“A basic tenet of a healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency.”
-Peter Fenn
Transparency is key to meaningful education because it allows students to be active in the education process, and it ensures that there are checks and balances on administrative power. This necessity was exemplified last week when all NU students took the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) in their English classes. Sunday, Oct. 31st, one night before the test was to be administered, Mr. Matheson called NU families, informing students and parents of the test. The message said, “...I wanted to let you guys know we’re going to be testing all of you, 9-12th graders, beginning tomorrow in your English classes for most of next week…. I just need you to do your best.... The teachers and I have chosen to do this. It’s.…core battery skills and cognitive abilities, how you process information and stuff. So it will be good for all of us. I just want you to do your best.…” Who would this test be good for? Was it the students who missed at least one full week of English? Was it the teachers who had to change their lesson plans to accommodate the missing week? There was also no discussion about the purpose of the test, what the data would be used for, who was responsible for it, or what the impact would be on students. These are important questions that both students and parents deserve to have answered before students take any kind of standardized test.
The following Monday (November 1), some teachers told students that NU had been offered quite a bit of money to be used as sort of a “test for the test.” In other words, the test’s creator, Iowa Testing Program (ITP), wanted to see how students across a broad range of backgrounds, academic abilities, ethnicities, and grade levels did on the test. This would allow ITP to create a norm or average to use for interpreting results.
If the purpose of the test was to normalize the questions, then why were students asked to bubble in their names on their answer documents? Surely students’ names do not help ITP create a normalized data base for interpreting results.
When asked, Mrs. Peterson said that student’s names were requested because individuals will be receiving their results.Yet, if students do receive their results, then the test is no longer solely for research purposes. It becomes something that is connected to each individual student. Somewhere in the administrative system, the results from this test will be traceable to students’ names.
Some students may be upset that a test, which they had no ample warning of, will now be connected to their records. These scores may not accurately represent what students have learned because it tests materials that were not specifically part of the school curriculum. In fact, that is the thesis of this test. According to ITP’s website: “there are a number of generally held objectives toward which all students are expected to progress as they go through high school, regardless of the specific courses they take or the curriculum they may be following.”
Whether or not you believe in the merits of standardized testing, a line must be drawn between the purpose of this test, as it is administered to students in schools who specifically request the test to ensure that they are meeting educational goals, and the purpose of this test, as it is administered to students in schools like NU, who are purportedly assisting ITP in normalizing its questions in exchange for financial compensation. The latter group of students has absolutely no reason to have this test connected to the individual.
On November 9, over a week after the testing began, Mr. Matheson called NU families a second time with a message, notifying parents that their students were given a consent form to participate in the testing and summarizing the test’s purposes: “The objective of this study is to create new, up-to-date test questions… The results are used for a tool for assessing student achievement…NU will receive financial compensation for each student that completes the test, and that money will go directly to support classroom instruction and instructional resources.”
The form Mr. Matheson describes references Education Code Section 51101(a)(13), and says that NU will not administer this test to students without prior, written consent. This form was sent home one full week after testing began.
Additionally, the form and the message indicate that students will be taking the Iowa Cognitive Abilities test. The previous week, students had taken the Iowa Tests of Educational Development. This apparent confusion of the test’s name would make it difficult for parents and students to research the test and render any consent ineffective.
While the form provides parents and students with some information, it does not answer the original question posed to the administration. Two weeks later, the purpose of linking this test to the individual is still unclear. The form attempts to address the question by stating that, “The company conducting this testing and study, Riverside Publishing, will maintain all individually-identifiable information that it receives through Nevada Union’s participation in the CogAT national norming study in the strictest of confidence, and no individual student will be identified by name in any publication resulting from the testing and study.” This explanation, however, does not address the purpose of requesting student names. It is merely a disclaimer. The administration appeared either to be rather uninformed or unwilling to divulge information.
What kind of mishaps lead to a situation like this? Until Sunday night, students and parents were not aware that they were going to be tested, and even then, there was no opportunity for them to ask questions or to opt out. Prior, written consent, mandated by state law, was not offered. Is it poor decision making on behalf of the administration? Is it lack of forethought? Is it simply that in a rough economy, schools are desperate for money that they will neglect the wellbeing of their students in pursuit of funds?
In an attempt to acquire some concrete information, I called ITP. When I asked the ITP representative who was funding this testing, who was profiting from it, and why ITP requested students’ names, the representative asked if I was a test administrator. I responded that I am a student. I was told that ITP would not answer any further questions. This inadequate response paralleled the administration’s inability or unwillingness to answer these basic questions. I am a student who is asking questions that they are either unprepared to answer or unwilling to answer. Why was the administration and ITP unwilling to discuss these key questions with students?
Do parents have a right to know what tests will be given to their kids throughout the school year? Do students have a right to know why they’re being tested and what their test results will be used for? Because NU is a public school and sustained by taxpayer dollars, the legal answer is yes. When students spend forty-five minutes of instruction time taking a test to help fund their school, at what point are those minutes of public education being given by the students rather than received by the students? The people who contribute a portion of their pay check to the salaries of administrators should, at the very least, be informed of what happens at school Students are trying to learn how to make smart decisions in life, and that is impossible to do without information.
Are they hiding something? Probably not. Should students have a right to transparency in their education? Absolutely.
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
