Are tests the answer? As more high schools start using standardized exams, the stakes get higher. (National).

HENRY MYER, A SOPHOMORE IN Cambridge, Mass., can think of plenty of ways he'd choose to spend two weeks with no classes. "I would definitely play a lot of basketball," says the 16-year-old.

As it turns out, Myer will be free from many of his classes for two weeks in May. However, he'll be holding not a basketball but a pencil, as he and his classmates take a battery of tests known as the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. The MCAS is an extensive exam of math and language-arts skills that all of the state's public high school students must pass to graduate.

It's called high-stakes testing, and this is its high season. Across the country, thousands of students are facing exams for which the stakes could hardly be much higher: A failing score can mean summer school, being held back, even denial of a diploma.

In recent years, a growing number of states--spurred in part by criticism that schools are not educating students well enough--have implemented a variety of new tests. So far, at least 19 states use exit exams, with a handful of others considering doing so.

With the support of President George W. Bush, there is a broader move to expand testing nationwide at all grade levels. Bush, who has made improving education a major issue in his administration, offers a simple explanation. "Without yearly testing," he said, "we do not know who is falling behind and who needs our help."

DO TESTS HELP OR HURT?

No big deal, right? After all, who doesn't want to make sure that students are being properly educated?

But the move to make testing an even bigger part of classroom life is causing one of the hottest debates in American education in years. While some experts are encouraged by what they see as the return of accountability, others believe additional testing may actually weaken education. And some students have even boycotted the tests.

Proponents acknowledge that one-size-fits-all standardized testing is an imperfect tool. But they argue it's still the best way to pinpoint failing students and schools in need of improvement.

"It's very easy to shoot the messenger and blame tests, when really the abysmal situation that we face is totally unequal learning opportunities for students all across the country," says Paul Reville, a lecturer on education at Harvard University. Already, testing advocates say, states like Massachusetts have seen improvements in student performance on the tests (see "Testing Achievement," page 10).

But critics argue that the tests have forced schools to drop important parts of the curriculum, in order to give more time to areas that will be covered in the test. "It's notlearning for the sake of learning anymore--it's just learning for the sake of testing," says Bill Wetzel, a former substitute teacher in North Carolina who formed Students Against Testing. His group helps students organize opposition to the new tests.

For many students, the high-stakes tests are a source of high anxiety. With so much riding on the test scores, mistakes can carry major repercussions. And some students might be even more nervous if they knew that the big companies behind the tests don't always do so well themselves. Just ask the nearly 9,000 New York City kids who spent a month in summer school in 1999 after they were wrongly told they had flunked a test. Or the 47,000 Minnesota high school students who were scored too low on a flawed test the following year, disrupting graduation plans (see "Wrong Answer," opposite page).

PRESIDENTIAL PUSH

The push for more testing has been building for about two decades, but it has really taken off under President Bush. In January, he signed into law a requirement that all students in grades 3 to 8 be tested every year in reading and math. Under the new law, schools that repeatedly test poorly may face consequences, including the possibility of losing their students to other schools. Previously, only about half the states had the power to penalize poor performance.

Still, the prospect of further testing is leading to more questions. Some experts oppose it outright as an inaccurate--and irrelevant--measure of knowledge. Some oppose only high-stakes testing, which even the testing industry says should not be used alone to make big decisions about a student's future.

And some have no particular feelings about exams, but worry that a test-happy nation may delude itself into thinking that it has done something about the problem of failing schools just by requiring the assessments. Bob Schaeffer, public-education director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, puts it in farming terms: "You don't make sheep fatter by weighing them more often."

Some of the sheep have begun to act decidedly less than sheeplike, as students refuse to go along with the tests. In states including New York, Massachusetts, and California, there have been parent- or student-led boycotts.

Two years ago in Massachusetts, Cambridge resident Andrew King, then an 8th-grader, was among dozens of classmates who refused to take additional tests being phased in. Those in Cambridge weren't punished, though boycotters elsewhere in the state faced suspensions, lower grades, or alternative assignments. "I don't think kids should have their whole future based on the results of one test," says King, now 15.

King expects to boycott the tests again this year. But he will likely have less company. With the exams now a graduation requirement, even King says that, eventually, if the state doesn't back down, he will probably have to take them.

His mother, Jackie Dee King, who now works for the Center for Fair and Open Testing, supports her son's position. "These are our children," she says. "Of course, we want the education system to have high standards and to have school systems be held accountable. We believe in that--but we don't believe this is the way to do it."

SCHOOLS UNDER PRESSURE

Since bad scores can get school officials in trouble with the public, there may be pressure on schools to save themselves, at the expense of their students. Often, it is a matter of jettisoning certain lesson plans so that students can be "taught the test." Certain teachers have extra incentive to stress test skills because they get bonus money when their students score high. (Some California teachers, opposed to testing, have refused the money.)

More ominous is criticism that some schools may be pressuring poorly performing students to drop out or transfer before they can take the tests. Even without school pressure, experts say, exit tests already appear to be driving out some weaker students before graduation.

The biggest problem comes when a test is used to assess both the students and their school. "Whenever you're using the same tests for those two purposes, the institutions are always in a better position to protect their interests than are the kids," says Walter Haney, a researcher at Boston College's School of Education.

One testing expert compares the issue to basketball. Grant Wiggins, president of Relearning by Design, an educational consulting company, likens the situation to a basketball league in which players are assessed on the last day of each season--but no one, not even the coaches, knows ahead of time precisely what skills will be tested. The players don't even learn for months which shots went into the basket. And because the coaches know that the scores are going to be released to the newspapers, Wiggins says, they stop teaching players how to play the whole game, focusing instead on isolated skills, like free-throw shooting.

Cambridge sophomore Henry Myer might appreciate the basketball analogy. But he says he's not spending a lot of time getting ready for the two-week tests.

"I'm not doing anything to prepare for it," he says, "because I think it's already taking up too much time as it is."

Testing Achievement

Massachusetts and Virginia are two of the states that are phasing
in standardized testing as a graduation requirement. Over the past
four years, both states have seen an increase in the percentage of
high school students who pass (see graph below). Advocates say it
raises standards and holds students accountable for what they
learn. Meanwhile, critics worry that teachers are being forced to
teach to the exams, leaving them little room for creativity as
they churn out students who are test-taking stars.

Percentage of students who passed

        Virginia    Massachussetts

ENGLISH TEST

1998      71%            72%
1999      76%            68%
2000      79%            66%
2001      82%            82%

MATHEMATICS TEST

1998      41%            48%
1999      49%            47%
2000      62%            55%
2001      73%            75%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

FOCUS: The Debate Over "Exit" Exams: Measuring Knowledge or Waste of Time?

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the growing debate over standardized testing, specifically whether such testing provides an accurate and relevant measure of high school students' knowledge.

Discussion Questions:

* The article notes that schools whose students do poorly on standardized tests face sanctions. If you were a school superintendent or member of a board of education, what do you believe would be a fair sanction?

* In many countries, all students in the same grade take the exact same classes in a national standardized curriculum. What do you believe might be the benefits and drawbacks of such a system of education?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Critical Thinking: Students are not likely to support the movement toward more standardized testing. But you can engage them in class discussion by asking them to consider whether the debate over testing should be an either-or proposition.

Ask students for a show of hands on these questions, then follow up with class discussion:

* Should standardized testing be halted?

* Is it likely that that might happen?

* Some proponents of standardized tests compare them to medical exams that can spot treatable health problems. Is this a good analogy?

Next, address two of the concerns of testing opponents. (1) They say the tests are an inaccurate, irrelevant measure of knowledge. What should an educated young person know? Is it just the basics--math, science, language arts, social studies? Anything else? (2) "High stakes" tests should be used in conjunction with other measures of students' abilities. Ask what other aspects of students' academic and personal experience should be taken into consideration when evaluating students' abilities.

Note the incidents when errors in the standardized tests falsely flunked students in New York and Minnesota. Ask students how such errors should be rectified. Should the companies that produced the tests be fined? Should the state and/or the testing companies compensate the affected students in some fashion? What would be an appropriate compensation for students who were erroneously given low grades?

ERIC NAGOURNEY is a staff editor for The New York Times.