Editor’s Note: On Thursday, November 13, Chad Aldis testified before the Ohio House Education Committee on the substitute bill for House Bill 228. His comments focused on a small but substantial change that would limit the length of a state assessment, even if administered in several parts at multiple times during the school year, to four hours. A portion of his testimony is below.
I would like to commend the legislature on its decision to examine the issue of over-testing. In recent months, concerns over the amount of classroom time allocated to standardized testing have risen with a fervor and urgency that is understandable. Testing impacts thousands of students, parents, and educators across our state. As a parent of children in a traditional public school, I understand the concerns surrounding testing. I am equally concerned though that in our rush to find a solution we could potentially swing the pendulum too far the other way.
I oppose placing a testing time limit in statute for three reasons.
First, the provision limiting testing hours on the state assessment is a quick fix that may not solve the issue of over-testing. Under HB 487, enacted in June, the state superintendent is required to study the state’s assessments and report back to you by January 15. This report should give you valuable information that can be utilized in making decisions about testing. I urge you to be patient and wait for the results of this report before you codify testing limitations. Hopefully, the report will allow you to consider the nature of the tests that contribute to over-testing. State accountability assessments, after all, aren’t the only tests that students take. What about locally required diagnostic assessments? Assessments designed and administered by teachers for their own use? Additional assessments required as a result of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System? Before placing the blame solely on state tests, it’s important that we understand the value and necessity of the myriad of tests that are given to students.
The value of tests brings me to my second point: the importance of our state accountability system. It is undoubtedly true, as you heard in previous testimony, that teachers are aware of their students’ progress and needs without state assessment data. But the knowledge of teachers is just that—the knowledge of teachers. Knowing where a student is is far different than saying the student is succeeding.
Furthermore, other parties need the data that state tests offer. Ohio leaders need to understand how schools are doing to determine whether the education policy environment is helping our kids to be successful. Even more importantly, families need to know which schools are most effective. Ohio has created an education system that prominently features school choice. In order for a system of school choice to improve educational outcomes, parents must have accurate and extensive data on how well schools educate students. Without this information, parents cannot hope to make the best selection for their children.
Luckily for Ohio parents, our state’s award-winning report card provides information on student achievement, graduation rates, and learning gains. In fact, parents can even see the learning gains of specific subsets of the school population, including gifted, special education, and low-achieving students. If this data is limited by arbitrarily limiting time spent on state tests, school-based accountability could suffer.
Despite what our nostalgia for the past suggests, the days before school-based accountability were not the good old days. It’s not that the achievement gap and low test scores didn’t exist then—we just didn’t have the capacity or will to measure them. Do we really want to go back to a time when we were ignorant of the performance and needs of students? While I’m confident that this is not the intent of the bill’s sponsor, it’s important that we keep our eyes open and realize that many calling for less testing would actually prefer no testing and certainly no accountability.
Finally, my third point is that if we’re going to maintain test-based accountability, we should ensure that we use high-quality tests. Ohio needs a test that allows kids to show what they truly know—not just how many bubbles they can fill in. It is absolutely critical that we get beyond the drill-and-kill mentality and the endless hours of test prep. The next generation of assessments could potentially do that.
Previous testimony has suggested that one test, at a single test administration, for all of state accountability purposes might be a better way to go. I respectfully disagree. Is it really better for students to face one extremely high-stakes test as opposed to having multiple opportunities to demonstrate what they know? As a parent, I would much rather give my children multiple opportunities to succeed instead of just one. I would also prefer that they are tested on the critical thinking that their teachers have worked hard to cultivate—not on how well they can game a test.
In conclusion, while I applaud the attention being paid to this issue, I urge you to be patient. Wait until you have the information you need to make an informed decision. Do not compromise, especially at the behest of those who eschew accountability, the valuable contributions that have resulted from our school accountability system. Finally, let’s make sure we find a test that moves away from drill and kill and instead offers Ohio children multiple opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge.
