Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Beyond Testing In July 2001 I wrote decrying the over-reliance on highstakes testing as a means of evaluating students, teachers, and schools (1). Eight years later, the situation has not changed for the better. It is worthwhile to revisit the issues raised at that time and make a few more comments. The strong emphasis on testing seems to be based on the mistaken notion that pencil-and-paper tests alone can evaluate accurately whether specific students, entire classes, the teachers of those classes, entire schools, and the administrators of those schools are performing adequately. While tests can provide evidence to support or deny adequate performance, they are only one measure. In addition, the design of test questions and the extent to which those tested are familiar with the content and techniques required to do well can have significant effects on the outcomes. Overemphasis on tests as the sole measure of a student’s or a school’s success can lead to a less successful education system and can divert attention from other alternatives that would lead to greater success. Teaching to high-stakes tests has become a way of life in many schools. A good example is an article titled “Help! The Test Is Only ‘X’ Weeks from Now!”, which provides suggestions for principals who want to rally teachers and students to improve their schools’ test scores (2). Many of the techniques suggested are useful for getting students to perform their best, but couching those methods solely in support of higher test scores sends a message to both teachers and students that real learning is not the goal. Instead, success can only be measured through higher test scores. In support of this goal principals are advised to, “Utilize homeroom time, advisory time, study hall time, or, if absolutely necessary, consider pulling them [students whose scores need to improve] from non-tested classes for part of the period.” The reality of high-stakes testing and its skewing of the curriculum has led to pressure from advocates of subjects not tested (such as science) to start testing in those areas. Taken to its ultimate, this approach would result in high-stakes testing in every area, so that no aspect of a child’s development will be left out of the curriculum. This seems to me like drowning the baby in the bath water. There is a better way. Take a look at the results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for 2007 (3). The country with the highest scores on this international test is Singapore. Singapore’s success is not confined to the latest TIMSS either—it ranked first in 1999 as well. This led the Pearson Foundation and the Council of Chief State School Officers to convene a conference last year to consider what could be learned from Singapore’s singular success. Here is a brief summary their report (4). Singapore’s education system is highly successful. Approximately 87% of students matriculate to two-year college, four-year college, or university and the country has one of the highest literacy ratings in the world. There is clearly a longterm commitment to education, and the society places a high value on education and teachers. Teachers are paid at the same level as scientists and engineers and they receive 100 hours of
professional development allotment each year. Students have to compete hard to enter a teacher-training program and they receive stipends during their student days. (A private group, the Hach Scientific Foundation, provides scholarships for undergraduates studying to be chemistry teachers in the U.S. (5). This is a model for what our government ought to be doing in all subjects nationwide.) Singapore’s single, nationally unified curriculum has adopted the “less is more” approach often advocated but seldom practiced in the U.S. Contextual, self-motivated learning is the goal and it is being achieved by a well-trained cadre of teachers who are provided significant support. In Singapore (4), “The curriculum goes beyond the academics required for national examinations and motivates students to be self-directed, voracious learners with well-developed skills in the areas of analytical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving—skills that are needed in all educational and workplace settings.” Included in the curriculum are (4) “literacy, numeracy, bilingualism, the sciences, humanities, aesthetics, physical education, civics and moral education, and national education.” Of course what Singapore is doing costs more than what most countries (especially our own) are doing. Can we afford such an educational system? A better question is, Can we afford not to have such an educational system? Education is an investment in the future. If we do not make that investment then our children, their children, and our nation will suffer. The Pearson/ CCSSO report quotes Lee Iacocca as saying, “In a completely rational society, the best of us would be teachers and the rest of us would have to settle for something else.” Many of the teachers I have met are among the best of us. When our society recognizes that and provides the respect, compensation, and support that these professionals need to do their jobs, then our test scores will soar. Literature Cited 1. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 855. 2. Robinson, Linda. Article posted on the Web site of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, http://www. principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=937&DID=59268 (accessed Apr 2009). 3. National Center for Educational Statistics, TIMSS 2007 Results, http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp (accessed Apr 2009). 4. Kennedy, B.; Manise, J.; Montgomery, S. Report and Recommendations for Education Policy Leaders, Pearson Foundation/ CCSSO International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, April 28–May 1, 2008, http://www.pearsonfoundation. org/PDF/PF-CCSSO_Report.pdf (accessed Apr 2009). 5. See http://www.hachscientificfoundation.org/home.shtml (accessed Apr 2009).
Supporting JCE Online Material http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2009/Jun/abs667.html Full text (HTML and PDF) with links to cited URLs and JCE article Blogged at http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/chemeddl/
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 86 No. 6 June 2009 • Journal of Chemical Education
667
