New Jersey Commissioner Suggests Eliminating Some Tests [for grades 4, 8 and 11]

The NY Times ^ | Feb. 8, 2002 | Ronald Smothers

[summer]

This "trend" sounds like it's in the complete opposite direction from what has been happening in FL. In fact, FL is expanding testing to include science.

And, didn't a school district in Westchester NY just tell parents they can not take their kids out of school to avoid tests?
<br. So, what "trend" is NJ following?

[summer]

FYI. :)

[umgud]

So, what trend is NJ following?

The defence of the act of dumbing down education.

[cksharks]

Didnt the education bill say that if they dont test they will not get any loot?

[David]

The events that have had the most to do with forming local political will to improve the education system are credible tests. In response to early tests that show how poorly the US Education system is doing, the educators responded that comparison with off shore systems is unfair because off shore, the weeding out process starts earlier leaving a more talented student body which can thus be expected to produce better scores than we do.

Now, we are embarked on an effort at several levels to determine what if anything, our students are really learning. One helpful piece of information in any individual district is how its students are doing compared to other US districts. Early returns suggest that our students are not learning very much and that districts that emphasize a structured curriculeum with performance standards are doing better than districts with fuzzy creative programs.

Of course the teacher's unions and educators want to get rid of standardized tests.

[VietVet]

It is opposite of the trend in MD, also, although in MD, the number of subjects tested for increases from elementary to middle to high school. I think that for elementary schools, the tests are just for Reading, and Arithmetic.

[BlackElk]

If that is true, then that Westchester school district must be operating under a different SCOTUS than the rest of us because by a 7-2 vote in 1924 or so SCOTUS ruled in Pierce vs. The Society of Sisters that parents and not the government would decide where children would be educated in public schools, private schools, parochial schools or otherwise so long as there was an equivalent regimen as to basics like English, Math and whatnot. That case has turned into a Magna Carta for homeschoolers.

[summer]

From the NYT Archives:

METROPOLITAN DESK | April 20, 2001 $
In Scarsdale, Debate on Tests Masks Much Bigger Issues
By LISA W. FODERARO (NYT) 1065 words

On the surface, the issue is testing. That is, just how much time schools here should spend preparing for state tests and even whether students should...

METROPOLITAN DESK | April 13, 2001 $
In High-Scoring Scarsdale, A Revolt Against State Tests
By KATE ZERNIKE (NYT) 1221 words
Parents and school officials in this affluent suburb, where test scores are among the highest not only in the state but also in the nation, are planni...

METROPOLITAN DESK / October 31, 2001
Scarsdale Warned Not to Boycott State Tests

[summer]

If you do a search on the NYT, you will see more info about the last article, where school officials warned the parents not to boycott again. For some reason unknown to me, my browser does not copy the rest of the abstract on that article, but the date and title is correct, as above.

[RightOnline]

Their recent test results were devastating to the black and Hispanic communities. Their kids did horribly, and these respective communities refuse to take responsibility for the failure of their children in academics. They won't even consider the "cultural" influences on their kids, and they howled when their children experienced failure rates of well-over 40%.

So...............what is an educrat to do??? OH!!! Well, we'll simply do away with the tests!!!! THAT'S the ticket!!! I mean, after all...........if you sweep a floor's filth under the rug, no one has to look at it, do they?????

[summer]

You know, I remember taking tests as a student in the public school system. No big deal. And throughout life, students will take tests -- to get into college, graduate school, public servant jobs, etc. The huge outcry against "tests" is rather misplaced, in my view as a teacher. Students DO need to learn how to take tests, and DO need to be assessed in their learning.

The underlying problem, as I see it, is that these educrats can not figure out to take ALL components into account: (1) clearly stating learning objectives (as FL has done, online, for all to see); (2) obtaining materials aligned with such objectives (this is often a problem, as to teach the objectives you want materials that assist IN THESE objectives), and (3) testing on the learning OF THESE STATED OBJECTIVES.

It's not such a big deal if you get all these parts on the table. Teachers go ballistic because they often feel their students are given a test when they teacher has no idea from Day 1 what material covered by that test, so their teaching is hit and miss - maybe they will cover the material, and maybe they won't. If administrators would open the lines of communication with TEACHERS more, this whole testing outcry would blow over.

[summer]

I meant to type: when the teacher has no idea from Day 1 what material will be covered by that test,

[summer]

BTW, at first I thought:

This editorial, in today's NY Post, clarifies what is really happening with NJ schools:

JERSEY'S SCHOOLS SURRENDER

By NEIL J. KRESSEL

February 9, 2002 -- In the wake of Sept. 11, the next generation of Americans will need to expand its expertise in two key areas.

First, it will need to develop its scientific excellence.

Second, it will need a deeper, illusion-free understanding of world affairs.

To prevail in whatever comes our way, Americans will need a clear technological edge and the wisdom to implement medical, military and other technologies in the right place at the right time.

So what has New Jersey's new education commissioner, Dr. William Librera, done to face these new challenges? Launched a bold new initiative to eliminate state tests in social studies and science.

Other officials across the nation have spouted similarly ill-conceived schemes. They are particularly popular with the teachers' unions.

New Jersey's commissioner says he is fulfilling Gov. McGreevey's pledge to rein in standardized testing. Such testing, the governor claims, is just too stressful for students, and it discourages "creative" teaching.

Standardized exams lead teachers to "prep for the test" instead of motivating students with less traditional but more exciting approaches. Anti-testing educators also worry that the struggle for high scores creates too much competition among school districts.

It's all nonsense - designed to shield ineffective teachers and under-educated students.

Competition, after all, is the engine that has driven the American economy for centuries. It's equally effective as a motivator for students, teachers and administrators.

Nobody likes to see a child writhing in the throes of test anxiety. But one of the things a kid needs to learn in school is how to handle such stress. Life, after all, will provide plenty in later years.

And without standardized tests, how do we know that so-called creative teachers with their "innovative" strategies are actually imparting anything of value?

Ironically, opponents of science and social studies testing justify their schemes, in part, by citing the need to comply with tough new federal requirements for math and language testing. Yet this was hardly the intention of those who drafted the national guidelines.

At present, American graduate schools in the sciences and engineering are loaded with overseas students, many who plan on returning home to their countries of origin.

And few would argue that the typical American student's understanding of foreign languages, geography and cultures is anything other than abysmal.

We desperately need quality science and social-studies instruction in the public schools. But without a serious program of standardized testing, we'll never know if we have that.

My guess: We don't.

Neil J. Kressel (kresseln@wpunj.edu) is a social psychology professor at William Paterson University of New Jersey.

[summer]

However, then I read this editorial in today's NYT -- and, I've now concluded:

What is actually happening in NJ is that they are settling a major lawsuit. And, to prevent being sued again on these same grounds, they are eliminating testing in the future as often as they can:

NYT - February 9, 2002

A Truce in New Jersey's School War

James McGreevey took office as New Jersey's governor less than a month ago, but he has already made history by moving to settle one of the most bitterly fought education lawsuits in America. After 20 years of foot-dragging and obfuscation by governors and legislators of both parties, Mr. McGreevey has told the state's Supreme Court that he will abide by the court's rulings in Abbott v. Burke. That suit, which challenged the state for failing to provide poor children with a quality education, may be the most significant education case since the Supreme Court's desegregation ruling nearly 50 years ago.

Mr. McGreevey's decision to institute the ruling should clear the air on this racially charged issue and set New Jersey on the road to full educational opportunity in 30 underprivileged districts.

In the last decade, nearly 20 states have been jolted by court decisions ordering them to provide poor and minority students with equal access to quality schools. Most were based on state constitutions requiring an adequate education. Suits are pending in a dozen states, including New York and California. In Connecticut, the latest in a series of equalization cases is moving toward trial.

The Abbott case is the most extensive and bitterly contested of these suits. The nonprofit Education Law Center brought the case in 1981 on behalf of impoverished urban children trapped in decrepit schools. The State Supreme Court subsequently ruled that New Jersey had to provide urban children with an education that enabled them to compete with their suburban peers.

The legislature embarked on a series of delaying tactics, and the court responded with further rulings. The Abbott case eventually resulted in eight rulings that ordered funding parity between urban and suburban schools, a high-quality preschool program for poor districts and standards-based reforms aimed at closing the achievement gap between rich and poor students. The New Jersey Supreme Court eventually declared that the state was responsible for all the costs of construction for poor school districts that could not afford to build their own schools.

The McGreevey administration has appointed a former Democratic state senator, Gordon Mac Innes, to oversee the reconstruction of the 30 so- called Abbott Districts around the state. Mr. Mac Innes recently said that the state had attempted to create the appearance of compliance without doing much to help the impoverished children on whose behalf the suit had been brought. Building new schools and strengthening the curriculum will be expensive, but well worth the cost in terms of the lives that will be salvaged.

[summer]

FYI -- see my posts #13 and #14, above.

[summer]

See the article that started this thread, and also see my posts #1, #13, and #14. FYI.

[summer]

See my post #16, as I meant to flag you too.

[Amelia]

Dr. Librera's proposals come as a growing number of schools across the country protest the use of standardized testing, saying it limits creativity in the classroom and forces schools to focus narrowly on the material in the tests.

Perhaps one problem is too much "creativity in the classroom"? Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

"We used to like to point out that the test scores say more about the value of houses in an area than about the effectiveness of the schools," said Dr. Stokley, whose district generally ranks very high.

While there is some truth to that, it's also been shown that in lower socio-economic areas, schools with strict discipline and high expectations achieve similar results. I think the basic problem is lax discipline and low expectations.

Of course, I'm just a teacher, what would *I* know? ;-)

[summer]

Also see posts #13 and #14. :)!

[usslsm51]

This is nothing more than an act to protect unqualified teachers.