Getting Testy About All Those Tests?

By Christine Malecki, Ph.D., guest contributor

All across the country, it’s “testing season.” And, like dandelions in springtime, questions are once again popping up over whether our schools test too much.

Source: By KF [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Forty states have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Thirteen of those states measure student performance using a set of assessments known as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). If not PARCC, students are likely taking some other state-, district- or school-mandated tests aimed at assessing their knowledge base.

Struggling to meet federal and state mandates, many school districts are striving to assess students in meaningful ways to inform educational practices (Deno, 2003; Shinn, 2008; Tilly, 2008). But recently many magazines, Internet stories, and newspapers shouted headlines such as “Testing is Ruining My Child’s Education,” “Testing Steals Teachers’ Creativity,” or “Too Much Testing.”

It’s safe to say extensive testing is often met with feelings of trepidation, not only in students but also in administrators, teachers, and parents.

So how do we know if our school, district or state is testing too much or testing too little? Before unilaterally dismissing all of the assessments as bad, ask the following questions:

1. How are the data being used? Are educators in your child’s school using data meaningfully to improve educational practices?
2. What is the purpose of each assessment? Tests are not one size fits all. Some assessments help teachers improve their instruction and some assessments help teachers identify which students need more help (Tilly, 2008; Lichtenstein, 2008; Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008). Some tests are ways for states to identify which schools are meeting standards (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). Is your school using the right test for the right purpose?
3. Are there more efficient methods to gather the same data? Some assessments can serve multiple purposes, thus reducing overall tests (Fuchs, 2004). More importantly, some tests are brief yet give the right information for a given purpose, such as identifying students who need additional support (Deno, 2003; Shinn, 2008). Is your school using the most efficient methods possible?
4. Do we have to test every single child using every single test? If your child is in 6th grade, has met state test reading standards for years, and has had well above average reading test scores for years, does he need to take a basic reading test three times a year? Probably not. However, students at risk for falling behind in literacy skills should be monitored closely to ensure that interventions are effective for that student (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

So, the bottom line: Our schools should be using assessments wisely. When educators provide solid answers to the questions above, they probably are.

Professor Christine Malecki is director of the School Psychology Program at Northern Illinois University. She studies social support and peer relationships in children and adolescents and helps schools make changes to help students be more successful.

References

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty and student learning, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1-74.

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 194-192.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.

Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present and future of curriculum-based measurement research, School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188-192.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2015). PARCC States. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-states

Shinn, M.R. (2008). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In J. Grimes and A. Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology V (pp. 243- 262). Washington, DC: NASP.

Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 48-58.

Tilly, W. D. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem solving and the three tiered model. In J. Grimes and A. Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology V (pp. 17-34). Washington, DC: NASP.