological and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They didn’t sit around and wait for wimpy UN weapons inspectors to find them. Reliable evidence proved their existence, reason enough to attack Saddam’s evil intentions before he could unleash his nuclear warheads and WMD on all humanity. Well, we sure kicked butt! Started launching missiles and bombs in Iraq on March 19, 2003 and Baghdad was in the bag by April 9. How’s that for achieving war proficiency in record time? Sure! War is hell and people get killed, but somebody had to have the guts to destroy Iraq’s WMD before Hussein did it to us and other innocent bystanders. Less than 2 weeks later on April 21, Ret. U.S. General Jay Garner arrived to administer Iraq’s “reconstruction.”
The hell does that have to do with standardized testing? The NCLB Act? Education reform? Testing? Anyone? Where the heck did this rambling, incohrent, illogical, anti-war rant come from, and why is it on "Education" News? I'm not sure if I have the stomach for the rest of the article, if this is what the author considers to be legitimate education reform and testing discussion. I certainly don't have the stomach for this anti-Bush nonsense, so let's snip yet another paragraph of anti-war blather (that offers a political cartoon as support of Bush's "evil") and move on. Oh, and we have to remove the Rod Paige football references as well.
“We urge policymakers to use testing to inform, rather than replace, decision-making. A test score reveals only a very limited amount of information about individual students,” wrote editors Gary Orfield and Mindy L. Kornhaber in the preface of their Century Foundation book “Raising Standards or Raising Barriers? – Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education”...“Therefore, all major professional associations involved in educational testing, as well as the National Research Council, emphasize that decisions about student promotion, retention, program or curricular placements, and graduation must be based on more than a single test score…
Which is the same thing that AERA and NCME say as well, although they do qualify this statement by saying that if such a score is used, there should be ample validity evidence, and the students should be allowed multiple chances to pass, and given remedial education if they fail. In fact, all schools that use exit exams follow these rules, and they often provide alternatives (or loopholes) for students who don't pass the exit exam. Most educators do follow Orfield and Kornhaber's advice, despite what the author of this article would have you believe. An exit exam in and of itself does not confer a high school diploma - other education acheivements are required. Scores on college-level and professional-level exams (SAT, ACT, GRE, etc) are never the sole basis for admission.
In other words, most K-12 testing follows the AERA and NCME guidelines for ensuring the validity and fairness of high-stakes exams. Certification exams, on the other hand, are true barriers - but they're also often minimum-competency exams, which is what many high school exit exams are becoming. This article would have you believe that millions of high performing students are going to be denied diplomas solely based on one exam. This is simply not true.
A chapter “The Adverse Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Minority Students,” written by education researchers George Madaus and Marguerite Clarke, highlighted four conclusions after more than 30 years of research at Boston College. 1. High-stakes, high-standards tests do not have a markedly positive effect on teaching and learning in the classroom. 2. High-stakes tests do not motivate the unmotivated. 3. Contrary to popular belief, “authentic” forms of high-stakes assessments are not a more equitable way to assess the progress of students who differ by race, culture, native language or gender. 4. High-stakes testing programs have been shown to increase high school dropout rates, particularly among minority student populations.
Testing proponents are aware of this research, just as they are aware of the adverse impact of testing on minority students. I haven't read the chapter in question, but I've read a great deal about it, and it is by no means unconditionally accepted in the education world. I can think of a few reasons right off the bat to be wary of their conclusions.
Let's focus just on point #4. I doubt that Madaus & Clarke actually found that high-stakes exams cause higher high school dropout rates, because causal relationships are very difficult to prove and almost always require random assignment to conditions. Testing and dropout rates are most likely highly correlated, but that doesn't imply causation, and one could argue that higher dropout rates cause more testing, or that tests are more likely to be implemented in school districts that are not managing to keep kids in schools. What's more, other research I've seen on this topic uses a very broad definition of "dropout." In some studies, students who've moved to private schools, who've move out of state, or who've become homeschooled, have been counted as "dropouts" simply because they disappeared from the public school system.
What's more, there is research that contradicts this causal theory. Last month, I cited a peer-reviewed study showing that high-stakes exams do not lead to higher drop-out rates. Were Madaus & Clarke aware of this research? Or did they discount it?
Let me state for the record that I don't think high-stakes test will keep more kids in school, not unless substantial reforms accompany the tests. But neither do I think that testing in and of itself causes higher dropout rates. I should be more familiar with Madaus & Clarke's research than I am, but the fact that Mr. Pryzbyla didn't see fit to mention more recent research that disputes their conclusion shows me that he has an ax to grind.
In comparison, the Christian Science Monitor reviewed the Madaus & Clarke work, and presented a balanced picture by mentioning some reactions to the research:
Reformers respond that it's not the failure to graduate that hurts kids, it's pretending that they have the skills to be successful in life when they do not. "It is quite evident, no matter how you cut the data, that minority and poor kids are learning less of what they need to know than other kids," says Kati Haycock, executive director of the Education Trust, a Washington-based group that supports education reform. "There are already big-time consequences for kids if they learn or don't learn, but we hide it from them until they get out of school." Testing makes it clear to parents and to school systems that students need help at a time when it is still possible to help, she says.
In response to concerns over high failure rates, states such as Texas, North Carolina, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York are already directing new resources for remediation to help failing students. "The numbers look bleak now, but we're putting $20 million into schools for remediation - and have requested $22 million for next year," says Alan Safran, deputy commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education. He urges caution in over-interpreting early test results. "Students won't take the test seriously until 2001. We want to activate parents whose kids are failing to insist on remediation and extra help," he adds.
Last week, the Massachusetts Board of Education deliberately proposed a low passing score for the MCAS tests to ensure that failure rates in the first years of the test are not overwhelming. "We are very fearful of a backlash building," says Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education.
In other words, depite what Mr. Pryzbyla would have you believe, testing proponents do care about minority children. They do notice when there's disparate impact. We don't consider this to be a "war" on poor children, despite all the military analogies being scattered about.
The big finish?
Unlike the alleged WMD in Iraq that have yet to be found, NCLB weapons of mass public education destruction have been located.
What a sorry conclusion. Based on two reports, Mr. Pryzbyla concludes that all of NCLB is flawed, when in fact, it's doing what it was intended to do - demonstrate that many public school-children, especially minority kids, are being shortchanged by the system. And he brings an inane anti-war agenda to the discussion to boot.
I think Daryl's assessment was right.