RE: OpEd: teacher professionalism vs. testing in public schools

["Hillmer, Steve" <hillmer@ku.edu>]

Neal Mowery raised some important points in his reaction to the OpEd piece
on testing in public schools.  I find myself agreeing both with Neal and
with the teacher who wrote the piece and I believe that resolving the
paradox lies in the judgment about the motives of the people advocating the
testing.   In theory any form of feedback, including standardized testing,
can be useful; it just depends upon the way in which this feedback is used.
If the feedback is provided for the purpose of identifying problem spots and
providing support to improve the system then it is very much in the spirit
of what Deming advocated.  If the feedback is provided to identify the
schools or classes who are poor performers with the intention that they have
the ability by themselves to make improvements, then it is less likely to be
helpful.  When I first read the OpEd  article I assumed that the purpose of
the standardized testing was primarily to identify the poor performers and
either directly or indirectly "shame them" or otherwise incent them to do a
better job.  If the institutions who are demanding the standardized testing
are not willing to participate in solving the problems once they have been
identified, then they are probably not helping the situation because the
implicit assumption is that the teachers/schools which are getting the poor
results have the ability to make the necessary improvements.  My point is
that the most important issue when evaluating the desirability of things
like standardized testing and other forms of feedback to schools is the
assumptions of the people who want the feedback - is it for system
improvement or for the assignment of blame?  

Steve Hillmer