Consumer-Referenced Testing

Abstract

Many Americans have less accurate information about the tests used to measure their children's academic achievement than they do about a can of beans, Mr. Behuniak argues. If we wish to remedy this situation, we need to focus on the needs of those who are the consumers of our tests. WHY ARE so many people so in love with testing? As a former teacher turned measurement specialist, I recall having left the classroom to lend my efforts to improving the quality of student assessments. I have long considered assessments as educational tools -- not as solutions to our problems or as substitutes for good instruction. So who are all these folks who are so infatuated with more frequent testing in more subjects with more students? Why are we so emotionally invested in these educational tools while practitioners in other fields respect the utility of the tools of their trades but remain essentially dispassionate about them? To answer these questions, it is useful to consider each of the major constituencies in education. Educational administrators at the local level are certainly emotional about high-stakes testing. There is an obvious reason for this, since their jobs are often riding on the test results. However, this group hardly falls into the category of ardent testing proponents. Similarly, teachers are almost never advocates of large-scale assessments, though they regularly use both formal and informal measures on a small scale within their own classrooms and schools. Parents are generally supportive of broadly defined assessment programs because they like having the feedback. They tend to bring a bottom-line perspective to the process, skipping much of the rhetoric and detail that educators tend to dwell on -- tell me how my daughter did and what you're going to do as a result. These groups are definitely not the source of the demands that are causing the proliferation of high-stakes testing. Legislators are the logical choice, since virtually every high-stakes testing program has legislative backing. However, it is naive to think that such widespread legislative support is occurring in a vacuum. Each legislative action promoting high-stakes assessments reflects perceptions in the general population that the large institution of education ought to be held accountable. Kurt Landgraf of the Educational Testing Service, in his testimony supporting President Bush's testing proposal before Congress, commented, Results from these tests will provide important information that the American people and policy makers need to move this matter forward and to ensure significant education reform.1 Most political and business leaders and many educational leaders would agree. Thus the source of the trend toward high-stakes, large-scale assessments in our schools is Main Street, USA -- the public, supporting through its representatives a perceived need for objective indicators of educational achievement. There is an interesting footnote to this observation that the culprit in the call for accountability is all of us. Just as parents tend to go to the bottom line with regard to their children's progress, so too does the public have a penchant for skipping the details and demanding the executive summary version about how well our schools are doing. It is usually satisfactory to the public if the presiding body -- usually the local, state or national education agency -- can provide objective information that confirms that reasonable progress is occurring. Members of the public are not often as concerned with the specifics about which educators love to argue, such as content, format, procedural rules, and the methods by which standards are set. This is an important point. Introducing Consumer-Referenced Testing The current circumstances pose a real opportunity. Broad support and resources are available for building systems to provide reliable indicators of student progress, and there are many possible ways to proceed. …