High-Stakes Flimflam

It's quite remarkable to see how a really smart, passionate guy like Bob Herbert can write such an amazing Op Ed one week (last week's column on teacher quality and charter schools: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-schools-must-do-better.html) and then lay such a goose egg today.  He appears to have spoken with a grand total of one person -- an ed school professor; gee, I wonder what that guy's going to say about testing and NCLB?! -- and then he misconstrues a Fordham Institute report (http://edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=376).  Here's the Fordham Institute's rebuttal/letter to the editor:

Why Bob Herbert is wrong
 
We’re gratified that Bob Herbert wrote about  our report, The Proficiency Illusion, in his recent New York Times  column <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09herbert.html?hp>  (High Stakes Flimflam, October 9, 2007).  But while he’s right that our study found that some state tests used under No  Child Left Behind are creating “a false impression of success,” he erred in concluding that the solution is getting rid of testing. That’s like reacting to the Enron accounting scandal by calling for the end of accounting. The  answer is not to throw out testing, but to do testing right, with expectations that are consistent from state to state, grade to grade, subject to subject, and over time, and that prepare students for college and work. High stakes testing may not be a “panacea,” but abandoning it won’t help to solve our schools’ problems, either.
 
Michael Petrilli,
Vice President
Thomas B. Fordham  Institute

I'm glad Herbert raised the issue of testing because, while I've written about it in the past, I don't think I've ever raised this crucial point: it would be one thing if the critics of testing called for better tests and measures to discourage cheating/gaming -- I agree! -- but never, not once, have I ever heard a critic of testing call for this.  So I can only assume that these critics are opposed to all testing.  
 
This is a totally moronic, indefensible point of view.  How, pray tell, are parents, teachers, principals and taxpayers supposed to know if children are learning anything if, at some point, they're not tested!?  For a much more thoughtful view of testing, here's the Washington Post's Jay Mathews ("Let's Teach to the Test"): http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/07/lets-teach-to-test.html
 
I think the people opposed to all testing fall into five camps: a) those who think tests are cruel/harmful to children (gimme a break!); b) those who think tests can never capture what real learning is about (gimme another break!); 3) those who don't understand how bad things are and think an increased focus on testing is harming the great learning that was going on previously (what planet are they on?); 4) those who don't understand how big, complex systems work and the need to have robust accountability systems; and 5) (this is the biggest one) those who hate the idea of accountability and like the system just the way it is.

--------------------
October 9, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
High-Stakes Flimflam
By BOB HERBERT
www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09herbert.html <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09herbert.html>

It’s time to rein in the test zealots who have gotten such a stranglehold on the public schools in the U.S.