 |
|
|
||
|
When it comes to education, it should be obvious that teachers must use the most effective and precise tools to measure students’ capabilities. Unfortunately, the folks at the Department of Education don’t seem to agree. Instead of allowing states to fully implement computer-adaptive testing (CAT) into their assessment criteria to meet the standards of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the department is being inflexible by forcing states to maintain the status quo, i.e. static exams. While CAT is relatively new, studies confirm it is more accurate than non-adaptive tests in determining student aptitude. One recent Delaware study found adaptive testing, rather than static testing, provides a clearer picture of student progress, particularly among students who are low-income, non-white and learning English as a second language. These adaptive tests conform to how the test-taker is performing, that is, if a student answers a question correctly, he or she is presented a more difficult question, perhaps above their current grade level. Conversely, if the student answers incorrectly, he or she receives a simpler question, perhaps below grade level. CAT has a range of testing applications, from the military to nuclear power plant operators to the Graduate Record Examination and the Graduate Management Admission Council tests, both required for admission for some post-undergraduate programs. CAT also allows parents to easily pinpoint where their children are performing well, whether they are performing at grade level, where they need improvement and how much progress is being made over time. A 2004 study conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association, a non-profit organization that has provided CATs for some 3 million schoolchildren, found that CAT inaccurately measured student ability only 1 percent of the time rather than traditional, fixed-form tests that failed 6 percent of the time. Right now, the Education Department frowns upon states using above or below grade-level adaptive testing to fulfill the requirements of NCLB. However, some pioneering school districts have individually chosen to adopt adaptive testing above or below grade level for their own analysis. The results are pleasing, however the duplicative nature of this situation — administering both CAT and static testing — is wasteful. Reps. Tom Petri, Wisconsin Republican, and David Wu, Oregon Democrat, have jumped into the conversation by offering a bill that would require the Education Department to allow states to let fully adaptive testing supplant the static testing affiliated with NCLB. It would not diminish the high standards set by NCLB; rather, it would eliminate duplicative testing currently required. Such testing legislation, however, shouldn’t be needed. The Education Department could easily remedy this issue by granting states more flexibility. |
||||
|
|
||||