Follow Finland’s lead on school tests
Finland, a perennial top performer on the international PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) test, commits each student to such a test only once in that student’s entire educational experience. They do extremely well in international educational comparisons.
On the other hand, to the detriment of time spent providing quality classroom learning experiences for our kids, we test them into a stupor. Additionally, the test results are often presented to the public in a misleading way. Beyond that, some question whether standardized tests challenge students in all the areas that they should be challenged in. Finally, what does the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) show us about achievement over an extended period of time?
Looking at past Michigan standardized test scores one finds that, year after year after year, wealthy districts score high on that test while poorer districts reside in the lower reaches of results. It becomes obvious that income can be used as a proxy for factors outside of the school. One panelist on a Harvard University group discussing education called it the “ironclad correlation” between socio-economic factors and student proficiency. The Michigan Department of Education adds the degree of “parental involvement” into the factors affecting student proficiency.
What is crystal clear is that parental educational level, parental involvement in a student’s education, stability at home, nutrition, health care, neighborhood environment and other factors play a huge role in determining the motivation and persistence necessary for success in school. As the weight of these factors is different from district to district, valid comparisons across school districts cannot be made using raw scores alone.
The fact is that a school, whose raw score is high on a standardized test, may not be a school of high quality, at the same time that a school scoring low may indeed be a high-quality school. It mostly depends upon the “ironclad” socio-economic and parental involvement correlation with student success that is present in each individual school’s student population. Some, like Bridge Magazine and the Mackinac Center have taken note of this and integrated family income and the number of economically disadvantaged students into calculations of school quality in Michigan. Doing so provides a clearer, better and much more realistic ranking.
But test results are not to be used in a competitive race among different students, school districts or states. On the contrary, test scores should be used as a tool for educators to evaluate their personal classroom behavior, how well their class and individual students are doing and the degree to which the curriculum is aligned with the test.
At the very least, test results may point the way to a change in pedagogy, student responses to those changes and needed changes in the curriculum that improve educational outcomes. They are not part of an educational horse race, with winners and losers, in the manner of which both the Michigan Department of Education and the United States Department of Education, wrongly, use raw test scores as a measure of quality.
Our dependence upon big data and testing has been a miserable, failed mistake. Clearly, it is time to reduce the value of standardized testing as a tool used to evaluate educational outcomes. It is time to replace misused and overused standardized testing with classroom learning experiences designed by educators who know how children learn.