Broach the subject of testing and almost immediately there's the complaint that our children are already over-tested, that our system seems to prioritize testing over learning. But this misses the point. In grade school, we had a spelling test every week, and I was quizzed on my timetables at least as often. In this sense, testing was not a replacement for learning, it was an instrument, a catalyst of learning. Doing long division each Friday not only checked up on my arithmetic progress; it honed and sharpened my abilities.
In Indiana, the system I'm most familiar with, we took the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress?Plus (ISTEP+) in grades 3, 6, 8 and 10. I would hesitate to label one week of testing every two or three years as an overload. Even taking into account the handful of weekends spent on the ACTs and SATs, students do not seem too bogged down with their No. 2 pencils.
When it's not students complaining about all the time spent test-taking, teachers are wringing their hands about all the time devoted to "teaching to the test." But again, critics are premising their resistance on the notion that tests themselves are faulty.
The national lobby FairTest puts its opposition this way: "The gauge of student progress in most states will be reduced to reading and math test scores. Many schools will narrow instruction to what is tested. Education will be damaged, especially in low?income and minority schools, as students are coached to pass a test rather than learning a rich curriculum to prepare them for life in the 21st century."
A broad and encompassing curriculum is surely a worthy goal, but I fear it's one we can ill afford until the basics are learned. As the title of a 2005 release warns, "New Study Finds U.S. Math Students Consistently Behind Their Peers Around the World." Until our students can master the essentials, they should only be practicing the essentials. Basketball players don't learn to dunk until they can make a lay-up. Children shouldn't be sculpting Truffula trees when they can't read Dr. Seuss.
"Teaching to the test" isn't a problem if the tests are worthy of being taught to. A strong standardized test should examine the core components of education essentials. The College Board and others have decided that the essentials include logic, verbal reasoning, and algebra. I would agree.
Neither teachers nor students are cheated by teaching to these tests. The opportunity for creativity in teaching reading comprehension and a rich vocabulary abound.
Introducing standardized tests to the university arena would carry an additional advantage. Currently, most national college rankings weigh factors such as alumni giving and reputation among peers. These lists would more accurately rank the educational quality of such institutions if there were a standardized rubric to measure just how much students are learning for their heavy investment. The Ivies may get some of the smartest kids out of high school, but are they really learning any more than at the state school down the road?
This column in no way endorses Bush's No Child Left Behind policy. But its faults are primarily issues of underfunding, unfair requirements and divesting in public schools. When it comes to standardized tests, the questions should be what and when, not if.
Jacob Shelly is a sophomore in the School
of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist
for The Eagle.
