UFT's Report: City Misusing Test Scores; Want Other Elements Included in Gauging Student Progress

By MEREDITH KOLODNER

A report on the impact of high-stakes testing approved last week by the United Federation of Teachers puts the union directly at odds with the city's increasing use of data-driven accountability measures to assess school progress.

The study's authors argue that the central issue is not whether students are tested, but what the test results are used for. They assert that the reliance on standardized tests to determine students' and schools' fate is dragging down standards instead of raising them, and they recommend alternative ways of assessing students.

'What's the Purpose?'

"Teachers test all the time," said Lisa North, a member of the task force who teaches at P.S. 3 in Brooklyn. "But what's the purpose? It's to assess kids so we know what help they need, not to use how they do on the tests to punish them or the school."

The study was produced by a task force comprised of educators and UFT officials that was formed last spring. It recognizes the "intuitive appeal of test scores as measures of student performance" but argues that conventional wisdom has "prevented meaningful discussion of their limitations."

In the place of high-stakes tests, the report's authors recommend that "the state and city should base student promotion on multiple indicators such as grade point averages, performance assessments, portfolios, Teacher comments, attendance and test scores."

The authors say they are not opposed to testing as part of assessing children in a classroom, but instead object to attaching "high-stakes" decisions to those test results, such as student promotion, graduation and whether a school should be considered "failing" and possibly closed.

'Unpeeling the Onion'

Task force member Terry Weber, who teaches at Urban Academy in Manhattan, said he gives a mid-term and final exam plus two quizzes each semester, but because his school is one of a handful in which students are exempt from four of the five Regents tests, he can take into account several indicators to judge a student's progress.

"We look at the fact that a kid makes really insightful comments in class," said Mr. Weber, "that they're engaging with the material, that they're unpeeling the onion."

But standardized testing makes personalized evaluations more difficult. "They are eliminating Teacher input into grading kids, and we're the ones standing in front of the kids," he said.

The report argues that the city and state should "recognize that using tests and assessments as tools for accountability is not the same as using tests and assessments as tools for improving instruction."

The drive towards high-stakes testing began in earnest about 10 years ago. The Federal No Child Left Behind law passed in 2001 mandates states to test math and reading in grades 3 through 8 as a school accountability measure, but there is no requirement to use the tests in deciding grade promotion or graduation.

Going beyond NCLB, the state then required all students to pass a number of Regents exams in order to graduate from high school. The city added to the Federal and state requirements by ordering standardized assessments in kindergarten through 2nd grade.

Last month city Department of Education officials announced a plan to hire IBM to build an $80-million computer system, known as Aris, to track students' progress, including their scores on state exams and on six-week assessments, which all schools will be required to administer starting next fall. The scores will be used to grade each school, A through F.

The UFT report aims to move things in the opposite direction, arguing that the increase in testing has reduced students' learning opportunities.

'Narrowed What We Teach'

"The whole idea with high-stakes testing and accountability was to hold schools accountable for higher standards," said Ms. North, who teaches at PS 3 in Brooklyn. "But what's happened is that all we're striving for are those things that are tested, and that's narrowing what we teach."

The report's authors argue that the exams rarely test critical thinking skills and that "teaching to the test" has become regular practice. Test prep sessions often knock out other subjects, such as science, geography, and art, which are not tested in the early grades.

They say school administrators are under intense pressure to improve test scores, in part because NCLB and the city mandate that every school demonstrate yearly progress. When progress is measured solely by the tests, Teachers are often told to focus on students who fall within a few points of reaching a grade of proficiency in order to show overall school progress. That can mean the students at the bottom of the ladder, who need the most help, get ignored.

Important Distinction

But task force members also say that the city and state could find more productive ways of complying with Federal law.

"New York State does not have to just use high-stakes tests," said Ms. North. "It can use multiple assessments and be compliant with NCLB."

Alternative Methods

The alternatives outlined in the report include assessment practices used in Nebraska, Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, which do not use standardized tests to make high-stakes decisions. In Rhode Island, for example, test scores are only a fraction of the assessment tools, which include Teacher, parent, administrator and student surveys in the overall process.

"The performance assessments have higher standards," said Mr. Weber. "The alternatives are actually a lot more work."

The report also recommends a halt to the mandatory six-week tests that are scheduled for next fall.

"We need high standards," said task force member Phyllis Tashlik, "but the question is, who's educating and who's just testing? That's the question we should be asking."