VIEW ON THE NEWS

To test or not to test, that is the question

By Christopher Curran
Posted 9/7/16

This past week, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo stated she was open to the idea of using the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) as a barometer whether or not a high school student has fulfilled the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
VIEW ON THE NEWS

To test or not to test, that is the question

Posted

This past week, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo stated she was open to the idea of using the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) as a barometer whether or not a high school student has fulfilled the requirements to receive a diploma. For a Democrat to possibly endorse a test mandatory to graduate is indeed a revelation, for in Rhode Island, Democrat politicians fear the mighty teachers’ unions. And teachers do not want standardized testing as a hurdle to issuing a diploma to a prospectively graduating student.

Raimondo showed inordinate behavior for a politician on the move who typically weighs every decision, photo opportunity, or utterance with a gauge of future political ramifications.

Simply, the issue at hand is volatile. Parents whose children do not test well because they perhaps have not learned what they actually need to know are objecting to their child possibly not being passed through. Some mothers and fathers would prefer their kids to have a hollow piece of parchment that admit their child did not earn the diploma. They do not wish the student to be stigmatized by the reality that they just did not fulfill the requirements.

Additionally, teachers do not want to “teach to the test.” In other words, they wish to have the liberty to teach as they desire to, not within the narrow guidelines of test preparation for an all-encompassing standard.

In other countries around the world, rigid testing has yielded benefits in their societies, although some harshness has resulted from such stringency.

The ideal of establishing a universal standard for high school graduation not just statewide but nationwide has been in the public dialogue for two decades. Moreover, a grade-to-grade standard of evaluation would be the optimum scheme with an eventual objective of eliminating “social ascension.” Hence, pushing along unqualified students would stop.

Different systems of testing such as the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readings for College and Careers (PARCC) have been used to fulfill the ideals of “Race to the Top” and Common Core Standards.

Local notables in the educational sphere have a divergence of opinion as to the application of standardize tests and a graduation threshold. Nevertheless, over one-third of the students who enter community college through the policy of open enrollment need a battery of remedial instruction just to catch up on the basics in order to understand college level work. Thus, something is obviously amiss when students who possess a high school diploma cannot write a coherent sentence, solve a simple algebraic problem, or understand simple concepts of biology. Therefore, the need for some fair standard of evaluation is crucial. To accurately analyze whether a student has learned a sufficient amount to genuinely ascend from grade to grade and for that matter to receive a truly earned diploma, testing is absolutely warranted.

Raimondo’s spoken consideration of establishing a standard for high school graduation in the Ocean State using the SAT test surprised many and might even be considered politically courageous. In this regard, the governor was correct in the sentiment that a standardized test is vital in knowing whether someone is eligible to receive a diploma. The SAT results are commonly used as a facet of the information considered by admissions offices in universities. Of course, the question is whether the SAT is the most appropriate examination to deduce whether a student deserves his or her high school diploma.

For several decades, countries such as Japan, China, Norway, and New Zealand have instituted rigid grade-to-grade standardized tests to determine whether a society’s investment in a student is justified and whether or not the pupil would ascend to the next grade level. In the Far East, failing the test has a significant effect on the whole family. A family can “lose face” and be shunned in their community if the student does not pass muster.

Here at home, we certainly do not want a family to be devastated if their child falls short. However, if a standard test were instituted with the gravity wholly understood by our educational system, instructors, administrators, and students, our nation would benefit, and so would students in the long term.

In the 1990s, an awareness of how far the United States had fallen behind other countries in education became cruelly apparent. We had fallen from number one in the world in the 1960s to 27th out of 67 countries examined in how our students fared comparatively in an international educational study conducted by Rand Corporation. Graduation rates, future university attendance, and success in mathematics and sciences were all considered. This backslide fostered the Standards and Accountability Movement. Attentiveness to this dilemma must have had a positive effect in that a study performed by the Pearson Corporation in 2015 rated the United States 14th overall in educational outcomes out of 40 countries evaluated.

As a result of this new commitment, the Common Core Standards Initiative was born. This effort seeks to evaluate students in English, arts, and mathematics on a grade-to-grade basis. Sponsored by the National Governors Association, the CCSI has been embraced by many, except teacher organizations who feel rigid testing is too restrictive to their teaching methodologies. Undoubtedly, teaching to test presents a more laborious set of tasks for teachers. Also, concentrating on a significant grade to grade test will monopolize a great deal of class time that could be devoted to imparting other types of instruction.

Furthermore, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan incepted “Race to the Top” (RTTT) in 2009. A competitive grant process that rewarded innovation in K-12 was funded with $4.35 billion from the stimulus package with the objective of furthering the Standards and Accountability Movement. While the PARCC system of assessment currently seems to be the most equitable manner in which to evaluate a student universally, educators are resistant.

Despite these earnest efforts to homogenize a generally applicable system, in the Ocean State educational professionals has expressed a divergence of opinions. Dr. Ken Wagner, commissioner of elementary and secondary education at the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), disagrees with the governor on the SAT as a standard for graduation. He expressed on the WSBE-TV program “A Lively Experiment” that a rigid test to graduate is not the answer, saying: “Do we want to spend the next five years debating testing?”

Wagner knows that Rhode Island’s teachers have boisterously argued against the NECAP and the PARCC, and would most certainly rebel about the SAT being used in this fashion. He wants to switch the emphasis to impoverished urban students, stating “poverty is not destiny” and equity of education opportunity should be our first priority.

Similarly, Robert Walsh, executive director of the National Education Association of Rhode Island, believes testing is futile. He wants those concerned to concentrate on the socioeconomic status of the parents and the educational level of the mother as the best indicators of a student’s ability to succeed. As a result, he believes a universal test is unfair.

On the contrary, Tim Duffy, executive director of the Rhode Island Association of School Committees, prefers a universal standard. Duffy would rather use the PARCC as the benchmark for Rhode Island High School graduation. However, in lieu of the PARCC, he would find a minimum score on the SAT an acceptable alternative.

Duffy, Raimondo, and national officials are right. If we are going to compete with other nations in a highly competitive world, and if Rhode Island is going to successfully compete with other states, than we cannot be graduating students who have not met the requirements of the curriculum. Failure has a value. An empty diploma does not. In life one values what is legitimately earned. Social ascension is society’s descent.

Whether it is the PARCC or the SAT or some other equitable testing system, we need to know what the student actually knows before a diploma can be conferred!

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here