Pondiscio: It’s Time to End the Testing Culture in America’s Schools — and Start Playing the Long Game to Produce Better Life Outcomes for At-Risk Kids
Paymon Rouhanifard, the former superintendent of the Camden school district in New Jersey, delivered a speech at the School Access and Quality Summit in Boston, where he expressed his concerns about the current testing and accountability system in education policy. He boldly stated that he believes the disadvantages of the system outweigh the benefits and that we have not been honest about the trade-offs.
Rouhanifard’s critique is centered around the negative effects of the testing culture on schools, especially those attended by low-income children of color. He noted that a significant amount of time is spent on assessments and test preparation, diverting attention from subjects such as science, arts, and civic education. This leads to a reduced focus on English language learners and students with individualized education programs. Additionally, less time is allocated for actual instruction.
Although Rouhanifard’s speech was well-received, it is necessary for it to receive wider attention and discussion.
Rouhanifard’s criticism is valuable and powerful because he speaks from a unique perspective. It is easier to critique a system when it makes you look bad rather than when you are winning. Rouhanifard successfully played the testing, accountability, and data game, and even saw improvements in test scores, graduation rates, and disciplinary actions in Camden, a district previously known as one of the worst in the nation.
When Rouhanifard stepped down from his position, he received positive coverage from the media. Instead of basking in his accomplishments and seeking a new high-profile job, he used the spotlight to argue for the long-term well-being of at-risk children. He emphasized the importance of investing in mental health services, prioritizing arts and sciences, and seeking overall better life outcomes for students. He even suggested that a focus on instruction and other crucial aspects of education might lead to a temporary decrease in test scores, and that should be welcomed if it leads to better life outcomes for students.
One of the most powerful statements Rouhanifard made at MIT was the observation that most advocates of education reform would not accept the testing-intensive system imposed on other people’s children at their own children’s schools. Affluent, predominantly white schools tend to shy away from excessive testing, providing students with an extra month of instruction compared to other schools. Rouhanifard argued that the basic rule of what we want for our own children should apply to all children.
Pause. Isn’t it usually the opposing team that brings up Dewey? This is another matter that Rouhanifard addressed accurately. "We should spend more time with individuals on the front lines. With those who hold different opinions than us." Personally, I have never had much regard for those who use emotional appeals and insist that individuals who have never been teachers should not be involved in creating educational policies. However, Rouhanifard is correct in stating that "you are influenced by the people you associate with."
Looking at it from a policy standpoint, there is more to the long-term plan than simply using testing and accountability measures to distinguish between good and bad schools and teachers. Shael Polakow-Suransky, President of the Bank Street College of Education and a former colleague of Rouhanifard during their time in the New York City Department of Education, under Chancellor Joel Klein, points out that "all of us had good intentions in pushing this agenda, but the methods we developed were not effective in raising the overall standards." Polakow-Suransky hopes that Rouhanifard’s speech at MIT will spark a much-needed and substantial conversation on the topic of testing and accountability.
Rouhanifard spoke to his audience at MIT, stating that "tests should inform and guide our actions, not dictate them." While this statement may not be particularly controversial, it is comparable to suggesting that a hammer is a better tool for driving nails than changing lightbulbs. Nevertheless, the timing of these statements can have a significant impact. Emily Hanford’s recent radio documentary on reading echoed the sentiments of advocates for years, but it was her well-timed piece that broke through. Perhaps Rouhanifard’s passionate plea at MIT will also reach the right individuals at the right moment and have a similar effect. It is the type of honesty that the education reform movement often prides itself on but rarely applies to its own policies and practices.
The challenge at hand is not about testing versus not testing. It is not about accountability versus no accountability. Both approaches have their advantages and are mandated by federal laws that are unlikely to change anytime soon. The true challenge lies in developing a policy vision that supports classroom practices and ultimately leads to positive long-term outcomes for students. If your instinct is to say that testing should just be shorter or better aligned, then you are either missing the larger issue or have not set foot inside a school since 2002. The problem lies in the culture of testing that has permeated and defined American education, particularly in schools attended by disadvantaged children.
This is not a point that requires further discussion. It needs to be addressed and resolved.
Robert Pondiscio, a senior fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and senior advisor to Democracy Prep Public Schools in Harlem, New York, is a prominent writer and speaker on education and education reform topics, focusing on literacy, curriculum, teaching, and urban education.
