States manage their K-12 testing systems. They determine what passing is, what questions get asked, everything. And there are some serious problems with the set-up, as Steve Peha points out in a comment on the EduWonk blog:
Letting governors and state legislators set educational standards in their own states is a bit like letting the fox guard the hen house. Much research has shown how state politicians have chipped away at rigor over the years, and Mr. Jindal’s latest attempt is no exception.
A few years ago, I worked extensively in Arizona, one of the “tough” states requiring that kids pass reading, writing, and math tests to qualify for high school graduation. The year before the law was to go into effect, they dropped the requirements for a passing score more than ten percent. Then, the following year, they created a formula whereby kids who didn’t pass tests could still graduate through a combination of attendance, grades, and test prep classes. As a result, only six kids failed to make the grade that year, demonstrating clearly that it is indeed possible to leave no child behind if we can only figure out the correct mathematical formula that lowers the bar far enough.
State testing must be conducted by independent organizations with no political or financial stake in the outcome. What’s more, we already have good models of this practice in the NAEP, SAT, and ACT tests. Whether one likes these tests or not, it is hard to dispute the fact that they are all regarded as more reliable than state tests.
I’m not a big fan of testing. But if we’re going to do it, let’s do it right. Too much hangs in the balance when our tests are subject to manipulation by shortsighted politicians who care more about their approval ratings than they do about the fate of children in their states. It takes courage to reform education. And few of our political leaders seem to have it.
To read the original post and other comments, go here.
Comments