Testing Plus: Real Accountability with Real Results

As we enter into a national debate on school improvement and greater public school accountability with a heavy emphasis on testing, educators are concerned that a solitary focus on testing ignores important opportunities to help all students achieve at high levels. Over-reliance on testing could have the unintended consequence of hurting more than helping.

NEA proposes Testing Plus -- well-crafted accountability measures that gauge and promote real achievement. The issue is not -- to test or not to test. Students are subject to an array of standardized and teacher developed tests each year. The key question is, "How do we help students achieve, rather than hurting them?" Instead of just applying more tests, NEA calls for smarter testing that also provides students and schools the tools they need to succeed. Such a program includes:

More thorough measures. Schools are complex organizations. It takes improvement in many areas to make an effective school. Multiple indicators (dropout rates, absenteeism, number of students taking advanced placement courses, parental involvement, etc.) would help guide progress toward becoming an excellent school. 

Improved tests and assessments. While the state of the art in testing has progressed tremendously, they remain less than perfect measures of student or school progress. A new generation of instructionally supportive tests is needed. These tests need to be developed in cooperation with teachers and based upon the essential standards such that test results become more useful to the teacher in assisting each student achieve those standards. Classroom assessment practices including the use of portfolios, projects, and performance assessments should also be enhanced through professional development and included in the comprehensive state assessment system.

Comprehensive reporting to parents. Currently, school report cards and pupil report cards are the primary methods of communicating with parents. We call for the expansion of school report data to include (and use) information on the multiple indicators of success and not rely solely on standardized test scores. This could be supplemented by regular reports based upon teacher observation, judgment, and student work samples.

Alternatives to a test as the sole means of accountability. Examples of other accountability systems include school accreditation, visiting teams, and displays of student work to the public. States, school districts, and schools should use multiple indicators of school effectiveness to make improvement decisions at each level. Test scores give little data to improve school operation. 

Targeted professional development. In order to succeed in a standards-based program, teachers need continued professional development targeted toward specific skills and knowledge. 

Focused investments. Teachers report inadequate availability of instructional materials that are aligned to the standards. Focused investments on materials, professional development, and supplemental programs of instruction are necessary to assist teachers and students. 

Testing Checklist: Real Accountability -- What Does It Take?

Testing Plus
Real accountability incorporates the tenets of Testing Plus defined above. Testing Plus provides a broader picture of student progress by using multiple indicators of learning. Most important, Testing Plus provides students, parents, and teachers with the support and resources required to meet higher standards. A school system that is not accountable for providing continuous, high quality resources for school communities has no business holding students and teachers accountable for performance on tests.

Protection Against High-stakes Decisions Based on a Single Test

A nationwide survey conducted by Education Week shows that 11 states identify low-performing schools solely on the basis of test scores. Decisions that affect individual students' life chances or educational opportunities must not be made on the basis of test scores alone. As New York Times columnist Richard Rothstein notes—a baseball player's batting average is never computed based on one game. Accuracy requires that students have multiple opportunities to pass any test when the test results are used to make high-stakes decisions, such as promotion to the next grade or graduation from high school. More importantly, when there is valid evidence that a test score may not accurately reflect a student's true proficiency, predetermined alternatives to demonstrate ability to meet standards should be available to students. Absent such protections, school districts have suffered high dropout rates and degradation in the quality of curriculum. "We could realize significant progress in public education if proponents of standards-based reform joined hands with critics of high-stakes testing and effectively outlawed the use of high-stakes tests as sole indicators of student success," says Panasonic Foundation executive Scott Thompson in a Phi Delta Kappan article.

Adequate Resources and Opportunity To Learn

It's important that the testing cart not be placed before the curriculum and opportunity-to-learn horse. When content standards and tests are introduced as a reform to improve current practice, teachers must have ample opportunity to access professional development and appropriate resources, before schools, teachers, or students are sanctioned for failing to meet the new standards. According to a National Assessment of Title I study, only 40 percent of the schools identified as needing improvement last school year reported receiving additional teacher professional development or other help. Extra learning opportunities and remediation programs for students are imperatives to achieving true accountability.

Clarity in Passing Scores and Achievement Levels

Because the law permits each state to create its own accountability system and its own definition of progress, huge differences in the numbers and percentages of schools identified as low-performing exist across states. For example, Texas identifies only 1 percent of its Title I schools as "in need of improvement," while Michigan identified 76 percent. Worse, many schools are unaware that they have been identified as low-performing. Only four in 10 principals of schools identified as needing improvement reported their status as such. 

The purpose and meaning of passing scores or achievement levels must be clearly stated and understood. Terms like "passing" and "proficient" must be clear and defined according to specific goals. Setting scoring levels such as "minimum competency," "grade level achievement," and "world-class" should be based on educational principles. The consequences of failing to meet levels should be clear.

Coordinated System of Tests and Assessments

Tests that are valid for one use may well not be valid for another purpose. Each separate use of a high-stakes test for individual achievement, school evaluation, curriculum improvement or any other purpose must be evaluated in order to determine the strengths and limitations of the testing program and the test itself. In addition, before simply adding another required test for all students in all schools, a systematic inventory of current testing programs and tests should be conducted. The information gathered would enable the development of a coherent coordinated system that will routinely let teachers, students and parents know how students are doing academically and provide teachers, school administrators and elected decision-makers with accurate data upon which to base policy.

Full Disclosure of Negative Consequences

Before imposing new required testing, policymakers should be aware of the likely unintended negative side effects of any given testing program. Test developers and users have a responsibility to explain the possible harmful effects in all cases where solid scientific evidence exists that a given type of program may produce undesirable results, such as higher dropout rates. It is essential to assure ongoing evaluation of both intended and unintended consequences. Fairness suggests that the governmental body that mandates the test should also provide resources to help all kids meet high standards.

Alignment of Tests to Standards

Tests must be better aligned to essential standards in order to produce valid and reliable results. In its Quality Counts 2001 study, Education Week reports that an analysis by Achieve, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Mass., shows that the state standards and tests are not closely enough aligned. Current state tests "tend to measure some standards but not others and to emphasize the less demanding knowledge and skills in state standards."

Recognition of Differences and Disabilities

In the interest of assessment accuracy, testing programs must take into account student differences. For students who are learning English, a test written in English becomes, to one degree or another, a test of language proficiency. The degree of English language proficiency must be considered in deciding to administer the test. In testing students, the effects of their differences must be appropriately weighed in drawing conclusions from the test results.

Explicit Rules for Determining Students To Be Tested

There must be clear policies identifying which students are to be tested and under what circumstances students may be exempted. Without such policies, there cannot be any meaningful comparison of schools, districts or states when changes are tracked over time. The American Education Research Association states, "Such policies must be uniformly enforced to assure the validity of score comparisons. In addition, reporting of test score results should accurately portray the percentage of students exempted."