Unmasking the Low Standards Of High-Stakes Tests

By Ann Cook, Cece Cunningham, and Phyllis Tashlik

In an apparent attempt to reclaim the offensive in the standards-and-testing debate, Robert Schwartz and Matthew Gandal, writing in these pages, have seriously misstated the position of those raising the alarm about the consequences of high-stakes testing now under way in several states. ( "Higher Standards, Stronger Tests: Don't Shoot the Messenger," Jan. 19, 2000.) They contend that the critics "come out of the woodwork when passing rates on tests are low" and "blame the messenger, rather than take on the shortcomings that standards and assessment expose." The charge is not only untrue, but seriously distorts the deep and troubling concerns expressed by large numbers of parents, teachers, researchers, and legal experts about the limitations of high-stakes-testing policies. We believe passionately in raising student achievement, but we disagree that raising standards requires standardization.

To set the record straight: We critics are not, as Messrs. Schwartz and Gandal suggest, Johnny-come-latelies to the controversy over standards and high-stakes testing. Nor are we back-benchers. Many of us are front-line, in-the-trenches practitioners who work in schools and whose track record with real students-not statistical proxies-attests to our long-term commitment to high standards. The debate has been one-sided. We don't command the same access to the media as do the writers, politicians, or state education commissioners, but we have consistently and urgently expressed alarm regarding the consequences of linking single-event tests-whatever their nature-to critical decisions such as graduation and diploma granting.

We have argued to whomever will listen that one size fits few: Common sense tells us that there are, as Howard Gardner puts it, multiple forms of excellence and multiple ways of finding out what kids...