Number 2 Pencil

Mississippi puts on the brakes

Mississippi recently switched over its drivers' license exam from a paper-and-pencil version (which was apparently well-known and photocopied a great deal) to a computerized version which presented questions randomly so that no two would-be drivers see the same test.

And guess what? The percent of Mississipeans failing the general knowledge portion of the test has skyrocketed from 20% to 60%:

Nearly 60 percent of people applying for regular Mississippi drivers licenses have failed the general knowledge test since the state switched to a computerized testing system in December. Only 20 percent failed before, said Rene Morris, state administrator of the Automated Drivers License Testing System.

"They don't have cheat sheets anymore," Morris said. "Most people had a copy of every test we handed out or had it memorized."

Guess now they'll have to actually study those little DOT manuals, won't they? Of course, the same problem is happening in other states that use this computerized system, so either (a) the system is flawed, or (b) EVERYBODY's been cheating on the drivers' license exam. I think both options are equally likely.

Sanitizing test items

In my earlier entry on the disastrous June 2003 NY Regents exam, I mentioned that the exam had previously come under fire, after it was discovered that the text used in certain reading passages had been sanitized in ways that made the text more politically correct and/or less challenging. What's more, this was done often without the knowledge or permission of the passage's author. Diane Ravitch discusses this at length in her accomplished new book, The Language Police, and Reader Laura had this comment:

I don't think enough fuss has been made about the sanitizing aspect. If a kid is actually so well-read as to be familiar with the unaltered text, the sanitized text could throw her off. Not to mention how cottonpickin' stupid it is. If dumbed-down texts of standard works are all we can expect the rank and file of high schoolers to deal with, why bother to educate past eighth grade.

You know, when the scandal surrounding the text changes on the Regents exam first hit, I was crazy enough to try to defend sanitized essays, because I knew from a test developer's point of view just how lawsuit-happy test takers and their parents could be. I have seen, with my own eyes, the reams of unsubstantiated complaints about test content from examinees trying to get items discarded.

For example, I actually did research to defend the test (at my old job) against a test-taker who was repeating the old canard about the origin of the phrase, "rule of thumb." No, the phrase doesn't come from an old English common law rule about the width of a branch a husband could use to beat his wife; it's been around for centuries as an idiom meaning, "rough or approximate measure." I had to go look this up, because it had been used in one of our test items, and the test taker was threatening to sue us for sexism and harassment and emotional distress and probably everything else her lawyer thought she could get away with.

Despite cases like that, I was, at the time, sympathetic to the test developers, and still sympathetic to test takers as well. Here's what I said back then:

Now, I'm a free-speech advocate, but I'm not siding with Nando on this topic. The main error the test developers have made here is that they didn't inform the authors of the chosen passages that changes might be made, and I find it surprising that these authors didn't sign a contract agreeing to the use of their works in the original or in an altered form. The New York State alumni assistant commissioner cited in both articles emphasizes that "the 'fair use' provision of copyright law allowed the excising of passages for testing purposes."

Regardless, the test developers are right to remove as much potentially controversial material from the reading passages as possible. Yes, it can alter the meaning of the text; yes, it can make the reading experience less enjoyable. That's preferable to the alternative, which is putting kids in a high-stress situation and testing them on material that may be distracting or emotionally disturbing enough to interfere with their performance. This is not the same situation as teaching emotionally intense material in class (where I feel that altering or ignoring certain texts would indeed be censorship). Controversial reading material should be taught slowly and carefully in a classroom, so I don't see the benefit of presenting it suddenly and out of context in a high-stakes testing environment. A few indignant authors are nothing compared to the potential lawsuits from test takers.

Following this post, however, I discovered that NOBODY - no reader, no pundit, no fellow blogger - agreed with me on this one. So I pondered the topic a bit (aided by commenters like Laura), and while I still sympathize with the test developers, the fact is that the willing bowdlerization of test content only contributes to the litigious attitude of some test takers. In fact, the sanitizing process can be interpreted in such a way that it seems the test developers don't respect the test takers and don't expect them to be able to control themselves for a few minutes if they happen to read a test item they don't like.

It's true that some test takers don't have that control. I'm no longer convinced, however, that this is a good reason to continue to sanitize test items. And, as Reader Bill B. points out:

My concern is that making the test texts PC would inevitably lead to altering the texts used in class also. Lest you think this is a new trend I saw altered texts used in my children's high school as far back as 15 years ago...so the danger is clearly there.

A very good point. Which comes first, the sanitized test or the sanitized textbook?

Education and testing news roundup from across the nation

I'm swamped again today, so I've decided to combine a few stories into one posting.

In Washington DC, the battle for vouchers has begun. Two proposals have been submitted to allocate federal funds for DC students trapped in poor schools, but DC's congressional representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, vows to fight any voucher program.

In Florida, educators are "concerned" about the ease with which a student who failed the FCAT was able to obtain a diploma. The student in question, Attica Hadju, earned "more than 800 out of 1,600 points on the SAT", and some felt this should have qualified him for a diploma, despite his inability to pass the FCAT's reading portion. Given the description, I'd say his combined score was less than 900 (possibly less than 850), which is well below the national average (which hovers around 1000).

Baltimore's schoolchildren continue to show gains on standardized exams. These results make Baltimore one of the few large cities to show an increase in sustained five-year increase in scores. Low-performing schools had been targeted and changes implemented, including more training for teachers and a longer school day.

A new study from the National Institute for Early Education Research and Rutgers University (NJ) suggests that phonics are essential for reading instruction. Programs which used systematic phonics instruction were significantly better at teaching children to read than programs with less-systematic phonics instruction.

Can a government-based desegregation program be a success? Apparently so. Under a "voluntary integration" plan that has been in place for the last 15 years, students in Lynn (MA) are guaranteed spots in their neighborhood schools and may only transfer to other schools if the "racial imbalance" at either school is not increased. According to the Boston Globe, this has resulted in a decrease in racial tensions and "white flight", and a corresponding increase in school attendance and standardized test scores. A group of plaintiffs, however, continue to allege that the program is unconstitutional.