Considering the Positives of Increased Assessment

Jim Paterson

It may not be a silver lining, but some middle school administrators and teachers are trying to make the most out of the cloudy, threatening atmosphere blown their way by high-stakes testing and standards-based reform.

As the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act take effect and states demand more standardized assessment, many middle school educators are trying to look on the bright side of the new education environment in which they work.

"Even though there are many problems with basing school success on one standardized test, the research we have done shows that schools can benefit from the testing process in a number of ways," says Sharon Brown-Welty, a professor at the Kremen School of Education and Human Development at California State University–Fresno.

Brown-Welty, who has done extensive research on the topic, says schools can use test data not only to assess student learning, but also to examine weaknesses and strengths in their curriculum, individualize instruction, and establish goals for students or programs.

Increased testing may allow for closer examination of individual student performance over time and even give schools more attention in their community. While some fear negative publicity, others say schools, nonetheless, may find some positive results to publicize. Or, they may use data to prove that resources—even community involvement—are necessary to improve student achievement where test scores raise red flags.

Others struggling to make the most of the new landscape say the stepped-up testing can help students prepare for even higher-stakes testing like the SATs or LSATs. Educators can take advantage of the opportunity to help students develop organization and study skills.

Educators might encourage students to work together and talk about testing to reduce stress and build camaraderie and cooperation.

On the Other Hand…
Yet critics of testing continue to point out the lack of solid evidence of the benefit of increased testing. The potential positive results are theoretical, they say, and by adapting to wide-scale standardized testing—whether or not they endorse it—educators accept it.

Audrey Beardsley, author of a well-publicized study on high-stakes testing and a research associate at Arizona State University , is adamant about the testing process' lack of value to education in its current incarnation.

"The problem is that the theory does not transfer into practice," she says. "Not once have I read a research study that proves the efficacy or any positive effects related to these tests. So as far as the positive effects of testing, I'd have to say there are none—none I have heard of or can think of."

Case for Innovation?
In spite of such widespread agreement with Beardsley's criticism of testing, even advocates of "student centered" or constructivist approaches to teaching and learning—which seem to clash with the standards-based ideas—say there is some common ground. Because innovative approaches often result in higher test scores, testing, ironically, can make the case for innovation.

"I have to say, I see a lot of teachers engaged in good discussions about how to change what they are doing," says Phil Martucci, principal at Kimpton Middle School in the Stow Munroe Falls School District in northeastern Ohio.

"Teachers are more closely considering how they do things and there is a lot of innovative thinking about what is successful."

Michelle Miller, a former high school and middle school teacher in Middlefield, Ohio, says she sees teachers examining their content and instruction more carefully.

"Preparing for a test motivates a teacher to take an in-depth look at the curriculum. It makes the teacher throw out the stuff that shouldn't be there," she says.

Mark Springer, a strong proponent of integrative curriculum and designer of a broad, successful integrative program at Radnor Middle School in Wayne , Pennsylvania , where he teaches, says he does not believe testing generally improves education. However, he sees potential for teachers using it in a positive way.

"Confident, well-educated, experienced teachers will simply use the tests as yet another measure of performance. These teachers will continue to individualize instruction for their students and will continue to be creative and energetic and captivating. By doing so, they will continue to educate young thinkers who, by extension, will do well on tests."

Springer says that other teachers, particularly newer ones, may also find that standards provide them with structure and may force them to consider why they are offering certain information. He is concerned, however, about schools with "top-down, authoritative" administrations or under-motivated teachers where "teaching to the test supersedes teaching for learning."

"Sometimes falling back on shortsighted, supposedly easy, and familiar old methods is much too convenient," he says, noting that testing will improve schools if it is used to "inform but not dictate" the curriculum.

Creating Success
Jim Snapp, curriculum director at the Southern Hancock Schools southeast of Indianapolis and a former middle school principal, says that too many teachers see an "either-or proposition."

"My struggle has been helping teachers see that if students can engage in complex thinking then they can move very easily to rote memorization—typically the types of things that are assessed on these standardized assessments."

He, too, suggests teachers help students prepare for the tests and learn skills that help them with the testing process. He recommends that no matter what their teaching style, teachers should prepare students by exposing them to the test format, which allows students to focus on the content not the form. That process—learning to focus on what they have learned and use it rather than concerning themselves with all the test trappings—is a valuable skill, experts say.

Students can also benefit by an examination of their results over time.

"Goal setting is an excellent process—giving kids more ownership in their learning, at least as it relates to standardized testing," Snapp says. "Examine previous scores, ask the student for strategies to improve, then help the student with those strategies."

Snapp says he asks students about their concerns and has them discuss testing "as a community group to come up with suggestions and create success stories."

He points out that parents have to be part of the process as well, and benefit from their involvement. "They need to know very clearly that their child is behind grade level in math, for instance, how severe it is and, most important, what the educators are doing to help the student improve."

Well-Designed Assessment
Educators often see testing as more beneficial if the tests themselves are structured properly. In such cases, "teaching to the test" can be less onerous.

Snapp suggests that students can benefit if a portion of the test is more flexible. In Indiana , for example, students have one "open-ended response" that they have an hour to complete.

Snapp explains that this type of testing can give students practice in formulating a thoughtful response if teachers prepare them and practice using the allotted time to efficiently develop an outline and a rough draft.

Harrie Buecker, assistant superintendent for Oldham County Schools, which serves a prosperous area just north of Louisville , explains that "In Kentucky, we designed our assessment around what we thought the students should know and be able to do after 12 years. Then if you teach to the test, I don't see what harm there is in that."

Beucker says that the Kentucky state-mandated testing has been well-conceived to assess students for not only their mastery of core content but for how well they understand the information and can apply it.

That, she says, combined with the fact that standardized testing has been in effect for several years, allows the district to have strong, solid "longitudinal" record of a student's performance and how the schools have served them.

"We can see how they have progressed and what sequence of teachers or programs they have had that helped or hindered their development. We can look at our whole instructional program and aspects of it such as how we handle a student's transition between schools or from one grade level or subject to the next."

Data for Improvement
Buecker notes that along with providing a clear picture of how the school is serving its students over time, the statistics help educators, parents, and the students clearly assess the student's strengths and weaknesses, often allowing for early intervention.

Martucci, who teaches masters-level education classes at the University of Akron, says teachers should not feel threatened by the results of high-stakes tests, even those in less affluent school districts where limited resources, unsatisfactory facilities, and unstable family life often work against learning. In those areas test-taking may be the most difficult.

"Everyone knows that there are a lot of factors that play into why kids don't test well. People accept that. I tell my students who are working in those environments not to look at the data compared to other school districts, but to look for areas within their own school where students are successful or at subjects where students consistently are not doing well," he says

"If they are supposed to be learning this much about weather, are they learning it? If it shows up year after year that they aren't, what is the problem? That sort of self-examination can only be a good thing."

Leveraging Integrated Curriculum
Strong proponents of an integrated curriculum also say that having the appropriate testing is key. They note that students who learn in classes that utilize an integrated curriculum succeed in even the most regressive testing.

"Most teachers do not know that an integrated curriculum does not diminish learning, as measured by standardized tests," says Joanne Arhar, who teaches education at Kent State University .

James Beane and Gordon Vars, two leading advocates of an integrative approach, have noted in their research that "one deterrent to curriculum integration is the fact that most state standards and proficiency tests are set up in terms of conventional subject areas such as reading, mathematics, science, or social studies."

They have noted that the National Study for School Evaluation and the Alliance for Curriculum Reform, for instance, have developed "Schoolwide Goals for Student Learning" that are divided into categories like "Learning to Learn Skills," "Thinking and Reasoning Skills," and "Communication Skills."

The Center for Occupational Research and Development has advocated "workforce education" and the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning developed standards that are "useful across content areas as well as important for the world of work" in four areas: thinking and reasoning, working with others, self-regulation, and life work.

A Promising Marriage
In the end, many educators say that the value of testing will lie in the work the teachers do surrounding it.

Snapp says teachers need to "create relevance." "I have always thought saying 'because it is on the test' is lame. Good teachers take the standards and make them relevant to the students—'I need to know this because it will benefit me this way… and, by the way, it will help my standardized assessment scores.'"

Jim Paterson is a writer in Olney, MD.