One of the testing criticisms I often see is the claim that standardized tests can't tell you everything about a student's achievement:
Naysayers to the testing format say it reflects not what a student has grasped conceptually about a subject, but how well they take tests. These critics, most often teachers, point out that each student processes learning differently - some are better able to express verbally or in essay form their depth of knowledge on a subject..."Think of the driving test," said San Luis Obispo High School's English department chair, Ivan Simon. "If you just looked at how well someone answered the written part of the driver's test, then you'd assume the skill of the driver was represented by only that score. But that person wouldn't necessarily be a good driver."
It is true that the performance-based exam of driving skills tells you much more than the written exam, because the skill being measured is wholly performance. However, one could argue that someone who knows how to turn the key and step on the gas is not a good driver if they cannot read road signs or haven't memorized any of the rules of the road. Someone who passes the written exam is not necessarily a good driver, but we can argue that someone who flunks the written exams is necessarily a bad driver. Both components of the exam are important. The ability to understand signs could be folded into the performance assessment (and often is a part of it), but the reason for the written exam parallels the reason for many standardized multiple-choice assessments - it's a way to very quickly sample a broad domain and make a cheap, reliable assessment in order to flag those who just aren't getting it.
Many standardardized exams are, in fact, minimum competency exams, and the best precision is not in separating the brilliant from the good, but the terrible from everybody else. Simon's criticism that multiple-choice exams often don't tell the whole picture is correct. However, the critics gloss over that these exams can tell you quite a bit about how students have mastered basic skills.
And, as one principal points out, the basic skills are important:
We provide teachers with examples of multiple choice questions, but it's not the sole focus of the curriculum," said [Will Jones, principal of San Luis Obispo High School]. "The state releases sample questions, roughly 20 percent of the test, and if teachers want to use those questions they can, and they do, just like they do for advance placement tests. The misperception is that we spend all our time just teaching to the test and somehow the STAR exam is consuming education, but the truth is there are all kinds of assessments and we prepare kids for all of those as well."Jones said he believes good students will always excel regardless of test format. "If a student is capable of writing a good essay and answering short questions, then they will have success on the test," said Jones.
This is something that few testing critics are willing to admit. From what I can tell, the evidence that there are hordes of little geniuses out there who routinely flunk exams yet learn brilliantly through non-traditional methods is anecdotal, at best. The testing critics are right when they say that there are skills we aren't measuring with the one-size-fits-all exams, but I say they're missing the boat when they insist that students who can't master basic material are somehow ready for advanced performance assessments.
Posted by kswygert at August 11, 2005 02:00 PM