Educationally speaking

GAY GEISER-SANDOVAL

Well, the Stanford 9 test results are out, and it’s time to place

the blame on somebody. Some say we should blame the teachers. That’s the

easiest way to explain why some schools, with yearly predictability, fall

below the 50% level.

In fact, what we need to do is punish those teachers who can’t get

their pupils to at least an 85% testing level. Surely grave socioeconomic

or language problems can’t cause low test scores.

While I’m the first to agree that some teachers could do a better job,

I don’t believe their worth should be determined by test results. The

incentive to cheat has grown to epic proportions in states that use the

Stanford 9 as a district and teacher benchmark.

As the results gain more importance, the frenzy to teach test-taking

methods become more widespread. Thus, while students may, in fact, be

marking more correct answers, their percentage scores won’t necessarily

go up. Half the schools will always be below 50% and half will always be

above 50%.

Traditionally, those schools scoring in the top half are the ones that

get the best physical facilities and equipment, the newest textbooks, and

the most qualified teachers.

So, if we were really serious about placing community resources in the

problem areas, we would switch a student body from one school to another.

But, let’s face it, we aren’t that interested in solving the problem.

Given that scenario, if students from Anderson Elementary School in

Newport Beach were transferred to Wilson Elementary School in Costa Mesa,

would they see a 75% drop in their test scores? And would the Wilson kids

suddenly experience a 75% increase? No.

Each year I compare my daughter’s test scores to that of the school

and wonder why hers are so different from the average. Does the fact that

some of the students made designs with their answer sheet explain why the

school average might be less?

I had been prepared for a terrible social science test score, because

her school does not teach history in ninth grade. The eighth-grade

history teacher had been told to teach an extra 70 years of history to

get them prepared for the ninth-grade test, but that didn’t happen.

Yet social science was one of my daughter’s top scores.

Curiously, she had the same thing happen in earth and physical science

questions, although she hasn’t studied those subjects in two years. She

also had every question right in trigonometry, discrete mathematics and

conceptual underpinnings of calculus. In fact, she earned her best scores

in subjects she wasn’t taking.

Does that mean that supplying her with a book and a teacher is just a

hindrance to her scores?

For these reasons, I think determining how well students are doing in

school, or which teachers should be rewarded or sanctioned, shouldn’t

rest solely on the results of the Stanford 9 test.

However, one teacher asked me to pass along a message to Daily Pilot

columnist Steve Smith: If it is so easy to change test scores at some of

the West Side Costa Mesa schools, why doesn’t he or others try it with

just one student? Take one student for a year and see how easy it is to

improve his or her test scores by 10%?

Then think about a teacher who is expected to do it for 20, 30 or 150

students.