As for criticising Koretz, you are right. Please read my criticism as a criticism of your argument, drawing from Koretz, and not one aimed directly at Koretz himself.

Indeed. But politicians are in a catch-22 situation. If they use multiple tests they get criticised for testing taking up more time than teaching. If they don’t test, we don’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on at schools. If they test without any stakes, most schools will, based on past performance, keep churning out students who haven’t even mastered the basics of reading and mathematics, let alone a well-rounded education.

Basically, whatever politicians do, they’re going to be criticised for. I suggest keeping that in mind when you decide what words to describe what they mean.

He also questions the merits of slicing up the normal distribution curve of test results into the quartiles carrying such labels as warning, basic, proficient, and advanced.

Whether anyone is doing that is an open question. The National Assessment of Educational Progress sets their test results reporting by achievement levels, not by slicing up a normal distribution curve of test results. See
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/describing.asp,
and
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/glossary.asp#achievement_levels.
The reading levels are available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp

I wonder what Daniel Koretz’s motive is in questioning the merits of a practice that has already been abandoned by the main source of education results in the USA. It is a very common rhetorical move, when you dislike something but can’t attack it on the merits, to just state aloud blithely that “x is a very bad pracitce”, implying your opponents are doing x, but allowing yourself an out if anyone calls you on the implication.

I doubt that there is any regular reader of this blog who doesn’t want to see all students receive the best possible education. Where we differ is on how that might best be achieved.

And also in our interpretations of the motives of those people who disagree with us.

I am concerned by the number of teachers wary, or even alarmed, by what they perceive as distorting pressures from high-stakes tests.

That’s nice. Are you equally concerned by the large numbers of students who failed to learn to read and do basic arithemtic under the old system?

And also, isn’t the whole point of high-stakes testing to create pressures to distort education in the desired line? Perhaps this won’t work out as planned, things seldom do, but an education system undistorted by high-stakes tests wasn’t doing a good job of educating students.

Is this not a vast, uncontrolled experiment on our kids?

And the old system wasn’t?

Product description:
The book’s goal is to clarify for parents, the public, and policy makers what high stakes tests are and how their use affects our schools, children, and society. It explores the various uses, limitations, and paradoxical consequences of high stakes testing. The present context of testing and the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind make the proposed book timely and important. Current testing programs provide valuable information to teachers, parents, and policy-makers about students, schools, and school systems. But paradoxically, these programs have unintended yet predictable negative consequences for many students, teachers, and schools. It is essential that the public and policy-makers understand the scope and impacts that result from the inherent paradoxical nature of high-stakes testing. Testing is viewed by policy makers across party lines as an “objective” measure of student attainment and has become their tool of choice to drive educational “reform” and hold children, teachers, schools, and districts accountable. Bipartisan support for test-based accountability is firm. For example, on January of 2005 President Bush called on Congress to extend NCLB testing in math and science to freshmen, sophomores and juniors citing poor performance among high school students as a “warning and a call to action.” (NYT 01/ 13/05) Senator Kennedy, a critic of the President, nonetheless supported the President’s proposed high school testing provisions.

He also questions the merits of slicing up the normal distribution curve of test results into the quartiles carrying such labels as warning, basic, proficient, and advanced.

I doubt that there is any regular reader of this blog who doesn’t want to see all students receive the best possible education. Where we differ is on how that might best be achieved. Along with the test makers cautions, I am concerned by the number of teachers wary, or even alarmed, by what they perceive as distorting pressures from high-stakes tests. How are the children now studying and taking these tests being affected? For instance, will they be more or less likely to drop out of school? Is this not a vast, uncontrolled experiment on our kids?

I agree with you that expecting proficiency of only 96%-99% is indeed far easier than expecting proficiency of 100%, what with 100% proficiency being agreed to be impossible by the writers of the NCLB law, Math Teacher, myself and every other commentator if I have seen. If it were me writing the law, I would also have allowed a low failure rate amongst students who sit the normal tests, because weird stuff always happens even with students who know the material thoroughly.

(And note, I think that student achievement is a whole-of-school-district-responsibility, I don’t think individual teachers of 4th/8th grade can bring an entire class up to the test standard in one year when they receive a bunch of students with widely-varying grade levels, and in the face of an obstructive school district).