An op-ed by Cleveland State University education professor Karl Wheatley in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer argues that the pursuit of improved student achievement in our public schools is largely a waste of time. Why? Wheatley lists reasons ranging from absurd to insulting, especially toward those Ohio children who have been denied an excellent education and whose life prospects dim each time we make ridiculous excuses on behalf of failing schools. He believes that those of us who pursue higher standards "clearly do not understand education well enough to craft wise policy" but does not explain how a de-emphasis on standardized testing would benefit students in his home district of Cleveland, 83.7 percent of whom are economically disadvantaged.
The most glaring of Wheatley's arguments is his contradiction that testing is bad because it doesn't focus on soft skills like teamwork, personal management, creativity, etc. Even if we shifted toward teaching those "skills" in lieu of core content (reading, math, science and history), how would we know that students are progressing appropriately unless we assess their learning? Regardless of what schools teach, that content has to be tested somehow in order for us to know a) that students are learning it and b) that teachers are doing a decent job of teaching it. Furthermore, no one is arguing that self-sufficiency, creativity, etc. are not important, just that they aren't going to be that useful if students reach high school reading at a sixth-grade level and still can't tell time on an analog clock.
Wheatley also claims that testing creates "collateral damage" such as motivation problems for students and teachers, scripted instruction, even mental health problems and increased reliance on ADHD medication. While standardized testing does have unintended consequences, its implementation (think: teachers' reluctant attitudes toward testing, drill and kill, etc.)--and not the testing itself--is to blame. And can't one argue that testing has collateral benefits as well? How else could we diagnose a child's learning disability or mental health problems? Or shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students and between groups of schools?
Demonizing the standards and accountability movement is just plain counterproductive. Those of us who advocate for higher standards (and standardized tests linked to them) most often are motivated out of a sense of social justice. Children growing up places like Cleveland, or Fordham's hometown of Dayton, are not receiving the quality of education that they deserve and need, and it is only through quality achievement data that we are able to diagnose learning problems and take action to address them. Wheatley should not be upset with testing; he should be outraged by the fact that only 10 percent of Cleveland's fourth-graders were proficient in mathematics according to the 2007 NAEP, and only 8 percent were proficient readers. Testing is not the enemy. Let's stop making excuses.
