Assessment Opinion

Testing the Test

By Marcia Kastner — May 10, 2011 4 min read

Even well into this era of standardized testing, it is clear that many important questions remain. Most importantly: How good are the tests themselves? Do they actually measure what they were designed to measure, or do they give misleading information about student achievement?

These questions are urgent and timely.

In efforts to improve the No Child Left Behind Act and implement the federal Race to the Top initiative, education policymakers are placing ever-greater emphasis on using test scores for teacher, school, and student accountability. However, it is inappropriate, counterproductive, and unfair to penalize teachers and students for low test performance (or to praise them for high test performance) when the tests themselves are flawed. We need to make sure tests are valid, that is, they measure what they were designed to measure. Only then can test scores accurately reflect what students know—and don’t know—about the material being tested.

How do we ensure the validity of standardized tests? The answer is to have more oversight of test developers and more careful scrutiny of the tests. State governments and the federal government need to make sure that the individuals overseeing the development of state and national standardized tests are trained to recognize and fix flawed test questions. This is crucial for developing valid tests.

My own experience in this regard may be instructive. I was responsible for holding standardized tests accountable as the mathematics-assessment lead at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from 2003 to 2005. In that position, I oversaw the development of the state’s standardized math tests required under NCLB. I reviewed thousands of math questions, analyzed their field-test data, and read samples of student work. This experience taught me how to recognize when a math question is flawed.

Most teachers, states, and national test developers believe that their math tests are valid, even though they often are not."

The reality is that most teachers, states, and national test developers believe that their math tests are valid, even though they often are not. What is troubling is that after a quick review of recent state and national standardized tests released to the Web, I easily discovered numerous examples of flawed math questions. This serious problem needs action, but is too often ignored.

What are some of the types of flaws I have seen? The examples include assessments that: allow students to get the right answer for the wrong reason; present options in a multiple-choice question that give away the answer; allow use of calculators in cases where the calculators rather than the students can solve the problem; and contain language that is confusing and imprecise (which particularly disadvantages special education students and English-language learners).

Why are so many standardized math tests not valid? The answer may lie with how states develop their tests. For example, in Massachusetts, the state education department contracts with a testing company to write the initial versions of the test questions and then submit them to the department for review. When I worked at the department, I rejected questions that I determined were not valid, and I instructed those I supervised to do the same. Since rejected questions do not count toward the number of questions the testing company is contracted to produce, the company has an incentive to produce valid questions. The questions that state education officials do not reject are then reviewed by experienced teachers, content experts, and a bias-and-sensitivity committee. After this thorough review, state officials decide on the final set of questions to field-test. The questions accepted by the education department after field-testing go into a bank of questions from which future test questions are drawn. As is clear from this process, the state of Massachusetts is ultimately responsible for the quality of its tests. The education department decides which questions to field-test and which questions to put into the bank.

But what happens if a state does not have a strong review process and a well-trained education department staff to recognize flawed questions and reject them? What happens is that flawed questions may end up on that state’s tests.

Given education reform efforts to change how states implement standardized testing, the need for a strong review process is even more urgent. Under NCLB, each state is responsible for writing its own learning standards and its own standardized tests. However, many states, including the recipients of Race to the Top funding, have adopted the new national common-core state standards. These states eventually will use new common assessments that are aligned with the common standards. Since these assessments are currently under development, now is the time to make sure they are valid.

Information provided by valid tests not only ensures proper accountability, but also helps educators target instruction to meet students’ needs, thereby improving the quality of education.

In short, we need to hold our tests accountable. Nothing less than the future of education is at stake.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the May 11, 2011 edition of Education Week as Testing the Test


Jobs The EdWeek Top School Jobs Virtual Career Fair
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Mathematics Webinar
Engaging Young Students to Accelerate Math Learning
Join learning scientists and inspiring district leaders, for a timely panel discussion addressing a school district’s approach to doubling and tripling Math gains during Covid. What started as a goal to address learning gaps in
Content provided by Age of Learning & Digital Promise, Harlingen CISD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Curriculum Webinar
How to Power Your Curriculum With Digital Books
Register for this can’t miss session looking at best practices for utilizing digital books to support their curriculum.
Content provided by OverDrive

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Assessment Opinion Grading Has Always Been an Imperfect Exercise. COVID-19 Made It Worse
It’s hard reducing the complexity of each student’s social, emotional, and academic learning to a letter grade. Maybe we’re doing it wrong.
Lory Walker Peroff
4 min read
A student's grades are unknown
Robert Neubecker for Education Week
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Assessment Whitepaper
Facing the Future Together: Digital Innovative Solutions
Join us to discuss how digital innovative solutions can enrich the educational experience in the K-12 environment. We’ll share how these ...
Content provided by Pearson
Assessment Opinion What Federally Mandated State Tests Are Good For (And What They Aren’t)
Spring 2021 testing is happening. That can be a good thing—if the goal is about more than school accountability.
Stuart Kahl
5 min read
Two people analyze test data
Visual Generation/iStock/Getty
Assessment Opinion The National Assessment Governing Board’s Troubling Gag Order
NAGB's recently released restrictions on how its board members can communicate set a troubling precedent.
3 min read
Image shows a multi-tailed arrow hitting the bullseye of a target.
DigitalVision Vectors/Getty