Why STAAR is an inaccurate measure of student achievement and growth

With the advent of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a new era of standardized testing was ushered in. I could discuss the problems associated with tying funding to test results, but I'm devoting this entry to the unfair and often inaccurate process involved with these high-stakes tests.

Let's look at the unfair aspect first. Students are given a content area test each day of the testing window. They are overly stressed for two reasons. First, so much emphasis is placed on these tests that students are often overly stressed, some to the point of becoming physically ill. Second, we tell students over and over how important it is that they do their very best, leading to heightened anxiety. My question is, how can we expect our students to perform well under these circumstances? In a sense, we set them up for failure, and it all stems from the pressure placed on teachers and administrators.

Now, let's look at the inaccuracies that can be found in the testing results. First, there are, without question, students who show up ill on the day of the test. It goes without saying that the scores from those students will most likely not reflect their true abilities and are, thereby, inaccurate.  Second, and probably more importantly, is that these tests provide a very narrow glimpse of what the student has achieved. Because of test anxiety, a student's having a bad morning, and other related issues, that glimpse of ability may not truly reflect what a student is truly capable of.

To put this into perspective, our testing system is tantamount to judging a farmer on his crops without taking into account drought, pest infestation, and the like. Further, the one size fits all testing can be likened to asking an elephant, a monkey, a giraffe, and a turtle to climb the same tree.

It's time we eliminate these high-stakes tests in favor of a Spring evaluation such as the ITBS or CAT 5 as measures of growth. These tests in conjunction with periodic content testing (every 6 or 9 weeks) are more than enough to gauge success. Companies such as Pearson will vehemently disagree, but we should focus on what's best for our students and not on lining the pockets of big corporations.