Pointing Out Flaws of Student Testing

* I too am a teacher caught up in the CLAS assessment controversy and feel compelled to write after reading (Kelly) Gallagher’s letter (Letters, March 27). Gallagher’s response to (Karen) Eddy’s letter carries a condescending tone that is demeaning to our profession.

Gallagher holds the opinion that the CTBS test is inadequate, shallow and an unauthentic way to measure thinking. However, the CTBS is not intended to measure thinking in itself, but knowledge, knowledge that has already become a part of the cognitive thinking process. Trying to measure thinking is costly, subjective and extremely time consuming.

For scientific purposes and whether we like it or not, a non-subjective test is the only tool we now have that measures each child non-subjectively.

In regard to special education, it has been my experience that the largest number of special education students in the regular classroom are students with a learning disability, whether the cause be emotional, genetic or a neurological dysfunction. This disability generally interferes with the ability to read and write, thereby causing lower test scores. As far as the CLAS test setting a higher standard for our students, is this test the only way to raise standards? Could standards be raised in our schools by having smaller class size, by having enough textbooks for every student and providing more intensive instructions in English for those students who need it? It has also been my experience that teachers are already constantly working toward upgrading their teaching skills.

I do not know a single teacher who is motivated to teach “better” because of the promise of published test scores. However, I do know that teachers are motivated to give their all, teach their best, and expect the most from their students. Our inspiration comes from the faces we see daily, not any test. We teach for a better tomorrow, not for one subjective test today.

LAURA GORE

Santa Ana

* Although there are many points Kelly Gallagher makes about the CLAS test with which I agree, there are many points of weakness she omits. I agree that the test and the content is superior and does drive the curriculum in a positive way, however, the test itself is a logistical nightmare.

We are not sure what the test will be in our current school year, so all the problems pointed out in this letter are based on last year’s experience.

1. The CTBS (California Test of Basic Skills) gave the individual student a result on his/her achievement the CLAS test did not. It was to measure how well the school is doing. Since I refuse to lie to my students about that fact, the student is not as motivated to do his/her best, particularly if the student has little emotional investment in the school she/he attends.

2. Only a random selection of tests were evaluated. The test ranks results from a 1 to a 6. As teachers, we know that about 1% of our students are capable of writing a 6 paper, however in a random selection, the chance of missing that 1% is extremely high. The random represented less than 50% of our student responses.

3. The test is very expensive to administer. It is more than our state can currently afford, and yet the individuals scoring the tests are paid a woefully inadequate sum. I worry about the credibility of these folks, particularly since each test is evaluated by only one person.

The lack of checks and balances puts every test at risk in not being properly evaluated.

BEN BOELMAN

Placentia