Should We Fear or Favor National Assessments?

Leaders of school districts and schools clamor for news media attention when their students receive recognition for their performance in an academic or extracurricular competition. They create trophy cases to display awards and hold special assemblies where eager community leaders and elected officials can be photographed shaking hands with high-achieving students.

Why then do many of these same educational leaders, as well as many governors, state legislators and state education commissioners, oppose comparisons of their students on standardized tests that are administered nationally? These commercial tests have been developed and reviewed by teachers and other experts in the field who often are the same people recruited to help develop local and state-level assessment programs.

Although these tests measure the basic skills that are so important to students' success in school and beyond, one hears countless arguments today by those working at state and local levels as to why students should not take nationally standardized tests, such as the national exams proposed earlier this year by President Clinton as a voluntary activity beginning in 1999.

Regular Refrains

The most common complaints go like this: "Standardized tests don't measure all that we do or should be doing" or "We want to develop our own standards and measurements, based on what we think our students need most."

While nationally standardized tests don't measure everything a school or district is doing, no one ever said an assessment should or could. Blaming a standardized test for not measuring all schools do is not a legitimate excuse for districts and states to avoid such assessments.

A comprehensive school or state assessment program must go beyond what is measured on nationally standardized tests, which focus primarily on basic skills. Strong assessment programs take into account local and state priorities and incorporate portfolios, open-ended essay questions, machine-scannable tests and hands-on performance indicators. However, leaders at the state and district levels should not be asking an either-or question about nationally standardized tests or their own tests, but rather how do we develop an assessment program that makes the best use of both?

Competetive Opportunities

Districts spend millions of dollars to send students to regional and national competitions related to spelling, math, cheerleading, sports, auto mechanics, marching band and business skills, to name a few. These programs don't measure everything a school is or should be doing, and some standards used by the competitions are not accepted by all the schools and states that participate. Nonetheless, educators believe students should have such opportunities to match their skills against their peers.

For the same reasons, students should participate in national standardized assessments of what they have learned. By not doing so, states and districts deprive students, parents and communities of a national perspective of their students' performance in basic skill areas.

Weak Arguments

Educational leaders also fall short in their logic when they express a desire to "develop our own standards and measurements based on what we think our students need most." This response assumes that local and state standards are more important and therefore better for their students or that certain basic skills are not as important to a student attending school in Ohio as they are to a student in California.

The assumptions for such an argument are barely defensible. Those wary of national tests assume (a) students aren't going to leave their present geographical area; (b) universities give entrance tests based on the state you come from; (c) graduates will find employers who think performance on a state or local test is more important than performance on a national test or the company's own test; or (d) school districts and employers outside the state will understand another state's assessment program and how the results are interpreted.

When states and districts develop standards and assessments, they must meet the minimum expectations of a credible assessment program. This is especially important if the state or local assessment will be the primary method for measuring and reporting student achievement. Basic questions must be answered:

* Are test purposes and the use of results clearly stated (instructional improvement, accountability, student placement, funding, etc.)? Has this information been made available and understood by all stakeholders?

* Is the test based on defensible standards?

* Is the test a valid measure of the standards that have been identified?

* Is the test or performance assessment reliable?

* Does the test have external relevance? To what extent do gains in scores on the test reflect real improvement in student learning? How is that determined?

* Can the results and reporting method be clearly understood by students, parents, employers, colleges and other institutions?

A Necessary Measure

Even when state and local assessment programs fulfill these criteria, states and districts should not limit themselves to their own evaluations. Successful governments, businesses and organizations constantly use external assessments to compare themselves. These comparisons ensure they are competitive and can remain competitive nationally and even internationally. States and districts should realize that external assessments of student achievement are equally important.

States and districts that have abandoned or diminished the role of nationally standardized tests should revisit their rationale for doing so National assessments will never be perfect, and neither will state or local assessments. Both are important and both are needed.

James Wilson, an education consultant, spent 12 years as a superintendent in Cape Henlopen, Del., and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He can be reached at 10 Delaware Ave., Lewes, Del. 19958. E-mail: JWil555@aol.com

COPYRIGHT 1997 American Association of School Administrators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group