Parents have been concerned about the amount of testing their children have been subjected to in recent years. To the point where some are choosing to opt their children out of certain standardized tests. Yet, a number of educators, policymakers and education organizations have expressed the need for such tests to identify those students whose needs are not being fully met—particularly poor, minority and other traditionally disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, it has been unclear how much testing is actually taking place in our nation’s schools.
But yesterday, a report from the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) provided the most comprehensive examination of testing to date that shed an important light on the quantity and quality of testing students are exposed to. Among the findings the report found:
- The average eighth-grader spends 25.3 hours per year taking mandated assessments which accounts for 4.22 days or 2.34 percent of total instructional time.
- Only 8.9 hours of this testing is due to NCLB mandated assessments.
- Formative assessments are most likely to be given three times a year and account for 10.8 hours of testing for eighth-graders
- There is no correlation between the amount of mandated testing and the performance on the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP).
- Urban school districts have more tests designed for diagnostic purposes than other uses.
- Opt-out rates in the 66 school districts that participated in the study were typically less than 1 percent.
- 78 percent of parents surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “accountability for how well my child is educated is important, and it begins with accurate measurement of what he/she is learning in school.”
- Yet, fewer agreed when the word ‘test’ appears.
- Parents support ‘better’ tests but are not necessarily as supportive of ‘harder’ or ‘more rigorous’ tests.
These are much needed findings in the debate about testing, which has been dominated by anecdotal accounts and theoretical arguments. CGCS’s report has provided much needed facts to inform policymakers on time spent on testing, as well as, the quality and usefulness of the tests. In fact, these findings led President Obama to propose the amount of time students spend on mandatory tests be limited to 2 percent of instructional time.
While limiting the time students spend taking tests is a good thing, the report highlights the fact that over-testing is not necessarily a quantity problem but a quality problem. For example, the report found that many of the tests were not aligned to each other nor aligned to college- and career-ready standards. Meaning, many students were administered unnecessary and redundant tests that provided little, if any, information to improve instruction. Moreover, results for many tests, including some formative assessments, were not available for months after they were taken, thereby failing to provide teachers information in-time to adjust their instruction. So, the information for many tests are neither timely nor useful.
For testing to drive quality instruction, testing systems must be aligned to college- and career-ready standards and provide usable and timely information. Doing so does not necessarily lead to less testing time but it does lead to a more efficient testing system. While there is plenty of blame to go around for the lack of a coherent testing system, district leaders play a lead role in ensuring that each and every test is worth taking. Tools such as Achieve’s Student Assessment Inventory for School Districts can inform district leaders on how much testing is actually taking place in their classrooms and why. With such information in-hand they can make more informed decisions on which tests to continue using and which should be eliminated, as well as, if there is a need for better tests that provide a more accurate measure of what students are expected to learn. By doing so, it will create a more coherent testing system that consists of fewer and better test that will drive quality instruction that will in-turn improve student outcomes. – Jim Hull