Comments on: Debunking Standards Issue #5: Tests Matter; Standards Do Not

By: Michael M.

Michael M. — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:31:41 +0000

I would suggest that both “standards” and “tests” may be missing the point of a comprehensive and well-rounded education. And selling good teachers short.

Case in point: I just went to my 4th grader’s family morning. After an intro by the teacher who described a process by which family lore stories could be easily remembered, shared, fleshed out, and transitioned from conversation to essay, the teacher had the kids in pairs describe their stories to each other, outline them, then write them up. Pairs of parents too.

I thought this was terrific teaching — and learning. And teaching parents how to echo the in-school teaching.

So… what standard was this? How would it be tested? More importantly, how does this get VALUED?

By: Gideon

Gideon — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:08:01 +0000

You’re dead on about how state tests are limited to certain standards, and often measure only low-level skills. However, these are not the only tests out there. Many other formative and summative assessments are used to evaluate student learning by teachers and schools, which does allow for the more nuanced types of assessments you call for. Good teachers regularly assess their students’ speaking and listening, as well as their reading and writing. So it is important to have clear standards so teachers know what they should be measuring.

Also, I think computer-adaptive testing is coming along, and will allow for assessments that more accurately measure high and low level students and can cover more standards more efficiently. Maybe some day they can even assess speaking skills.

By: Jason Becker

Jason Becker — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:35:43 +0000

I love this post. Poor testing, poor data collection, and poor data use are all major problems that standards do not address at all. I just happen to think you need standards first with which you can align these tests. A major problem I have with a lot of social programs is that they can have poorly defined goals which turn them into Rorschach tests for policy makers, implementers, and stakeholders alike. Education without a well-defined purpose ends up with disparate goals (even in big-picture mode) for practically everyone in the system. It seems to me that testing is a poor way to judge the performance of a system if its goal is not to improve the faculties necessary to perform well on these exams.

Testing-reform is an important component that I think cannot be decoupled from any standards movement because without well-designed tests which are aligned with the accepted standards, there is little incentive to implement these standards and no reliable data to assess how well students are doing and in what areas.