Why Do Teachers Think Testing Is Unfair?

I am a strong believer in standardized tests.

This is That Very Picture of Enthusiasm You've Heard About

I want an objective measurement of how each of my students is doing. That is the best way for me to discover their weaknesses and mine, so that I can shore up both.

I want to know how my teaching compares to the teaching of my peers—if someone else is doing a better job at teaching a topic, I will run to that teacher to learn how they’re doing it. Teachers want to help their students.

I especially want objective evidence of the great work I do!

Some teachers will tell me “Oh, I don’t pay any attention to tests. I know how my kids are doing, and that’s how I grade them.”

Some teachers just can’t face how little impact they’re having. Some would rather mistrust test results than accept that many inner-city students don’t learn very much at all because their un-parenting has very effectively taught them to ignore or disrespect the adult world.

Then, there’s also this:

Teachers have seen too many tests of suspect quality. These focus on picayune skills, use confusing wording, or have errors that remain uncorrected despite multiple teacher requests.

  • Skills tests should gradually progress in challenge through the year as students’ skills presumably increase. Instead, our school saw District-designed reading test scores rise, fall, rise, then fall. Which is more likely: That all students’ skills rose and fell at exactly the same times of year, or that the tests were poorly-designed?
  • One-fourth of the questions on one Math test were about prime numbers–fascinating to mathematicians, but absolutely non-essential until calculus.  Shouldn’t elementary years focus on the Big Four (+ – x /) and whether a student can apply these to realistic situations, before worrying about prime numbers?
  • On one District test, our students were supposed to find two prepositional phrases in the sentence He had to go to the store. Good luck. There is only one preposition.
  • Kids don’t reed gud nowadays, and their vocabularies are teeny. Math word problems are too often written too obtusely for today’s children. Why not use age-friendly “kid-speak”? The goal in Math learning is not to simultaneously challenge vocabulary and syntax, is it?

    And typical unit conversion questions use dimes, dimes, dimes, then ask for the answer in pennies. No problem, except that many adults, much less children, miss such switcheroos when reading a lengthy question. Why not bold that word “pennies“, or just say right out “Don’t forget to convert your answer to pennies from dimes.”?

    Adult-Speak Equivalent:

    “Initially having four of the above items, purchase a 25-cent gumball, and, by non-chemical means, transform your change to different decimal coinage, each coin of which has a value one-tenth as great as the original. Select the appropriate combination of coins and denomination from the choices shown below.

    So, stop blaming teachers for mistrusting standardized tests.

    I was in the minority. When I was a teacher, with every test, I analyzed which questions were missed by most students and planned my new teaching around that. But then, I is a nerd. And my extreme efforts cost me time and my health and, in part, my family.

    But I was paid less than any newly-hired high-school city garbage collectors lacking high school diplomas. That made it all worthwhile. 🙂
    1st Teaching Post: Shocked By a Rock
    Prev Teaching Post: Poor Misunderstood Standardized Tests
    Next Teaching Post: Who Will Guard the Guards?


Who Will Guard the Guards?

How dare we link teacher pay to test results when the people who are judged by the tests administer the tests?

Vigorously Defending Students' Rights to Learn the RIGHT Way

If you know that other teachers are cheating on their tests, and their pay will be increased by it, aren’t you a patsy if you don’t cheat?

If you want to link pay to test scores, hire outsiders with no stake in the outcome to administer the tests, or film or webcast teachers as they do so.
Even if no conscious cheating occurs, it is a long-known well-known fact: If you will get a benefit from a given result, your actions may make that result more likely–even if you don’t do it on purpose.

Teachers can help students in ways they feel are innocent—especially if they feel tests are unfair to poor readers, English-learners, or low-income students. They can:

  • Fail to prevent students from copying from others through distraction, teacher fatigue, or lax supervision.
  • “Clarify” test questions for students.
  • Translate portions into a student’s home language, subconsciously providing additional hints.
  • When reading questions aloud, subconsciously reveal correct answers through change in voice.

(This may be where some teacher erasures come from: “Well, the answer most of them chose should have been correct, also, so I’ll give them credit for that one, also.”)

Here is something you may not have known:

Different schools administer the tests at different times.   Many teachers at schools that receive tests earlier share test questions and answers with their friends at the “get-tests-later” schools. These in-the-know teachers can then teach their classes using the actual test questions, or use almost-identical ones.

If you were a teacher who didn’t have this advantage, how would you feel about your salary increases being linked to your students’ scores versus theirs?
Previous Post: Why Do Teachers Think Testing Is Unfair?
Next Post: Who knows? 🙂


Poor Misunderstood Standardized Tests

How dare we link teacher pay to test results when the people who use the tests don’t understand the tests?  Decision-makers who affect teachers where they live–in the classroom, and the pocket–need a math lesson in reading test scores.

There Are Definite Signs of Confusion

Everyone’s children are being affected: Better teachers are being under-ranked. Weaker teachers are over-ranked, and aren’t getting the mentoring and modelling that would benefit them and their students.

Administrators don’t “get” statistics.

Only by looking at a gain PER STUDENT can we best assess that student’s learning. The only way to be certain of each student’s gain each year is to give her/him the EXACT SAME test (or tests with questions so similar in nature as to be practically identical) at the beginning of the year and the end of the year. Compare Jane’s incoming September score with her outgoing June one.

That’s what I did for my students each year. They, and their parents, each got to see that they had gained at least a year, and often two, in Math and Reading skills.

The second-best way is to give the identical test at the same time of year one year apart. For example, September of 4th grade, and September of 5th grade.

Instead, we give entirely different questions one year apart.

We should all have these goals for standardized testing:

1. How well has each student learned the material: Retained facts, and applied them.
2. How well has each teacher taught the material.
2. How well has each school taught the material.

You can meet these simply, as long as a duplicate test given twice reflects the content and skills of the curriculum. But instead, administrators compare apples to oranges by comparing one grade level’s year-end test scores to a DIFFERENT group of students’ different tests.

(For example, the June scores of the 4th grade class of 2012 to the June scores of the 5th grade class of 2013. The two tests cover entirely different material. The state may even have changed the 4th grade test content after the 5th graders took it the prior year!)

If we MUST follow this illogical testing method, let’s at least try to draw the best conclusions we can:

Small score differences (say, only 1-5%) should be ignored.

Why? There are few enough test questions that only one or two right versus wrong makes this much score difference. We shouldn’t leap to big conclusions about Alberto’s progress from one year to the next based on 1 or 2 questions.

If a student has:

The EXACT SAME percent right in June as the prior June–Success!

That’s right. Unlike what current administrators think, if a student’s score doesn’t go up AT ALL from one year to the next, that absolutely does NOT mean the teacher is incompetent. Remember, the material on the higher grade level’s test is more advanced.

Even if Kelley scored only 40% last year and the same this year, it means she successfully learned an entire year’s new material at the same level of competence as last year. If most of the students in a class meet their last year’s percent, the teacher is worthy. This is especially true if last year’s low scorers met their last year scores, because it is especially hard to teach a year’s worth of information to students who begin the new grade with skills far below grade level.

A HIGHER score the second year?–Outstanding Success!

This means Ron was taught even MORE than a year’s worth. If several students achieved these gains, it likely indicates a strong teacher. (Especially if some of these gainers had low scores to begin with.)

A LOWER score year 2?–May STILL be a competent teacher.

Was last year’s score low? The teacher may have taught Lars a lot more than he knew before, but perhaps he was unable to learn a whole year’s worth because his skills began so low, there are continued home problems…or, he may chronically choose to give low effort and his family takes no action to reverse this.

If last year’s score was NOT low, a lower score the following year is a failure.

Moderate- or high-scorers of last year should be capable of learning a year’s worth at the same percent level of competence. If several such kids have their scores drop, the teacher may be at fault.

(But if only a handful have such drops, look for other causes. For example, did last year’s teachers of these students have her/his class use test dividers and assure no cheating occurred, or were low-effort students successful at copying answers from class “stars”?)

What’s an Administrator to Do?

Confusion Signpost


How SHOULD we get summaries of whole class, grade-level, and school performance from individual student score differences? A couple of possible methodologies for rating teachers based on test scores of their students are given in the ADDENDUM.

Regardless of the fine statistical details, only after we look at what individual students gain or lose can we fairly compare results between teachers, schools, and districts in order to look for patterns and determine which teaching models and materials we want to either emulate or avoid.

And only after teachers don’t supervise the testing of their own students, unless filmed doing so. Only then might we fairly consider relating salaries to test scores.

Of course, administrators don’t want to deal with reality, because reality is complicated. They will continue to use totally specious data to form incorrect decisions that adversely affect teachers, teaching, and your children.
Previous Post: The Pink-Tinged Ghetto
The Next Post: Why Do Teachers Think Testing Is Unfair?


Perhaps, assign one “strong-teaching” point for every five test-score points of each student’s score gain (above that first insignificant 1-5%), and take away one strong-teaching point for every five test-score points lost per student. Then, look at the net sum of strong-teaching points for the class.


A better method might go something like this: “8 students had their test scores go up by 10 points or more, but 2 students had their scores drop by that much. Everyone else’s scores stayed about the same (ignoring the “1-5%” points). So, that teacher had a net gain of 6 students who learned more than year’s worth.

Using this method, this teacher’s rating would be +6, which I would rank “very good”. A rating of +0, meaning all scores either stayed the same, or an equal number went up as went down, would indicate a rating of “competent”. If a teacher had a high proportion of plus scores (students who improved) each year, that would be an outstanding teacher, particularly if some of these students showed large point gains. Similarly, if a teacher earned “only” a “competent, but earned it year after year, and had few students lose ground each year, that would indicate “highly competent.”

This system seems to reflect reality and reflect better on the marvelous competence of many of today’s teachers better than anything I have heard or seen from the lips or pens of administrators.


Is my methodology valid? Real statisticians are paid to figure this stuff out. It may be that whatever method is chosen, we should adjust results based on the level of the entire class. If test scores of the majority are particularly low to begin with, is it harder to achieve a large point gain? Unlike in a gifted class, the students aren’t learning much from each other. If those classes see a test score increase, maybe those teachers should get a whopping bonus.
Previous Post: The Pink-Tinged Ghetto
The Next Post: Why Do Teachers Think Testing Is Unfair?


%d bloggers like this: