Page 55 - teachers.PDF

from an initial position of strong support for a national test as an accountability tool to opposition on the grounds that a national test would usher in a national curriculum and lead to further federal involvement in what should be a state and local matter. These policy- makers want states to set their own standards without interference from Washington; they see a national test as a de facto attempt by the federal government to dictate what is important for their students to learn.
On the other hand, some politicians seem to be less troubled by an expanded federal role in testing, but more suspicious about whether national testing would lead to genuine school improvement and higher student achievement or just sort out and penalize low- performing schools and the students in them, who are disproportionately low income and minority. They argue that until there is truly equal opportunity to learn for all students (with equal access to technology, highly qualified teachers, good facilities, and other learning inputs), testing is an empty exercise. Some politicians also fear that poor test scores might fuel discontent with the public school system and lead to more support for controversial initiatives such as vouchers for private school students.
Those in favor of national tests, on whatever side of the political fence they sit, point to:
C the value of having a common basis for comparing individual, school, district, and state performance;
C theimportanceofspecifyingcontentandperformancetargetstoencouragehigh aspirations and achievement; and
C thepotentialmotivatingeffectoftestsifresultsarelinkedtohiringandcollege admissions decisions (Davey, 1992).
Those against national tests point to:
C thefallacythattestsaloneleadtopositivechangesineducation;
C lackofconsensusaboutdesirededucationaloutcomesinvarioussubjectareasand
the pitfalls of attempting to establish a national curriculum;
C limitations and biases inherent in testing, particularly multiple-choice tests but also
performance-based ones.
C short-sightedness in not attempting to address the real equity issues related to the
education of minority and low-income students (Davey and Neill, 1992).
VOLUNTARY NATIONAL TESTS
President Clinton’s 1997 proposal to implement voluntary national tests offers a case study in the politics of national testing. In his State of the Union address in 1997, Clinton vowed to make national tests one of the centerpieces of his administration. President Clinton appealed to every state to "adopt high national standards, and by 1999, [to] test every 4th grader in reading and every 8th grader in math to make sure these standards are met." He viewed the national tests as having important individual and schoolwide benefits and consequences, stating, "Good tests will show us who needs help, what changes in teaching to make, and which schools to improve. They can help us to end social promotion. For no child should move from grade school to junior high, or junior high to high school
until he or she is ready." (State of the Union address, February 5, 1997).
Rudner, L. and W. Schafer (2002) What Teachers Need to Know About Assessment. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
From the free on-line version. To order print copies call 800 229-4200
50