Opting Out vs. Slaying the Dragon--and Mixing Metaphors

A while ago, I started to notice that I was not "liking" the Facebook posts promoting the testing-protest movement in education known as "opt-out." Some of my favorite and most respected colleagues were posting these articles and pictures, and I really wanted to "like" these. I wasn't sure why I hesitated to align myself with this movement (see an excellent overview on The FairTest website).

Then, something despicable happened after the tragic church massacre in Charleston: Ignoring the heart of the matter, ultra-conservative firearms advocates accused the victims of being responsible for their own deaths. These commentators suggested that the murdered parishioners erred in not bringing to Bible study weapons with which they could defend themselves if a murderer showed up.

While this has nothing to do with school testing, it got me thinking about the limitations of approaching something from the wrong direction, of focusing in the wrong place. 

Many of us know we don't like the over-testing and the mis-testing of our kids, the testing that pervades classrooms and has perverted the teaching and learning processes. Holding this opinion, we align ourselves with the opters-out. But I wonder if perhaps we miss some of the deeper understandings not only of what's imposed but of what's at stake. I wonder if knowing more might allow us to change the system, and not just peel off its toxic overlay.

While I sympathize with the parents who opt their children out of testing, I believe that focusing just on that action distracts from an urgent need to re-imagine the content and processes of assessing and documenting student learning. It also takes emotion and energy away from the more fundamental issue: How do we most effectively engage kids to document, analyze, synthesize, and apply learnings that are situated in the real world, in real materials, that are not merely "schoolish?"

I believe that as a boycott, the opt-out movement is too slight, too limited to parents with access to elite media. Educators who themselves engage carelessly in the boycott risk losing jobs and teaching certificates. I appreciate the courageous and articulate parents like Aaryn Belfer who know they are up against something crazy. 

Without a stronger grounding in what's actually wrong with the tests, the opt-out movement emphasizes the time burden of testing and test preparation, not the nature and sheer wrongness of the tests themselves. If you put a toxic glaze on a cake, scraping it off won't reverse the damage to the cake. The cake, our education system, is in danger not just from the time factor, but from the enormous mistakes being made in constructing, administering, and then interpreting results from points of very limited understanding. 

Know your enemy by becoming more informed about the technical features of testing, the math and statistics of it; the politics and economics, as in state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, and the international businesses that use malpractice as a profit center. We need to move beyond simplifying it to "too much," "multiple choice vs. extended answer," "norm-referenced vs. standards-referenced."  Use the resources available on the FairTest website.

Furthermore, be able to speak up about how accountability and more authentic documentation of learning might look and feel. Don't be like the GOP opposition to Obama's health care plan - be able to speak plausibly and enthusiastically about viable alternatives. Consider tools that teachers might use to gauge and report student success as well as the what-do-we-need-to-do-now for a student who may not be catching on. Remember portfolios, simulation, performance and application opportunities? 

Be thoroughly grounded in the FACT that norm-referenced (bell-curve) assessments, by definition, show half of those tested to be below average. Find out how assessments referenced to standards allow everyone to pass if the standards are fairly taught and fairly assessed. Don't rule Common Core out or in before you understand it, and be prepared to discuss how any attempt to improve kids' critical thinking can be subverted by the wrong assessments. I mean, how can you assess divergent thinking via convergent and reductive measures?

Consider this post Part 1 of a challenge to compile factual analysis of the testing process and content and not just polemic materials. I will start searching beyond the FairTest materials for other resources that explain test creation, test structure, and test content. I invite you to do the same, either in comments appended here, comments emailed to me at caroline@sunflowerlexical.com, or links and ideas provided through the contact form on my website, sunflowerlexical.com. 

The current testing epidemic is not merely something to avoid. We need to prepare to slay the dragon, not just hide out from it.