Excessive testing undermines schools' work

By Edward J. McElroy
AFT President

Since passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), educators have grown increasingly frustrated with the poor quality and excessive number of standardized tests they are required to give. More than 80 percent of AFT members agree that “there is too much testing,” according to a recent survey of AFT’s teachers. An even greater number (87 percent) say testing “has pushed other important subjects and activities out of the curriculum.”

So how did we get to the point where standardized tests are being over-prescribed and misused? At the core of the problem seems to be a sort of bureaucratic inertia that has led to the layering of tests. As new tests are created, old tests are rarely eliminated. Years into the standards movement, many students take tests that are standardized but not aligned to standards. Teachers and paraprofessionals must deal not only with the state reading and math tests mandated by NCLB in grades 3 through 8, but also other state tests and city or school district tests. Some school districts require teachers to give periodic benchmark tests to determine which students and subject areas need more attention before the year-end test. States and school districts periodically update their tests, sometimes setting aside additional test days to field-test new questions, a practice that benefits the test-makers but does nothing for the test-takers, who lose valuable instruction time.

In a quick inspection of testing practices in New York City, Pittsburgh and Hartford, the AFT’s educational issues department found one district giving five different tests for kindergartners; second-graders required to take a test not aligned with state standards; and third-graders spending more than 10 days on testing (local, state and field).

The problems with over-testing are not limited to those three districts. At a recent meeting of state federation presidents, AFT executive vice president Antonia Cortese asked participants to name the most troubling problem in our members’ professional lives. The answer that came back again and again was “too much testing.” And a recent survey by the Texas Federation of Teachers found that some respondents are required to use precious class time for standardized benchmark tests as often as once a week.

These surveys and reports tell us what the problem is, but they do not tell us to how maximize instruction time, which tests to eliminate or how to make better use of test results. And while the AFT is not yet ready to make full-fledged recommendations about what constitutes a smart-testing approach, we have created a professional development course to help teachers make better use of assessments. Also, our educational issues staff is beginning to identify questions that might be asked as policymakers work toward a solution. Here are a few:

■ Should districts continue local tests even as the state increases its testing?

■ Could we increase instructional time for students by eliminating the time spent taking tests that are not aligned with state standards?

■ Are parents, school staff and school officials getting meaningful information from test scores that can help improve teaching? Or are the scores used only to sift and sort students?

■ Is the emphasis on high-stakes testing and test preparation robbing students of time to learn history, civics, music, foreign languages, arts, physical education and other subjects?

■ Can field-test questions be folded into existing tests rather than given on a separate date?

By examining and reporting how states and districts use standardized tests, the AFT can shine a light on this serious problem.

Our organization set the standards for the standards movement, persuading even states where we had few members to adopt academic standards based on our criteria. Now we plan to use our influence to draw attention to the misuse and overuse of standardized tests.

First, in February, we will launch a training program to help members in several states make better use of student test results and differentiate between standards-based tests and less useful tests. Second, we will provide state and local leaders with tool kits to help persuade legislators and local school board members to re-evaluate testing policies. Third, this fall we will release an evaluation of each state’s progress—or lack of progress—in adopting smart testing practices.

The slow buildup of layer after layer of standardized tests took place over many years, and it will not disappear overnight. But, by harnessing the energy and experience of our members, the AFT can decrease the time students spend testing and increase the time they spend learning.