Relying on state tests is not helpful

The New York State Board of Regents 11-6 vote that approved an expansion of state-sponsored tests to evaluate the performance of principals and teachers showed the 17-member group to be split on the issue, but officials from the Hewlett-Woodmere and Lawrence school districts remain steadfast in their opposition to using those tests as part of a review process.
“I am adamant that it hinders the educational process,” said Hewlett-Woodmere Superintendent Dr. Joyce Bisso, who wrote her dissertation on high stakes testing in 2001. “From the research I gathered, from every perspective, school shouldn’t be doing them. Teaching to the test is much less valuable, less valid than teaching for understanding.”
Previously the state mandated that 20 percent of principal and teacher reviews were to be based on student test results from the state exams. This was done to win nearly $700 million in federal “Race to the Top” money. The remainder of the evaluation was classroom observation, 60 percent, and local tests, 20 percent.
For the past three years, Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed for a stricter teacher evaluation law. This year Cuomo and the State Legislature approved a $1.4 billion increase in school state aid with the provision that 50 percent of teacher evaluations would be based on state test scores. Now test results and classroom observations are nearly equal as part of measuring a teacher’s effectiveness.
Lori Skonberg, president of the Lawrence Teachers Association, said her organization is not opposed to teacher evaluations, but wants the process to be fair and having state test scores comprise half of the review is not, she said.

“We are dealing with children, not widgets,” Skonberg said. “High stakes exams such as these cause districts to focus their resources on the subjects tested at the expense of other subjects. Education should be about broadening students’ horizons, not narrowing them.”
Another dark cloud surrounding the state tests is the “opt-out” movement, where parents decide that their children will not take the exams due to several reasons ranging from what they believe is the undue stress placed on the students to knowing the test results do not impact grades.
“The state tests are unreliable, unscientific, inappropriate and provide nothing of value to teaching and learning,” said Rick Stark, president of the Hewlett-Woodmere Faculty Association. “Basing fifty percent of a teacher’s evaluation on the state tests is no more valid than basing fifty percent of a dentist’s evaluation on the number of cavities his or her patients develop. “Parents who ‘opt out’ their children have decided not to let their children be used as pawns for the governor’s agenda. I see the movement only growing in Hewlett-Woodmere and elsewhere, as more and more parents see the state tests for the farce they are.”
To not lose state aid, districts must have new local evaluation plans by Nov. 15. Bisso said that Hewlett-Woodmere is good to go, but what she said is needed is for legislators to pay attention to why the “opt-out” movement has grown.
“Now that the stakes are higher, how can the state pass flawed laws,?” Bisso said. “We need our leaders in this country to listen. Public education serves the public, and they need to listen to what they want.”