Second Grade Testing: A Position Paper - Part 1

Second Grade Testing: A Position Paper

Posted August 20th, 2007 by fairtest 

in 

• fact sheets
 
• k-12

Brenda S. Engel, Lesley College

This position paper outlines reasons to oppose standardized testing of second
graders and then suggests a viable alternative.

A. Primary school children and standardized testing

1. Tests of children in grade two are likely to be unreliable. Walt Haney of Boston College's Center for the Study of Testing, for instance, says, Test results for young children are much less reliable than for older children. Research clearly shows that for children below fourth grade, the mechanics of taking tests and answering on specialized answer sheets can prove more difficult than the cognitive tasks the tests are asking them to address. Thus the test results are too much influenced by children's ability to fill in bubbles and handle pieces of paper; too little determined by their ability to read.

2. Related to the above point is the evident fact that standardized tests are scary for primary school children, bad for their morale and confidence. Overwhelmed by the test situation, they often don t show what they do know and can do. Instances of children breaking down, crying, unable to face school, becoming literally sick with anxiety in the face of standardized tests, are common. Most teachers in the early grades understand the importance of maintaining their students level of interest and high morale, both of which tend to be undone by tests. The National Association for the Education of Young Children has, for a number of years, come out against standardized testing of young children for some of these same reasons.

3. Most seven-year-olds are still in the process of acquiring the complex skills involved in learning to read and write. They need a chance to consolidate these skills which, at first, are fragile and inconsistent. Premature testing, no matter how well intentioned, is discouraging to the learner like having a work-in-progress exposed to summary judgment. And no matter how well intentioned the tests, no matter what the disclaimers or reassurances, the results will be understood by the children as judgment.

4. Differences in background show up vividly in the early years of schooling: some children arrive in school never having actually handled a book or in some cases seen one close up; others have had books read to them since infancy. These differences tend to diminish in the face of their common school experience. Narrowing the gap between the more and less advantaged students is one of the great potentials of the public school system. Premature testing, however, by highlighting differences, will reinforce them in the minds of children. Young children are not likely to have the kind of perspective that allows them to see the possibility of catching up . Since they always know who did well and who did badly children will sort themselves out accordingly. They will be likely to characterize themselves relative to their classmates as good readers (like fast runners ) or bad readers (like slow runners ). The early identification some poor testers will make of themselves as academic losers will be difficult at the very least to undo later.

B. Effects on teachers and schools

1. Teachers of kindergarten, first, second and third grades know very well, from their ordinary classroom activities, which children are learning to read and write with relatively little difficulty and which need extra help. Evaluation is part and parcel of daily instruction, a built-in function. When an outside agency takes over the responsibility for evaluation, however, the teacher loses both autonomy and confidence in his or her own expertise and trustworthiness. We convey to the teacher the disrespectful message that we do not trust her/him to evaluate student progress. The hazard, then, is that teachers abdicate responsibility for assessing learning and rely for instructional guidance on the relatively thin, out-of-context and delayed information contained in the test results.

2. Some teachers, in order to prepare students for answering questions on short reading passages, will use more work sheets and drill students on skills and vocabulary out of context. In competition for good scores on the reading tests, teachers will feel pressure to improve students testable skills. The curriculum in reading, then, is likely to become dry and mechanical with little time given to the kinds of rich reading and writing experiences that can hook children on books forever, with little effort made toward developing true literary cultures in the classroom. Reading will become a boring, meaningless, academic performance for most children although, again, less for those fortunate enough to have had an early introduction to the pleasures of literature.

In sum, the proposed second grade testing is the result of a pervasive and, in our opinion, mistaken belief that the solutions to perceived low school achievement are more testing, longer hours and more home work, .all of which are likely to be felt by children as burdens. These presumed solutions are not only inappropriate for young children but will prove counter-productive for both teaching and learning.

That, then, is the bad news. There is some good news, however, since we do believe it important to keep close track of children's reading ability in the early grades. The Early Literacy Assessment (ELA) developed in the Cambridge, Massachusetts Public Schools, provides an alternative to which the above objections don't pertain and which still meets the need for valid, reliable information on second grade reading.