PBS on Standardized Testing -- A Propaganda Analysis From Ed Consumers

Sometimes, things just show up on your doorstep with the oddest
timing, suggesting some kind of cosmic karma if you're into that
kind of thing. I'm not, but still, this showed up late today, on John
Stone's Education Consumer's list:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

PBS, the Private Interests Broadcasting System, on standardized testing

Public Broadcasting=E2=80=99s Merrow Report on Standardized Testing:=20
Can Education Journalism Get Any Worse?

A television review

Richard P. Phelps

    John Merrow=E2=80=99s latest documentary on standardized testing
debuted recently, entitled Testing Our Schools.  It is a
picture-perfect portrait of journalism that, either deliberately or
unwittingly, serves the powers that be.  The robber barons of
the Guilded Age may have controlled product market monopolies
and steered governmental forces in their direction through political
graft.  But, as Thomas Nast=E2=80=99s enduring editorial cartoons attest,
they could not control the press.  The barons might have been
envious of today=E2=80=99s U.S. Public Education, Inc., which seems
to have all three =E2=80=93 market, government, and the press =E2=80=93 firm=
ly
under its thumb.

    Once, in a radio interview, Public Broadcasting=E2=80=99s John Merrow
said that he understands education issues, in part, because he
has an education school doctoral degree.  It shows.  Testing Our
Schools tells a story strictly by the (education establishment)
book.  Here is how the issue of standardized testing gets presented
when bound by that book:

  * Who supports standardized testing?  Answer: why, politicians
and businesspeople, of course.  Testing Our Children proves this,
since all the testing supporters on the show are politicians and
businesspeople.
   =20
  * What do testing experts think about standardized testing?=20
Answer: they oppose using standardized tests in anything like
they way they are used in California, Texas, Massachusetts, and
Virginia, and how they would be used under President Bush=E2=80=99s
plan. Testing Our Children proves this, since all the testing experts
on the show express this point of view.
   =20
  * Are there any testing experts who disagree with them?  Answer:
No.  Testing Our Children proves this, since no experts with a
contrary point of view appear on the show.  Remember, only
politicians and businesspeople support testing, and =E2=80=9Cmost=E2=80=9D =20=
of
them =E2=80=9Care dirt-ignorant regarding what these tests should and
[should] not be used for.=E2=80=9D
   =20
  * What about test developers; surely they support the use of
high-stakes standardized tests?  Answer: No, they do not; not
even them; they think that standardized tests should not be
used for high-stakes purposes.  Testing Our Children proves
this since the two experts on the show who work in test
development say so.
   =20
  * What about your regular, ordinary, average, typical, everyday
classroom teachers; don=E2=80=99t some of them support the use of
high-stakes standardized tests? Answer: some of them just
seem to be going along with what they are supposed to do, but
the most articulate among them =E2=80=93 those who seem to have given
the issue a lot of thought and developed well-formed opinions =E2=80=93
are very much opposed.=20

Testing Our Children proves this, since some of the teachers they
just happened to find, out of the blue =E2=80=93 teachers just like your
own children=E2=80=99s teacher =E2=80=93 just happen to have turned out to b=
e
articulate and outspoken opponents of standardized testing.
   =20
  * What about the general public and parents; don=E2=80=99t they support
standardized testing?  Answer: well, maybe, but only to the extent
that they have been duped by politicians and businesspeople.
Besides, the general public has a far too simplistic
understanding of the topic and they =E2=80=9Cread too much into test
scores.=E2=80=9D Standardized testing is very complicated, you see, and
it takes experts =E2=80=93 usually mainstream education school
professors =E2=80=93 to understand and explain it properly.

     We should trust what education school professors tell us; they
know best.

    Two weeks ago in this space, I wrote a preliminary review
of Testing Our Children, and I got a few things wrong.  I had
just watched the show once, but the transcript was not yet
available and, so, I relied on my short-term memory
and the information I gleaned from the PBS web site.  I made
three erroneous claims:  First, I got the show title wrong; sorry.
Second, I judged, based on what the web site implied, that
Robert Schwartz, of the pro-testing advocacy group, Achieve,
was on the show.  He is not, according to the transcript.  Third,
I judged, based on what the web site implied, that Amy Wilkins,
of the pro-testing advocacy group, The Education Trust, was
also on the show.  She is not, according to the transcript.

    With the transcript in hand, I can now count up the lines
allocated to all sides in the debate:

Interviewees    Lines in transcript

Expert Testing Opponents   =20
James Popham, ed. professor 34
Bill Schmidt*, ed. professor    19
George Madaus, ed. professor    18
Audrey Qualls, Iowa Test    16
Ted Sizer, ed. professor    12
Michael Kirst*, ed. professor   12
TOTAL   111

Politician/Business Defenders  =20
David Driscoll (Massachusetts)  18
Jeff Nellhaus (Massachusetts)   12
Rod Paige (federal government)  8
Bill Bosher (Virginia)  7
Lou Gerstner (IBM)  6
TOTAL   51

    I place an asterisk next to the names of Bill Schmidt and
Michael Kirst because, to the extent that I am familiar with
their writings, I do not believe that they can be pigeonholed
as opponents of high-stakes testing.  Indeed, Bill Schmidt
serves as an advisor to the pro-testing advocacy group, Achieve.
But, Kirst=E2=80=99s few statements in Testing Our Children were
certainly critical of California=E2=80=99s testing program, and Schmidt=E2=
=80=99s
statements on the show were certainly critical of something.
Schmidt spoke about the lack of coherence among standards,
textbooks, instruction, and test content.  In other contexts, these
arguments could be used to support the use of high-stakes
standardized testing.  If you watch Testing Our Children, however,
I believe you will agree with me that his comments were
meant (by the editor, if not him) to criticize the manner in which
current and future testing programs are and will be set up.

    My accounting above indicates that testing opponents got
more time to talk -- twice as much time.  But, the counts should
be qualified in three respects.  First, Merrow did happen to
pick politicians and a businessperson who are extremely
well-informed on the topic of testing.  In my opinion, they did
an excellent job in Testing Our Children.  As is so often the
case in U.S. media treatment of the testing issue, however, the
politicians went first and the experts got to respond, and not
vice versa.  Done this way, of course, the experts can say
anything they please, since no retort is allowed.  Testing Our
Children did give Driscoll and Nellhaus a small amount of
time to respond to some of the experts=E2=80=99 assertions, and
that was crucial toward giving the show a tiny hint of balance.
Moreover, Paige was sharp enough in the tiny amount of time
allotted to him to anticipate what opponents=E2=80=99 arguments would be.

    The second reason my counts in the table above should
be qualified has to do with time =E2=80=9Callotted=E2=80=9D in the show to p=
oliticians
and businesspersons in video clips.  At the beginning of Testing
Our Children, the audience is shown clips of George W. Bush
(10 lines), H. Ross Perot (3 lines), Lou Gerstner (4 lines), Pete
Wilson (2 lines), and Gray Davis (3 lines).  Some of the clips
reveal innocuous content (e.g., Wilson signing a bill, Davis
awarding a plaque, Bush in a=20
classroom photo shoot).  The clips
were meant to set the stage for the debate in Testing Our Children;
they were not part of the debate.  None of the five public officials
featured in the video clips were given any chance on the show
to respond to the specific criticisms of the experts interviewed on
the show.

    Third, the counts in the table above should be qualified
because they do not include time Merrow allotted to the =E2=80=9Cringers=E2=
=80=9D
he had on his show.  At least two, probably four, and perhaps more
of those presented on Testing Our Schools as average, ordinary,
just-happened-to-run-into-them, they-could-be-your-own-child=E2=80=99s
teachers on the show are experienced anti-testing activists,
affiliated with well-known anti-testing organizations and events
(e.g., Linda Nathan (7 lines), Judi Hirsch (13 lines), Steven
Weinberg (17 lines)).=20

    Naturally, Testing Our Schools also repeats many of
the contradictions and false facts that have inundated those
of us who are regularly exposed to anti-testing rhetoric.
Moreover, throughout the show, standardized testing=E2=80=99s quality
is measured against a standard of perfection, rather than
against the available alternatives, such as teacher-made
tests and grade-point averages, which share or exceed most
of standardized testing=E2=80=99s imperfections.

          Contradictions:*

    Testing Our Schools asserted all of the following:

            These standardized tests are too difficult; they produce
massive numbers of failures, dropouts, and demoralized students.

            These standardized tests are too easy; creative, higher-order
instruction has been replaced or dumbed down to the low level
of these simple tests, that could be passed by 5th graders.

            Academic standards, course work, textbooks, instruction, and
tests should all be consistent and operate from the same play
book, otherwise students and teachers will be confused and the
system unfair.

            Teachers should be allowed to tailor instruction uniquely to
each class, indeed, to each individual student.  Teachers are
intelligent craftpersons who should be granted creative license
to choose course content and not be bound by standards
and norms.

            High-stakes standardized tests are bad for all the reasons
stated above.

            Tests without stakes are bad because some students
do not make an effort on tests that do not count, so the
resulting test scores are meaningless.

          False Facts:

    Also to be found in the transcript of Testing Our Schools, are the
following =E2=80=9Cfacts,=E2=80=9D all of which are untrue:

          =E2=80=9COne test=E2=80=9D is being used to =E2=80=9Cdetermine the=
 outcome of 12 years
of schooling, decide who  gets a diploma and who gets nothing.=E2=80=9D

          Other measures, such as grades and teacher recommendations, are
not being used in graduation decisions in high-stakes testing states.

          A student can get partial credit on a test with open-ended
questions, but not on a test with multiple-choice format.

          One can figure out the correct answers on multiple-choice
tests without knowing the topic or solving the problem, just
through =E2=80=9Cplugging in=E2=80=9D answers or =E2=80=9Cmanipulation.=E2=
=80=9D Students
can get high scores on these tests without understanding
the subject matter.

          One cannot measure creativity with a multiple-choice test; one
can with open-response formats.

          =E2=80=9CTest preparation=E2=80=9D is unrelated to learning and in=
struction and,
indeed, may be antithetical.
         =20
          =E2=80=9CTests=E2=80=9D are unrelated to subject matter and, indee=
d, may be
antithetical.

          Standardized tests are discriminatory; students from poor
backgrounds cannot do well on them.

          =E2=80=9CWe don=E2=80=99t need tests to tell us who=E2=80=99s havi=
ng a hard time
and who=E2=80=99s having trouble in school.=E2=80=9D

          High-stakes standardized tests are purely a =E2=80=9Cbottom line=
=E2=80=9D
business solution applied to a very different type of organization
=E2=80=93 schools.  The idea started with a businessperson in Texas,
H. Ross Perot. [by implication...] No other country on earth
used high-stakes standardized tests before Perot suggested
the concept.

          Curriculum standards are being decided by =E2=80=9Ca small group o=
f
people, people you can=E2=80=99t get at, people who say there=E2=80=99s one=20=
answer.=E2=80=9D

          =E2=80=9CWe have to have a dialogue about what [to teach] .... We
don=E2=80=99t go there.=E2=80=9D [this assertion  was contradicted by the sh=
ow
itself, which visited a Virginia standards-drafting meeting]

          A school in California was teaching subject matter a
grade level too late, in the grade just above the one where the
state tested that material.  Obviously, this is unfair, but the show
implies that such a situation is: the fault of the test or of
the state, and not that school=E2=80=99s fault; and inevitable with
high-stakes testing.

          Comparing to Perfection Instead of the Actual Alternatives to
Tests:

    As usual, standardized tests are judged against a standard
of perfection instead of against the actual, available
alternatives.  The available alternatives (e.g., grade-point
averages, teacher evaluations, classroom tests) are replete
with problems and fare worse by comparison to
perfection than standardized tests do, but are given scrutiny
by education journalists only rarely.

Never does one find an education journalist who puts all the
available alternatives in the balance together at the same time
before making judgements regarding the quality of each.

          =E2=80=9CThe tests turn out to have mistakes.=E2=80=9D

          =E2=80=9CThere=E2=80=99s whole types of intelligence that you=E2=
=80=99re not measuring.=E2=80=9D

          Standardized test scores =E2=80=9Ccontain a margin of error.=E2=
=80=9D

    The one-sided slant of Testing Our Children was no accident.
Granted, I am not capable of reading the minds of John Merrow
or his producer and, thus, cannot truly know what their motives were.

    The evidence to support the assertion that the show had
a deliberate intent is this =E2=80=93 few, if any, of those interviewed on t=
he
show expressed points of view that were not known to the show=E2=80=99s
producers beforehand.  The points of view expressed on the show,
even by those presented as ordinary teachers and principals,
were not accidental, they were selected.  Merrow did not
randomly pick schools and then randomly pick teachers and
principals within them to interview.

    The Merrow Report picked teachers and principals who had
already expressed themselves publicly, either through the
activities of anti-testing organizations or in earlier work done
by other journalists.  Henrico County, Virginia=E2=80=99s schools, its
superintendent, and the teachers at Baker Elementary School,
for example, had been visited earlier by the authors of a
National Education Goals Panel report on standardized
testing.  The Spotsylvania County, Virginia School District
offices and the teachers at Courtland High School had been
visited earlier by a writer for the Education Week newspaper.
Members of the anti-testing advocacy groups, California Resisters,
Bay Area Resisters, and the California Coalition for Authentic
Reform in Education were interviewed previously by writers for
the San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, and Atlantic
Monthly (but still presented on Merrow=E2=80=99s Testing Our Schools
as average, ordinary teachers they just happened to find that
day).  The Boston Arts Academy just happens to have for its
principal a widely-known author and outspoken opponent of
high-stakes standardized testing (presented on the show as
nothing more than an ordinary school principal they found by
chance).

    At what point should we, for the sake of honesty, start
calling U.S. education journalism propaganda that serves the
interests of the powers that be?  Testing Our Children demonstrates
that we=E2=80=99ve probably already passed that point.

END OF ARTICLE

-------------------------------------------------------------

* The contradictions that Phelps found are most interesting. These
sorts of contradictions, which people believe in and espouse at
the same time, are characteristic of a culture that has moved
into the stage of Beamterherrschaft.

Remember, funding for this sort of Public Broadcasting
propaganda depends on viewers like you.