April 11, 2006
WASL column: Split decision
The responses I’ve received from readers about my columns on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) graduation requirement are almost evenly split between those in favor and those opposed. Those on the pro-requirement side adamantly favor using a test to raise standards. Anti-WASL folks vary in their reasons for opposing the WASL. Since math and science WASLs run April 18-21, discussing these objections is timely.
Creating and administering the WASL has already cost a bundle. One correspondent put the price tag at more than $150 million. If the objective is to test minimum competency for a diploma, couldn’t we use an existing standardized test? Or how about buying a WASL-like test from another state? Money spent on testing is money that doesn’t get spent on teaching.
Several readers took me to task for describing the WASL as “basic.” They argue that the WASL tests “thinking styles” rather than basic mastery. As an example, a student can get a better score on a math problem for a good explanation than for the right answer.
The flip side of this argument is that the range of acceptable styles—especially on the writing test—is too narrow. My tenth grade daughter’s complaint is that she and her classmates have spent days being instructed in a very rigid essay format. The format required for the WASL is so simple-minded that she’d be marked down for using it in any of her high school classes.
And then comes the discovery that the state superintendent’s office has encouraged teachers to tell students that it’s all right to make up facts and figures in writing their persuasive essays. Well, what can you expect from an education department manned entirely by green aliens from the asteroid belt?
Okay, I made up the bit about aliens. Making up facts isn’t very professional in a newspaper column. Teaching our students to make up facts is no better.
Another complaint is that high-achieving students spend too many days taking and preparing for a test that’s meaningless for them. The state ought to have a high-end escape clause for this 25 to 50 percent of the student body. Maybe give Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Tests early and let high-scoring students skip the WASL. Or give a half-day mini-WASL in ninth grade where an A or B excuses you from the full WASL. After all, if the WASL is being used to identify students who aren’t performing at high school level, why waste time and money testing students who are solid on their academics?
These complaints are picking on details, not objecting to the principle of testing. Details matter. The education establishment needs to recognize that widespread public unhappiness with the WASL undercuts its effectiveness as a useful tool.
I also received one more broadly aimed complaint; one that frankly scares me. Suppose the whole thing is a wasted effort? As one skeptic wrote, there’s no point in identifying what’s broken if we don’t have the will to follow through. The purpose of the WASL is to identify broken parts of the K-12 system and fix them—to make sure that all our kids get the education they need and deserve. Once we have WASL results, will any significant improvement follow either for individual students or for the system as a whole?
The panic over the WASL cutting off diplomas shows that we already know that our schools deserve an “unsatisfactory” grade. If Washington’s taxpayers, parents, teachers and legislators don’t commit the hard work and resources to repair the problems identified by the WASL, then the whole exercise will be a painful, expensive waste.
