An interesting discovery was recently made by researcher Daniel Goleman. Goleman examined studies that rank ordered countries’ test results over the last 50 years. He then examined the economic performance of these countries over that same time frame. What he discovered was surprising. The highest scoring countries were among the worst on economic growth during that period. The U.S. usually placed in the middle or towards the bottom on these tests in most subjects. However, the U.S. was among the highest in economic growth and standard of living.

These findings go against the grain. U.S. schools are often harshly criticized for their poor test performance. School critics usually tie their criticism to the economic impact our comparatively poor scores will have on our economy and on our standard of living. However, when you check this argument carefully, you find it has no basis. International test comparisons have virtually no value in predicting the economic success of countries. How can this be?

Part of the reason stems from what is tested. Normally standardized tests measure basic knowledge acquisition. They give a good indication of how much a student has memorized. What they do not measure is how well a student can think. They also do not measure how innovative or creative a student is. Finally, they typically measure reading, math, and science. They rarely measure art, music, writing, or social sciences.”

Recent studies are showing that what is not measured on these standardized tests is more important to the economic health of a country than what is measured. A case can also be made that what is not measured is at least as important to the well-being of the individual student as what is measured.

As the Nebraska legislature, in line with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, pushes for state standardized tests in order to compare school districts, you need to be a good consumer of the results of these tests. Ask yourself this question: If school district A has higher test scores than school district B, does it likewise follow that school district A is the better district?

The answer to this question depends on several factors. The first is what the standardized test measures. Does it measure how much a student learned in a year, or does it only give one score obtained from a testing at one point in time? Does it measure key abilities such as problem solving, creativity and higher level thinking, or does it only measure basic knowledge acquisition? Does it measure what is actually taught in the classroom, or only what a test company in another state decides is important? Does it measure how well-rounded a student is, or does it only measure their performance on a few basic subjects.

A second critical factor to consider when deciding if district A is better than district B is the demographics of the districts. District A may score higher on the test, but if their average student is from a middle class English-speaking home, is it fair to compare their results with district B where many students come from low income homes where English is a second language?

The point this author is trying to make is to use test score comparisons from one country to another, one state to another, or one district to another very cautiously. They may tempt you to draw unwarranted conclusions. The example of international test comparisons given above illustrates very clearly that scoring highest is not always an indicator of effectiveness. This is especially true if economic growth and standard of living improvements are goals.

So what is a better way of judging the success of an educational system? The answer to this question is much more complicated than a single test score. Next week’s column will be dedicated to answering this question.

For more information, contact the Webmaster.