Standardized Testing: Think about a Sports Analogy

Prevalent Testing

Some kids do not do well on standardized tests. They lose their trim so to speak. (See above.) They might be anxious. They might think differently. The “a to d” choices are confining, not liberating, for some types of thinkers/learners. Some students might not have slept the day of the test. Or, perhaps they were hungry. Or perhaps they witnessed family dysfunction. Maybe, just maybe, they think through and past the questions, making a simple answer impossible to find. And perhaps there is hidden bias in the questions, making it harder for some students to “get” it right.

Yet, kids take over 100 standardized tests between PreK through 12th grade. Ponder that number. Read it again.

Teachers, not all of them to be sure, question the utility of abundant standardized testing. They wonder about the time these tests take and that includes prep time and post test decompression. They know they, the teachers, are being judged by their students’ scores. And let’s be clear: test scores are not keyed to measure progress; they measure against a set benchmark. If you are below that mark, it doesn’t seem to matter that the growth in learning increased. And how about teaching to the test?

The Pandemic Pause

The debate about testing was made clearer during the Pandemic when standardized testing was put on hold. And, this is key: educators found amazing alternative forms of assessment, as detailed in our new book, Mending Education, recently released and published by Teachers College Press.

Importantly, the educators and students benefited from the pause on these tests. Sadly, when schools returned to brick and mortar in-person learning, the pause on these tests was lifted. And back we went to the past.

It is in this context that some educators in Massachusetts have sponsored a ballot initiative in 2024 to stop standardized tests as the key requirement for high school graduation. As the proponents assert, there are lots of ways to measure competency for graduation. Standardized tests are but one.

Now, the elimination of testing worries some folks. It eradicates standards, or so the argument goes. We need data and these tests are data. We want competency and these tests can be seen as measuring that. Forget that data put are only as good as data in. Just saying…..

The Sports Analogy

Here’s a new way to think about testing for those who can benefit from a sports analogy. In the drafting of players in professional sports, we quest for predictability so choices will produce results. It’s expensive to make drafting mistakes. And despite efforts, predicting success has been elusive. There are many oops moments.

Now, in assessing quarterbacks, a mental test has been used, designed to gauge the capacity for speedy decision making and quick reaction time and capacity to see options. In a world where we want certainty, these tests have (until recently) held sway. Both the NYTimes and WSJ have chimed in on this assessment tool.

The test value held sway until this happened. Initially, there was a lauding of Bryce Young and his very high mental test score and loud criticism of CJ Stroud and his dismal score (so low it could and should have been negated). Guess what?

The score wasn’t a predictor. Bryce Young had an awful rookie year and that is being kind. He was out of his league so to speak. And CJ Stroud: he was remarkable and led with team into the playoffs with aplomb. He was named the NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. Yup. The test didn’t measure up …. Among other things, it didn’t seem to measure creativity and sports know how and on the field presence and leadership.

Now, to be fair, teams don’t judge by a single factor like a test score. But, when assessing potential in QBs pre-draft, many smart folks were quick to crown Young and demean Stroud. And poor Stroud was repeatedly dealing with having been deemed a dummy. Ponder that. Talk about a chip on his shoulder — more like a huge chunk.

There’s a lesson here. The mental test for QB’s may be helpful but it is far from perfect. Let’s say it has a risk factor of 20%. That means that it fails in measuring talent for 2 out of 10 QBs. And that percentage might be about right.

What if we transport this idea to standardized test scores to measure high school competency? Two out of ten students (using an analogy) would not be deemed competent. They would not graduate. But what, if like Stroud, a particular test did not measure capacity or competence? Yipes. That’s a whole bunch of students across America who wouldn’t be deemed “competent.”

In Sum

There is real positives to the ballot initiative in MA. Bravo and brava. Let’s see what happens come November. That ballot item has my vote. Go Stroud.