When my principal first introduced high stakes testing for sophomores at the Oregon high school where I taught—it was 2000 or just before—he told teachers, “Don’t wait around for this to go away. Trust me, this one isn’t going away.” He was referring to the tendency of teachers to slow walk some changes suggested by higher-ups, especially ones that seem unproductive or counterproductive, expecting that they’ll lose momentum and end up on the ash heap of ineffective school change ideas. But this time, my principal was right. High stakes testing had legs, and it’s only grown stronger. Until, maybe, now.
A new poll from Phi Delta Kappa International, administered by Gallup, shows that people are starting to shift their ideas about the value of high stakes testing. Some 64 percent of people polled said they thought there was too much emphasis on standardized testing in public schools. Among people whose children were in public schools, the number was slightly higher, 67 percent. When asked if standardized test scores should be part of teacher evaluations, 55 percent said no. Among people whose children were in public schools, the number went up to 63 percent.
Gallup’s analysis of the survey breaks down the data further. When people were asked the best ways to measure the effectiveness of a public school, student engagement with their classwork was at the top of the list and testing was at the bottom. Testing also placed at the bottom both in ways to create an accurate picture of a student’s progress and ways to improve schools.
So far as I could tell, the analysis doesn’t indicate whether the public’s attitude toward high stakes testing has changed from previous years, but I’m reasonably certain it’s gone down. We may be reaching a tipping point, where enough people think we’re overemphasizing the tests that their use and importance may begin to lessen.
There are plenty of possible reasons why high stakes test are losing their allure. Maybe testing familiarity breeds contempt. The more people see of high stakes testing, the less they like it. Maybe the turn against Common Core standards, which is often accompanied by suspicion about the tests that accompany the standards, is turning more people against the tests. Maybe the fact that the Obama administration has taken over the No Child Left Behind, now Race to the Top, means conservatives who supported NCLB and the accompanying tests when it was Bush’s program have decided that if Obama has his hands on it, it must be bad. All of those factors may be part of the shift, as well as many others I haven’t considered.
One interesting takeaway from the data is that African American and Hispanic responders favored standardized testing more than Anglos, by a significant margin. It’s possible part of the gap is because the anti-testing push has come out of Anglo groups, both progressive and conservative, and it will take more time before it takes hold in African American and Hispanic communities. But the primary reason may go deeper. It may be because they know their kids aren’t being well served by the system and want that pointed out so that changes will be made for the better. If they were right, if low test scores meant more money and educational resources flowed to those schools and it was accompanied by more access to early childhood education and other social services in the community — in other words, if awareness led efforts for improvement—I would stand with them. Unfortunately, that’s too rarely been the case. Instead, their schools, teachers and children are branded as failures and support is withdrawn from the schools. Low scores have been used to promote a privatization agenda, often by people who care more about crippling “government schools” and teachers unions than in helping children—something many of us believed was the primary agenda behind No Child Left Behind in the first place.
This article appears in Aug 20-26, 2015.

Yeah, and driver’s tests, medical school tests, pilot tests…
Nope, not “no standards,” just better standards, more meaningful standards — not the crap standards invented and re-invented by for-profit test companies run by non-educators, which is what we’ve had since the onset of NCLB. Read Georgia Cole Brousseau’s excellent comment on this article:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/08/21/an-update-on-high-stakes-test-cheating-stories
or Betty Cooper Sanchez here:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/08/17/should-teachers-with-high-achieving-students-get-better-teacher-evaluations-and-what-is-the-national-council-on-teacher-quality
When you want to understand the actual results of our inappropriate federal policies for students and teachers in our schools, it’s best to listen to PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS, not politicians or corporate hacks.
A recommended read: Richard Rothstein’s Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right.
MCLB was authored by Ted Kennedy. Why didn’t education oppose him when it was created?
For years, critics of high-stakes testing were marginalized in this grand “reform” movement. Educators’ expertise was unwanted and pushed aside, along with the wishes of parents. In addition to committed educators, I credit the parents’ opt-out movement with forcing the issue to be examined and debated; something that should have been done from the beginning, but was not.
What I find discouraging is that the opt-out movement has real traction in other states, but not in Arizona. To be sure, the AZ Dept. of Ed., has done its share of damage. Even under Douglas, ADE has continued its policy of insisting that schools test children against the wishes of their parents. Not a pretty picture. Government and business leaders insist that Arizona law does not allow parents to opt-out. Baloney.
ARS sec. 15-113(A) says: “A parent who objects to any learning material or activity on the basis that the material or activity is harmful may request to withdraw that student from the activity or from the class or program in which the material is used and request an alternative assignment.”
Parents who want change to this high-stakes testing regime need to do their part. Only by throwing a wrench in the machine has the debate started. Now it must continue.
It was NCLB, Rat, not MCLB. That program was a compromise between George Bush and Ted Kennedy and was praised by many as a bi-partisan effort to improve education by those who are not educators. Turned out they were wrong. A lot of educators were skeptical at the beginning, and as it developed, we called it “No Child Left Untested.”
My bad. I refer to it as Moist Children LEFT Behind.
I guess that you have all now had a chance to find out that Common Core was not written by state governors. It was written by lobbyists paid by Bill Gates.
Thus the total dependence on computer training.
Corporate whores.
The new Common Core Science Program has changed it’s name to Next Generation Science. Apparently they are tired of hearing complaints about Common Core and thought they could fool you.
Next time they tell you that it is state led, ask for a list of state officials, from education to government that worked on it. While they are shuffling papers ask them how much of tax payer money was appropriated to it.
Take that info to the State Treasurer and see if it’s true. You will be surprised, but states had nothing to do with this.
You’re so right Rat T. I was told it was also funded by the Carnegie Foundation. They have altered your child’s education and they are accountable to nobody.