Why test scores fail to measure success

Full article: 

Why Test Scores Fail to Measure Success.pdf

Would it surprise you to learn that many economists are very interested in the effectiveness of education? A look back in history will give us the reason.

Nearly 50 years ago, economist Edward Dennison began his research on what made the greatest impact on economic growth. Not surprisingly, he found that increasing the amounts of land, labor and capital used would increase production. He also found that improvements in the quality and productivity of these resources led to even greater growth.

Over the years, economists have concluded that investments in education that help people acquire and apply new skills and information have had large and positive impacts on economic growth. With respect to these investments the critical question is: How do we make investments that will attain these outcomes?

There are no easy answers, but a few recent studies have come to interesting, if not surprising, conclusions.

A recently released study, by Harvard economics Professor Raj Chetty, is based on a database of more than 17,000 children who were educated in the early 1980s and now are adults. Chetty, like others, found that early childhood education with good teachers has a positive short-term impact on student test scores. However, this test-score advantage was short-lived, fading out by junior high.

Does the disappearance of positive effects on test scores by 7th and 8th graders suggest that early childhood education may not be a wise investment in terms of life-long benefits to the labor force? If we consider test scores only, the answer might be yes. However, Chetty documents some other very interesting effects of excellent early schooling.

Even though test score advantages faded, these students were more likely to go to college, less likely to become single parents, more likely to save for retirement, and were earning higher incomes as adults. Chetty argues that raising test scores should not be the goal or the focus of quality education. Rather, outcomes that a child will experience as an adult should be the driving force.

Diane Ravitch in her book "Death and Life of the Great American School System" also raises questions about too much reliance on test scores. She compiled results that measured the effectiveness of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, signed into law in January 2002. The goal was for all students to attain proficiency in reading and math by 2014. States were required to measure student learning in reading and math via state-prepared standardized tests, and these reading and math results influenced federal funding.

Ravitch cites a Center on Education Policy survey that indicated 62 percent of schools spent more time on teaching reading and math. The survey also reported that 44 percent of schools said they spent less time on teaching subject areas that most people agree are essential for knowledgeable, well-rounded members of society - science, social sciences (including economics and personal finance) and the arts.

There also was a heavy investment in test-preparation materials, especially in urban schools attended by many low-performing students. In spite of this, Ravitch concludes, NCLB did not bring about any notable improvements in test scores. NCLB's narrow focus on proficiency in math and reading created an environment where drill and practice became a significant part of the daily routine, and compromised the development of broader knowledge.

What can we conclude? We know that a nation's future depends on the development of its people. That development begins in the early childhood years. When children are exposed to quality teaching and a strong curriculum, learning improves. However, the way in which we measure the results makes a difference. Easy metrics like test scores may not be comprehensive measures of learning and long-term development.

Worse, they may be detrimental to a well-rounded education.