Standardizing Exams Across SUNY Would Only Serve to Lower Standards
by David Hursh

The following essay was written by David Hursh, associate professor, teaching and curriculum, and published in the January 8 edition of the Democrat and Chronicle. It has been reprinted with their permission.

Candace DeRussy, head of the State University of New York board's academic standards committee, last month (story, December 23) proposed a statewide system to test SUNY students in academic subjects, publicize the results by campus, and tie funding to academic performance

This proposal extends to higher education the testing and accountability scheme facing public elementary and secondary schools and will, I suggest, have similar negative results.

A statewide system of standardized tests would lower standards, not raise them.

First, test scores tell us very little about the quality of the teaching and learning at an educational institution. Rather, because of the relation between test scores and students' family incomes, test scores tell us more about the average economic background of an institution's students.

Just as urban school districts serving predominately working-class students and students living in poverty have lower tests scores than wealthier suburban school districts, SUNY campuses that are less selective in their admissions requirements will likely have lower average test scores than the more selective prestigious campuses.
Consequently, by tying funding to academic results, the campuses most in need of additional help because they serve the most challenging students will be the ones hurt the most.

Second, it is becoming increasingly clear in education that what is tested is taught. While there is nothing inherently wrong with teaching to the test _ after all, as a tennis player I want a coach who can instruct me in how to become a better player and win more matches _ teaching history, English and mathematics is not the same as teaching the backhand in tennis.

A statewide system of standardized tests would require that those who construct the tests determine what should be taught in each subject. Further, it is difficult to construct a standardized test that can assess how well students engage in the more sophisticated aspects of learning such as evaluating, synthesizing and applying what they have learned. The tests are likely to lead to more simplified rather than more challenging courses.

Lastly, statewide standardized testing shifts the responsibility for teaching and learning away from where it belongs _ with the faculty and students _ to the state. Faculty, as professionals, continually discuss the nature of their subject and how and what should be taught. Standardized test would shift their discussion to how to raise test scores.

Moreover, we should leave it to students (and their often financially supportive parents) to evaluate the quality of their teachers and, if they are dissatisfied, to voice their concerns.

In sum, a system of statewide standardized testing lowers standards and tells us little about the quality of teaching and learning. Instead, institutions should be encouraged to develop more sophisticated assessment practices in which they can report on what faculty are doing to become better teachers and how satisfied students are with the instruction.

Faculty should be treated as the subject area specialists they are and not deprofessionalized through a largely arbitrary and simplified assessment system. In the end, standardized testing would undermine SUNY schools and faculty in carrying out their mission to educate all of the state's students.

Let your voice be heard: State your Opinion by submitting a guest essay for publication.