Wow, they're really piling on the CSAP today. I'm trying to think of another context in which a 10-year-old refusing to do something is considered newsworthy, and I can't think of one:
Anthony Cummings, 10, said the Colorado Student Assessment Program, or CSAP, has many problems and should be eliminated altogether. With permission from his parents and to the dismay of his principal, he sat and read a book about individual rights under the U.S. Constitution while all of his classmates took the exam last week.
So, he can read, presumably well. Can all of his classmates say the same?
Although the gifted and talented student could easily pass the test, he said he has a problem with how the tests are being administered, how it's being taught at school, and how the schools are unfairly judged by its results...
Cummings said it takes too long to get exam results -- it should be a month instead of a year...He also said it's unfair when the zeros of those who don't take the exam are factored in the school's overall grade...
Smart though he may be, it's really hard to believe that a 10-year-old came up with these arguments - and the idea to sit out the test and call in the reporters - on his own. It's also hard to understand why the reporter simply reprinted Cummings' charges without verifying or rebutting them. If the kid's that smart, why not ask him to back up his arguments?
Simple Google research reveals, for example, that the scores for tests administered during February - April of 2004 will be available to districts in August of 2004, a lag of only three to five months. The article about the 2003 report cards came out in December of 2003, or seven months after the last set of tests. As for the "unfairness" of giving zeros for missing test-takers, why didn't Cummings - or the reporter - suggest an alternative method for holding schools responsible for every student on testing days? Asking the kid to elaborate wouldn't have necessarily made the article more balanced, but it certainly would have been more informative.
Cummings said he knows he's David fighting Goliath...
Really? It's hard to see him as David when he being portrayed so sympethically, and at length, in this newspaper article. After all, the article mentions not only Cummings' concerns, but also the standard boilerplate anti-testing cliches:
Critics of the exam say the tests just show that the schools with a majority of poor children don't perform as well as the schools attended by middle class or wealthy children. They also say teachers in underperforming schools are pressured to teach to the test instead of teaching skills and critical thinking.
Well, supporters of the exam say that the tests show that poor children are getting shortchanged by their schools, and that teachers in underperforming schools have managed to define critical thinking in a way that leaves out mastery of basic skills. Leaders of high-poverty, high-performing schools say rigorous testing is an essential component for keeping kids on track. But the article doesn't mention any evidence contradicting these unnamed critics.
His parents, a theater teacher and a university political science teacher, are supporting him every step of the way.
I know you're all very surprised to hear this.
Update: More gullible publicity for Cummings and Perl here. It's a two-fer of anti-testing cliches!
(A slightly extended version of this was cross-posted to Oh, That Liberal Media.)
Posted by kswygert at March 15, 2004 05:22 PM