Learning Assessment and Accountability

¶ … Responsibly," by Richard J. Shavel and Leta Huang, I find that I very much agree with the theme of this article. The primary point that the authors are conveying is that testing has become not so much about reflecting an accurate picture of what students are learning and retaining, but more about the test itself -- testing for testing's sake.

As the authors put it, "From high-stakes testing in K-12 education...we know full well that what you test is what you get because teachers will teach to the test." (p. 11) The problem, as the authors see it, is that everyone has lost sight of what the goals and objectives of testing are -- or should be. Teachers will absolutely teach to a test because it is in results that funding lies. The authors of this article propose a rather ingenious solution.

The framework they offer would have schools look at testing objectives much as a for-profit business looks at its business objectives, with outcomes that are "focused and readily measurable." (p. 12) This framework begins, and rightly so, with arguing that all schools (the focus of this framework is primarily concerned with higher education) are different in their student and faculty makeup, curriculum, teaching methods, student-to-faculty ratios, and so on.

What I found particularly interesting about the framework the authors propose is that they include measuring what they call "personal and social outcomes" (p. 12) in addition to traditional testing areas, such as learning skills and the application of knowledge. Their framework would also measure such things as empathy, compassion, integrity, and social responsibility. Yes, it is important that students be tested.