An Editorial by Robert Kenneth Wright
The results from Louisiana’s state testing are in and educators are crunching numbers attempting to see if students performed better this year than they did last year. Parents, too want to know how well their students performed on the test. But do the results themselves say what they say? Is your student really Approaching Basic or did he actually Master what was “taught”? I suggest that a scientific approach be used to determine more accurate test results to determine what a child actually learned in school.
I present the case that there are four factors that determine a test score: the test, the student, the teacher, and the school. It is my hypothesis that if either of these factors are altered during the process of evaluation, the results of the evaluation will change +/-. So to present my experiment in this brief analysis, I’m going to use the elements of the scientific method. While running a test on one of the factors (as the experimental group), the other three factors have to remain constant, hence they collectively will be the control group. If any of the other three are altered before the experimental factor has run its course, the entire evaluation is flawed, and the test results don’t really say what they say.
TEST: If I used the test itself as the experimental factor, the other three have to remain constant. This means, the student’s home life, the classroom teacher, the principal, school curriculum and climate have to remain constant. They can not be altered, otherwise you won’t really know if the test was the cause of a student’s score to increase, decrease, or remain the same. In year A we use a test that reflects what a student is supposed to know. In year B, we use a test that reflects what was actually taught in class, keeping all other factors constant. If there is a change +/- in the score, it may be that the test itself was the problem, and the results don’t say what they say.
STUDENT: If I used the student as the experimental factor, the other three have to remain constant. This means, the test can’t change, the classroom teacher, the principal, school curriculum and climate have to remain constant. They can not be altered, otherwise you won’t really know if the student was the cause of his/her score to increase, decrease, or remain the same. In year A the student lived with other family members and in the home he/she was allowed to operate on his/her own with little structure or discipline. In year A, also when the student took the test he had a good nights rest and there were no family or personal problems weighing on his/her mind when the test was taken. In year B, all the previous factors were changed. He/she now lives in a stable home, well rested, homework complete and mind on target. Keep in mind, these factors are the only ones being altered….the others are still the same. If there is a change +/- in the score, it may be that the student and the home life he is reared in is the problem, and the results don’t say what they say.
TEACHER: If I used the teacher as the experimental factor, the other three have to remain constant. This means, the student, the principal, school curriculum and climate have to remain constant. They can not be altered, otherwise you won’t really know if the teacher was the cause of a student’s score to increase, decrease, or remain the same. In year A, we use a teacher that really doesn’t know his/her content and has poor classroom management skills. In year B, we use a teacher that is very proficient and operates a highly effective classroom environment. If there is a change +/- in the score, with all other factors remaining constant, it may be that the teacher is the problem, and the results don’t say what they say.
SCHOOL: Lastly, if I used the school as the experimental factor, the other three have to remain constant. This means the test, the student, and the teacher all must remain constant. They can not be altered, otherwise you won’t really know if the school itself was the cause of a student’s score to increase, decrease, or remain the same. In year A, there is an ineffective principal with poor management skills, the building is freezing cold or burning hot on test day, or the curriculum and approach to learning is one way. In year B, the principal runs a tight ship, consistently monitors the operation and observes teachers, the building climate and atmosphere is peaceful and the lighting and temperature is great on test day and the curriculum and approach to learning is totally different from the school in year A. If there is a change +/- in the score, with all other factors remaining constant, it may be that the school itself is the problem, and the results don’t say what they say.
To make the results flawed, alter all four factors at once. Change the teacher, curriculum style, home life, and principal all in the same year. One will never know which one of those factors led to the results one views on the state’s website. Did your child really Master ELA or were there other factors that made this possible? Was your child’s score Unsatisfactory in Math or were there other factors that made this possible? Did the results stay the same from the previous year? Could they have been better? I suggest the real test be administered. Use my suggestion and let’s see if the test scores say what they really say.
