Test reduction plan should earn high marks

“How’d you do on the test?”

Opinion

We’ve all asked or answered that question during our time in school. In fact, for many of us, it was a common question from grade school through college.

The recent announcement by Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder of her recommendations to reduce the testing load on our schools was met with great relief by the teachers and administrators who give these tests. It offers a cautionary tale about the dangers of both too many tests, and more importantly, too many changes in testing that can harm the state’s ability to see long-term trends.

“I have heard the concerns of educators, parents, and students about the need to reduce the burden of testing,” Degenfelder said. “As a result, I am proposing this plan to reduce and streamline the state assessment system while still maintaining the academic rigor we need to provide valuable insight into student learning.”

So let’s start by asking, what purpose does testing serve?

Testing is performed for a number of reasons, all of which have varying degrees of importance to the overall quality of our students’ education and the efficacy of our public schools.

The first is by far the most important, which is the assessment of students’ individual learning. This form of testing serves as a tool for teachers to assess how well children have learned material being taught to them. It allows the teacher to know if students need additional instruction or if the class is prepared to move forward with new subjects.

This leads to the next purpose for testing, which is the ability to improve guided instruction delivered in the classroom. Tests help individual teachers understand how well their teaching practices are working in classrooms. They can use this to make changes to ensure the best possible results.

For instance, if test results show a significant number of students are struggling in a particular area, teachers can adjust their lesson plans to change instruction to revisit and reinforce that area. And if the test shows students are proficient, teachers can introduce more advanced material to challenge them further. In this way, testing can help teachers improve their own instruction in the classroom. This is a good thing.

Testing also ensures accountability of the system overall. Testing children across decades gives communities, the state, the Legislature and taxpayers an idea of how well our public schools are performing. I am very much in favor of some form of accountability testing, particularly in a form maintained over decades to help generate longitudinal data. While some balk at the idea of accountability, it is a necessary tool to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent to garner the results we all want to see. No service can go without some form of accountability — education included.

While Degenfelder’s proposals don’t appear to pose a significant threat to long-term testing trends, there is a danger to frequently changing testing methods: There’s not enough time for data points to develop and show real patterns that can be seen and fixed through improved public policy.

Public policy is an offshoot of accountability and something that many legislators tend to think is the most important outcome of testing. But it isn’t really, because while it can help to guide specific policy in a problem area, it can too often be used to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Leaving schools to administer the same tests over a long period of time will in the end create a stable set of data points that can help states understand their biggest challenge to delivering high-quality education — which is often themselves.

Testing is a necessary part of the public education process, both for students, teachers and parents, and for policy makers and taxpayers as well. But too much testing does nothing to actually improve educational outcomes overall. Like too much regulation in childcare, too much testing does not mean more prepared students. And in the end, the goal is for children to learn.

This is why Degenfelder’s new proposal has been well received by teachers, administrators, parents and students.

Degenfelder’s recommendation includes reducing the number of items on grades three to eight math assessments, which will reduce the amount of time students spend taking the test. She would also remove the K-2 interim assessments and the grade three writing assessments. Additionally, she wants to change the grade nine assessments from required to optional and reformat the high school assessments.

Outside of the removal of a grade three writing assessment (which I would argue is an important measure of a critical skill at that grade level), these new measures appear to be a common-sense way to help schools focus on learning and not just testing.

Future legislatures would do well to remember that while testing is an important measure for public policy and accountability, it won’t provide immediate results. Testing needs to remain consistent to ensure long-term measurements are in place that will guide lawmakers to needed policy changes.

Degenfelder’s proposals must go before the Wyoming Board of Education, but will most likely be approved this fall. For parents and teachers, this will be a welcome change in 2025.

The post Test reduction plan should earn high marks appeared first on WyoFile .