Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Testing, not teaching

Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2000 | 9:44 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

Summer months gave me time to catch up on my reading. This year I zeroed in on educational standards that Nevada and 48 other states have imposed in one form or another on schools. The first book to be read was "Will Standards Save Public Education?" by Deborah Meier, a proven teacher and author. Not only did her latest book give Meier's ideas, but it also included chapters by other writers agreeing and disagreeing with her views of standardized tests for schools.

Meier's book encouraged me to seek out opinions of other educators in several publications. All of them have some reservations about a standard state test being used to determine the fate of thousands of students, teachers, administrators and even schools. The wisdom of using a standard state test is usually questioned because of the finality of its use. Most responsible educators believe it should be but one of several measuring sticks.

Although every state has different tests in their quest to reform education, all of them are used to punish students, who are the victims of the system. In addition to the students, other states use test results to punish teachers, administrators and schools. In the long run, schools and students derive limited positive results from the test results. For Meier, smaller schools would be a positive benefit for all concerned.

Meier notes that, "Standardized tests are too simple and simpleminded for high-stakes assessment of children and schools. Important decisions regarding kids and teachers should always be based on multiple sources of evidence that seem appropriate and credible to those most concerned. These are old testing truisms, backed even by the testing industry, which has never claimed the level of omniscience many standards advocates assume of it."

An all-powerful and final standard test puts both teachers and students in an educational straitjacket. The results of teaching for the test and rote learning seldom produce an educated man or woman ready for studies in college or life in the working world. The true value of test results should be for the students and teachers to learn more about themselves, the subject matter and their methods of teaching and learning.

Professor Audrey Rule of Boise State University discussed her concern about standardized testing and competitive grading as a killer of creativity in the classroom. Boise State's Summer 2000 issue of Focus magazine has writer Bob Evancho looking at the problem with Rule and professor Larry Rogien.

Rule told Evancho that she doesn't object to standards, "especially the ones specifying problem solving and inquiring approaches in math and science." She doesn't believe the standards should be a guide expecting every student to be on the same page at all times.

Evancho goes on to quote Rogien, who said, " 'The standards movement wants to have the same outcomes for all students,' he says. 'That stifles creativity; it tells teachers that there is one way to teach, and one set of materials to be put in kids' heads. I see where administrators and legislators view high achievement test scores as the No. 1 mark of a successful school, but that tends not to be correlated at all with creativity.'

"Such academic practices, says Rogien, seek academic conformity. 'And when you look for conformity, you are squelching creativity,' he adds."

Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers, complains that too many states have used standardized testing as the tool for educational reform. Feldman believes that other tools must include:

"But some students face make-or-break exams, and schools and teachers are also held accountable for their students' scores, with few, if any, of these essential pieces in place. Moreover, some of the tests are not even based on the state's standards.

"Another problem is that in some states and districts, pressure to show big improvement on test scores forces teachers to spend weeks, and even months, drilling students on the tests. In effect, the tests become the curriculum. Now, there is nothing wrong with preparing kids for a test -- when they also have a rich curriculum. But when tests are allowed to become the be-all and end-all, they deform, not reform, education."

So how are the mandatory standard tests being used in your school? Are they helping or hurting the chances for your child to become an educated and productive student and adult?