Before the current era of standards and assessment, teachers relied on textbooks for instruction. The texts served as the outline of content and the material on which a student was tested. The teaching profession relied on private, for profit, publishing companies to determine what students should be taught. Professional organizations began to create standards for teachers so that texts could be compared and consistent instruction given. Ohio began testing before it was determined just what the content should be. That made teaching and testing pretty difficult — “Here’s a test, but you can’t know what it will be over!” Fortunately, the State Department of Education realized the inherent problem, took a step back and worked on the creation of standards, benchmarks and grade level indicators, first for every tested content area and now for nearly every content area taught in the schools.

All of this has succeeded in aligning content across the grades and the clarity in which one year builds upon another. This has happened in the past but with far less intention. The professional conversation this has created is far deeper, in my opinion, than it has been before. Teachers discuss the progress of content. In my earlier days of teaching it seemed every elementary grade level taught the solar system. While there is much to learn about the solar system, each teacher started in the same place and made small moves in the depth of the content. With benchmarks and grade level indicators, there is far less repetition because the next grade moves into greater depth.

If educators are judicious about interpreting the results of the annual achievement tests, we have a consistent picture across time of each student and each teacher. No parent should be satisfied with limited progress. Value Added, the latest addition on the state report card, is a statistical method of determining what progress a student has made from year to year. A year’s growth for a year’s study is the goal. However, for students capable of more difficult work, Value Added will also show progress or the lack of. The accountability will be pretty clear. It will be the work of the local schools to also inform parents and community members of all facets of the school program, the parts not indicated on the state report card. However, the local state report cards should be viewed as a very important slice of information to help the community see the annual progress.

Lynda Weston, Ph.D., is director of teaching and learning for the Mount Vernon City Schools, and also serves as testing coordinator.

All true learning starts with a question. Therefore, testing is not bad in and of itself, since testing is questions. However, when it comes to Ohio’s statewide accountability system, I contend that the overall effect on our children’s education has been negative.

First of all, we need to look carefully at exactly what is being measured. Can paper and pencil assessments adequately measure the sum total of what students have learned in 13 years of schooling? Ohio’s tests are primarily measurements of verbal aptitude. Students who are fluent with words and are good readers can pass the tests. Those students who learn best by hands-on activities struggle with them. In many cases, the questions are wordy and difficult to understand. We are not testing scientific and historic knowledge as much as we are testing verbal reasoning and how students innately think.

Secondly, I would question how we are measuring our intended outcomes. In the May 2007 administration of Ohio Achievement Tests, the raw score required for proficiency at the third grade level was 31 out of a possible 50 and sixth-grade reading needed only 21 out of 50. If we are going to lower the bar so that a student can be “proficient” by correctly scoring barely half of the responses, the results are meaningless.

A third question I would like to pose about our current testing system is this: What are the results of testing? A survey of local schools indicates that elementary schools are putting so much emphasis on passing the tests that untested subjects, such as art, music and physical education, are being shortened and, in some cases, cut from the school day. At the middle school and high school level, teachers must concentrate on the tested topics like linear functions and geometry instead of making sure students have mastered fractions and how to make change.

A sixth-grade teacher in the county recently conducted a survey of her students. Many of the responses indicated that our children are stressed by the emphasis put on passing this one test. Some third- and fourth-grade students cry and become ill to avoid going to school on test days. Do we want to put this kind of pressure on our children? There may be some good things that have come from statewide testing, but at what cost?

Bonny Buffington, MEd, is an educational consultant for Knox County Educational Service Center. She has been in education as a regular education teacher, special education teacher and district administrator in Knox County for over 30 years.