There is a lot of handwringing and gnashing of teeth in the U.S. right now over so called "high stakes testing." From the impetus of No Child Left Behind under President Bush to the economic incentives of The Race To The Top under President Obama, testing is becoming the flash point in U.S. K-12 education
How did we get here?
Somewhere during the 1960's upheaval of American society, the idea of testing kids became anathema. Schools across the country blindly stopped testing in K-8 and, in many cases, grades were dropped entirely or classes became Pass/Fail with only the Pass being operative.
Despite decades of irrefutable evidence that U.S. education was falling further behind the Global Standards, promoting self-esteem, rather than promoting intellectual rigor and academic proficiency, remained the educational raison d'etre.
Society Gets What It Celebrates
While we have celebrated self-esteem, even when it was not warranted, much of the rest of the world, particularly the booming economies in Asia, have treated testing as a logical way to assess a child's understanding of a core topic.
Today, U.S. students lead the world in only one area - self-confidence. But it is a self-confidence conferred by adults rather than earned by hard work.
Now comes a fascinating article in the New York Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal, a mother who raised her kids in the Chinese system for the first 8 years and then in the U.S. system after that.
What she found was, with the exception of the College Entrance exam, most of the weekly tests in Chinese schools were aimed at assessing a child's knowledge and progress. Read more ...
Having examined many educational systems around the world, it's my view that neither extreme is useful. The idea of a grinding series of tests for Chinese kids is as inimical as the NCLB testing. Tests are a good idea and helpful to children, teachers, parents and administrators if they are:
1- short and frequent enough to measure understanding,
2- computer-based so they can be taken easily and graded quickly - so they become a valuable diagnostic tool,
3- used to motivate kids and their parents to work hard at school, i.e. - there must be consequences for the child and parents, not just for the teacher (as is the case with NCLB)
I think Ms. Rosenthal articulates a very reasonable and accurate view of testing:
"But let’s face it, life is filled with all kinds of tests — some you ace and some you flunk — so at some point you have to get used to it. 'Schools do a lot of nurturing and facilitating, and then it’s a bit of a shock for children when they have to sit at a desk all alone and be tested,' Professor Cizek said."
It's also a shock when kids finish their education, face a competitive world where "testing" is daily reality with high consequences, and where all the self-confidence in the world can't compensate for ignorance.