RE: Exemptions to STAR and other standardized testing

In response to JS Kelly's message:

I respect your opinions regarding the objection to standardized testing, and your willingness to take a public and open stand regarding this issue.  I get the feel from your message that, while you are opposed to testing, you are open to discussion and debate on the topic.  Allow me to be the devil's advocate (as standardized testing is often seen as the work of the devil himself ;-)

I am also the parent of a high-performing first grader who reads 145 words per minute (as measured by Open Court's criterion-based standardized test), and ranks above the 90th percentile in all but one area, as measured by the norm referenced Woodcock Johnson III.

You can probably guess by now that I support standardized testing.  Let me give you some reasons why I, as a parent, a teacher, and a former school principal, favor such assessment.

As a parent, I was pretty sure that my child was gifted and talented, but had no way of proving that objectively.  While my child was a mid-first grade reader in kindergarten, it was impossible to adequately compare her to her peers, in that a very few were at her level, most were adequately prepared for kindergarten, but some entered school not knowing basic colors, shapes, left vs. right, or the ability of counting to 10.

I had to fight to get my child tested by a psychologist in order to establish a baseline from which we could measure her growth, or lack thereof, in the future.  That is my first argument in favor of standardized testing. Lo and behold, my child scored one, and on a couple of areas, two standard deviations above the mean, with the exception of processing speed in reading. We were surprised that she scored at the 22nd percentile, or almost two standard deviation below the mean.

What did that tell us?  According to the psychologist's report, it said that she process information considerably more slowly than 78 percent of the population, and that her "learning disability" substantially and negatively affected her other scores.  The testing report indicated something that two classroom teachers, as well as two educator-parents had not seen nor suspected. If, by the diagnostic use of standardized assessment, it is determined that a gifted and talented child can and should also receive the lawful benefits of special education services, that should be reason alone.

As a parent, I deserve objective data indicating how my child performs, relative to millions of other children of her age.  Therein lies my first reason for approval of the tests.

As a 20 year veteran teacher, I have seen scores of children enter my classroom, having previously earned A's (outstanding), and B's (above average), exclusively on their report cards. As I do cumulative file searches on each pupil, I discovered that many of these "honor roll" pupils never reached the 25th percentile on any previously administered standardized test.  Is this fact an indictment of the evils of the test, or does it perhaps point an accusing finger at politically correct teachers who subjectively assess pupils by grades with which parents and administrators would gladly approve?  The term "upward grade homogenization" (grade inflation) comes to mind.  Moreover, such practices cheapen the truly earned "outstanding performance" grade earned by children who truly perform at an above-average level.

Moreover, as a teacher, I record every child's previous year's standardized test score, then compare it to the score they earned after a year in my class.  While the norm referenced test score is a snapshot of what the child knows on any one given day (not necessarily what the child was taught or has learned, as in a criterion based test), it allows me to objectivelly measure a child's growth, or lack thereof, after a year with me. This data is and should also be a test of the teacher.  While I am proud to say that my classroom averages rise anywhere from 5 to 15 percentile points every year, I must analyze my teaching style and methodology to examine why some of my pupils' scores declined, some as much as 20 points.  This data keeps me professionally honest, accountable, and humble.

As a former school principal, I beleive testing numbers can also indicate weaknesses in curriculum, pedagogy, and personnel. If a class as a whole is weak in mathematics, therein lies evidence that professional development in that subject area is in order.  If several classes, having been tracked year to year, show evidence of normal progress and growth, suddenly take a measureable dip in one particular year (grade level or classroom), that may be indicative of a personnel issue requiring administrative intervention.

With regard to school-wide, district-wide, and state-wide policies, I beleive standardized tests shed illuminating light on the California Distinguished School Program, or what Stanford University's Larry Cuban refers to as a "sham".  I have asked the state deparment of education for the numbers of "California Distinguished Schools" who have yet to reach the governor"s minimum API target score of 800. The department never responded to my written request. In fact, only 18 percent of all California schools with 2001 API numbers scored at or above the performance target rate of 800.

As a seminar speaker on techniqes and strategies on improvement of instruction and testing, I have met dozens of teachers who are members of California Distinguished Schools, most of whom work at schools that have yet to achieve the 800 benchmark.  In fact, I recently met two teachers who each worked at schools wherein every staff member earned a $25,000 bonus from the state for marked improvement in standardized tests, yet both schools earned API's in the mid 400's, and both schools were targeted for state intervention and remediation.

Interestingly, last year in California, 72 schools did not receive API numbers due to excessive parent waivers.  There is suspicion that certain teachers and/or administrators are crossing the line of informing parents of their rights of test waivers, into the inappropriate (and possibly illegal) practice of advising, recommending, and/or encouraging such action.  Moreover, 18 schools were reported as having had "testing irregularities (excessive erasures, evidence of adult tampering with tests, and possible outright cheating!) Unfortunatley, standardized testing has become such a political hot potato, that some professionals are being forced by the "system" to act unprofessionaly, at the risk of losing their jobs and careers.

If standardized testing is to be used, as I beleive it should, it needs to be diagnostic, for the pupil, parent, teacher, principal, district, and state. While I respect parent's wishes to opt out of testing, I would encourage those parents to think twice about the alleged harms of the test, balanced against the potential benefits of the objective data to be gathered.

I thank you, Mr. or Ms. Kelly, for your input, and hope you have not taken offense at my thoughts.  I welcome opportunities such as this to openly share thoughts and opinions, with the hope of learning from those who have differing points of view, and searching for common ground on which to work collaboratively to improve the state of education for our children.

Please feel free to communicate with me directly, via my included email address, if you would like to continue our discussion privately, or if I can offer any clarification or further data regaring my research and/or opinions. 

My apologies for being long-winded, but often my passion for children and education gets the better of me!

Regards,

Al
adieste@goldrush.com