Critics: Tests dumb down math
Too much emphasis on basic skills, top educators say
By Tracy Dell'Angela
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 4, 2004
As the state completes plans to expand its standardized testing program, prominent math educators are criticizing the proposed design, arguing that it will dumb down math instruction by focusing disproportionately on basic skills at the expense of analytical thinking.
"The message they will send out to teachers is ..., `Pay attention to this because this is what you're going to be tested on,'" said Philip Wagreich, director of the Institute for Mathematics and Science Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "It's not uniformly horrible, but the main thrust is back-to-basics--multiple-choice questions emphasizing routine tasks, rote memorization and computational skills."
The fact that the phrasing of test questions could stir such an uproar underscores the growing cynicism among teachers who fear that the relentless push for better test scores and standardized curriculum is harming classroom instruction.
(snip)
The State Board of Education is expected to decide this month which of three major testing companies will win the bid to handle the assessment program, which will cost $18 million a year.
As part of the process, state officials are asking that the revised tests measure not only how well students meet the state's learning standards, but also how well they measure up against national norms. That would allow individual school districts to use these results instead of administering national tests.
Depending on which company the state selects, the new test would be an adaptation of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the Stanford Achievement Tests or the TerraNova tests.
more (requires registration):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0401040332jan04,1,4350375.story?coll=chi-news-hedComment from salin: to my knowledge only one of the fore mentioned test is provided by a nonprofit entity. Normally I wouldn't necessarily take such note - but have reviewed various tests and found the nonprofit Iowa test to be better (as it allows teachers to use the tests as "diagnostics" which can at least be a tool for teachers in addressing students' needs.)
However the increased pressure based on NCLB to use commercial tests - leads me to greater levels of skepticism of a) how much this costs and b) is this perceived to be a 'windfall' for selected test/textbook companies (many of the commercial tests have been bought and are now properties of specific text book companies - again in and of itself not necessarily a bad thing, but in todays' context perhaps gives even more of a windfall because in theory who will have the "best" text books (from a marketing standpoint) to help schools teach to the text than the company that "creates" the test.
This is of course a joke, as the books are written by separate entities than the test makers - all pretty much independent of the company - but it is powerful marketing to those districts/schools (even states - ala text book adoptions) which are working from 'fear' of meeting the Annual Yearly Progress bars set by NCLB. Seems like it could work as a nice little racket.