Ok, ok, ok. I get it. Standardized tests (STs) are not popular. I don't really like them myself. I taught public schools for 6 years during the height of NCLB and the start of Race to the Top. Also, I was a band director so my subject wasn't good enough to be included in the STs. My classes were disrupted on testing days for subjects that had nothing to do with what I was teaching.

But I see the point of STs, but not as vague accountability standards. When seemingly arbitrary tests become measures for something besides student benchmarks, then they become something different. Instead of cherry-picking the worst examples of STs like Oliver above (which are hilarious and horrifying all the same), I want to lay out a broader perspective of STs and how they could and should be utilized.

Reading standards have always been a focus of these tests and they are very important. What does it mean to read at the 4th grade level? Is a student meeting that standard? These are good questions to know and an independent test separate from the school could have merit in determining this. If a student or a large percentage of the school is below the standard, then it should be addressed. Where the error in accountability occurred is when that accountability assumed the school wasn't doing its job. If students are below standards, then why punish the school with cut funding like in NCLB? Students are struggling in the school so lets reduce the resources the school can use to fix the problem. Makes sense in business because if a business fails, what the consequence? Some people are out of the job? But if a school fails, what's the consequence? Some students don't get a quality education. The stakes are incredibly different so holding the same accountability standards makes no sense.

But STs can help identify students that may need help or even teachers that may need extra help in the classroom. Anamolies in data can help identify places that need more assistance. If a group of 3rd grade students all test lower on reading, then maybe interventions with a reading specialist or other aides could help bring the student up to standards and increase their academic success in 4th grade. 

On the flip side, if a teacher consistently has low scores in their classes while other teachers in the same school and subject have significantly higher scores, then it may point out an ineffective teacher. Obviously, other factors would come into play before any finger pointing or action, but it could be an accountability measure if handled right, especially if other teachers with similar classrooms are succeeding in the same environment.

There are ways that STs can be used, but one way is not blanket national standards with mathematically impossible goals like AYP (seriously, open a stats book before writing policy). Furthermore, summative STs  tell us very little aside from trends from year to year, but if we can focus on more formative and less time consuming assessments like perhaps a short ST toward the end of first semester with results available by the start of the second semester, then the results can actually be useful in the classroom. Now that computer adaptive testing is a thing (CAT), it must be plausible to get results in a reasonable amount of time.

A square peg still has a use.