As Georgia’s legislature considers a bill to expand the state’s scholarship tax credit program and increase transparency, some are calling for additional regulations. Writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Adam Emerson of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute argued the Peach State should require private schools that accept scholarship students to administer standardized tests. That would be a mistake.
Emerson argues parents, educators, and policymakers “deserve to compare the gains that students make in different school environments.” Test scores can be a useful, albeit limited and incomplete, method of comparing the academic effectiveness of different schools. Under the current system, parents are free to choose private schools that administer standardized tests and avoid those that do not or vice-versa. Likewise, donors are free to direct their money to scholarship organizations that only fund schools that do or do not administer standardized tests.
A testing mandate would severely limit or even eliminate these choices. Parents concerned about the “teach to the test” phenomenon or whose child reacts negatively to testing, and educators who believe standardized testing blocks real learning, will have little to no choice but to participate in the standardized testing regime, as even Emerson acknowledges.
Emerson argues the vast majority of private schools would still participate in the scholarship tax credit program even with a testing mandate. He cites a recent Fordham study of regulation in school choice programs showing “only 3 percent of non-participating schools cited governmental regulations as the most important reason to opt out.”
That’s exactly the problem. The mandate would force private schools to choose between eschewing both the tests and all the students who need scholarships to attend their school, or accepting both. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of schools succumb to the financial pressure.
Researchers tend to support testing mandates because they allow them to evaluate the effectiveness of certain reforms, to an extent. But the act of measurement itself can distort the very thing they are trying to measure. Even aside from cheating scandals, the tests create strong incentives for teachers to teach differently so their students perform well on the test. Of course, some will argue, “That’s not a bug, that’s a feature!” They support standardized tests as a means of increasing accountability to government.
Standardized tests are not the only way to measure learning. Supporters of standardized testing know that, but they want uniform measures so they can compare apples to apples. The problem is that uniform measures create a powerful incentive to move toward uniform behavior. As James Shuls of the Show-Me Institute wrote recently, “The fact is that curriculum standards don’t tell teachers how to teach in the same way that a high jump bar doesn’t tell a jumper how to jump. You could theoretically jump over a high jump bar in whatever way you would like; but because of how the jump is structured there is a clear advantage to doing the old Fosbury Flop.”
Although standardized tests are not as imposing as curriculum standards, what’s on the test can drive what teachers teach, when, and how. Professor Jay P. Greene argued along similar lines regarding national standards: “Uniformity would only make sense if: 1) there was a single best way for all students to learn; 2) we knew what it was; 3) we could be sure the people running this nationalized education system would adopt that correct approach; and 4) they would remain in charge far into the future. But that isn’t how things are. There is no consensus on what all students need to know.”
Standardized tests create an incentive for uniformity when we should be fostering a diversity of pedagogical methods. To the extent that researchers, policymakers, and some educators believe standardized tests are useful, they should make their case in the free marketplace of ideas and encourage parents to choose the schools that administer them.
What they shouldn’t do is use the coercive power of government to fashion a top-down system of testing that could squelch diversity and innovation.