KEVIN CORMIER: Rebranding standardized testing

Across Massachusetts, public schools are engaged in standardized testing. Opinions about testing range from eager anticipation of a validation of learning, to a tepid dismissal as a matter of a necessary evil, to pure visceral hatred and borderline clinical anxiety.

And that’s just the students.

Standardized tests can certainly use a rebranding. However, the tests can still be presented as a positive in that they help to hold school districts accountable for their impact on students, and to build more equity across districts despite differences in demographics.

With the Every Student Succeeds Act, Massachusetts has more choice as to which other factors, in addition to tests, should best measure the success of our schools. Should ESSA survive the tumult of Washington politics, here are some steps we can take to deliver a new message:

Early grades are about progress: The point at which the test becomes a graduation requirement — in Massachusetts, that is the tenth-grade test — will have to remain “high-stakes”. However, in the elementary and middle grades, the emphasis should be on progress and growth. Overemphasis on achievement on one test at the end of the year can undo all of the work teachers do with students on a daily basis to promote a growth mindset, to not fear failing, and to take intellectual risks.

Not all standards are created equal: One problem with state frameworks is that the standards are chunked together by strand and listed in a book. What they don’t have is a value system or a recommended timeline. Although Massachusetts did not adopt PARCC, we did use some elements in the structure of the new state tests. One thing PARCC did well with their math standards was to identify how “important” each standard was to that year of instruction; some standards were only to be introduced, while others were expected to be taught to mastery for the next school year. Of course, the value on the craft of teaching is still of utmost importance. There are 180 school days in a year, but testing often happens around day 140. One class of students could perform poorly on, say, the geometry portion of the test because one teacher taught it at the end of the year, while another held off on scientific notation.

Now, imagine if we were able to do that as a state. Cut testing to one day, and make it clear that (for example) these five standards are the power standards that must be taught, and that’s all the test will be covering. Five standards, three questions each, and that’s it. It still offers opportunity to collect data, but is less intrusive. Couple that with lessened weight in an evaluation process (both for individual educators and school districts), and you could see a shift in attitudes.

There are many other factors to consider as well. Equitable funding is becoming a higher-profile issue across the country, including here in Massachusetts, where we rank at the top in academic achievement, but 48th in measures of inequality. Discussions about teacher retention and burnout, professional development opportunities, more intense focus on social-emotional learning, and other intangibles are all part and parcel to the future success of educators and students.

In 2017, we all have a lot to worry about. If standardized testing is going to remain in our lives, let’s do what we can to move it much lower on that list.

Kevin Cormier teaches seventh- and eighth-grade math at Nissitissit Middle School in Pepperell. He is a a Teach Plus Commonwealth Teaching Policy Fellow.