High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
APeriodic Reviewof Ideas and Issues in Education Marketing
S
PRING
2007V
OLUME
XV
•
N
UMBER
2
To Test or Notto Test
Examining the Role of Standardized Testing in EducationPage 3
Interview
Michael WeschPage 10
Leader, Marketer,Visionary,Fund Raiser
College Presidentsin Academia TodayPage 17
T
HE
L
AWLOR
REVIEW
[2]
Publisher
John T. Lawlor
Editor
Virginia R. Buege
Contributing Writers
Kris Berggren,Virginia R.Buege,Christine Stern
Layout
Lynn Clayson
Project Management
KristenKokkinen, Will Dudzinski
Business Manager
Molly Schomburg
Copy Editing
Carole Arwidson,Amy Foster
Letters & Commentary
The Lawlor Review
invites readers to submitletters and commentary about articles in thisissue or on topics related to educationmarketing. Editorial correspondence shouldbe no more than 500 words and include yourname, job title and organizational affiliation.
The Lawlor Review
reserves the right to editletters and commentary and makes noguarantee that submitted materials will bepublished. Please send all editorialcorrespondence to: Editor,
The Lawlor Review
, 6106 Excelsior Boulevard,Minneapolis, MN 55416-2724 or e-mailtlg@thelawlorgroup.com.
Free Subscriptions
In order to receive this acclaimed educationmarketing journal free of charge, you mustsign up online atthelawlorgroup.com.You must opt in to receive future issuesof
The Lawlor Review.
Reproduction & Rights
No part of
The Lawlor Review
may bereproduced or transmitted in any form orby any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopy, recording, or anyinformation storage and retrieval system,without written permission.
Environmental Considerations
The Lawlor Review
is printed on PotlatchLustro, Dull, Cream which contains aminimum of 10 percent of the total fibercontent from post-consumer waste.
The Lawlor Review
is printed with soy-based inks.Please recycle.
Postmaster
Please send address changes to
The Lawlor Review,
6106 Excelsior Boulevard,Minneapolis, MN 55416-2724.
© The Lawlor Review.
All rights reserved.The views and opinions expressed are heldby individuals and do not necessarily reflectthe opinions of
The Lawlor Review
staff.
T
HE
L
AWLOR
REVIEW
VOLUME XV,NUMBER 2
Diverse Discussions
Recently I overheard two moms comparing notes about how to help their childrenprepare for some test taking: extra sleep, a fortified breakfast and canceling swimlessons for the week were in order, according to one of the parents. Hearing themtalk brought to mind my own SAT and GRE testing experiences … until theirconversation resumed and I realized they actually were talking about their third-graders and the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test.While the MAP hardly seems as significant a test as the SAT, these parents’apprehension about their children’s success underscores the emphasis placed on—and the anxiety caused by—standardized tests at all levels. And our “obsession”with testing isn’t likely to disappear, according to veteran writer Chris Stern.Her story, “To Test or Not to Test: Examining the Role of Standardized Testingin Education,” looks into the history behind testing in America as well as thepolitics of the growing test-optional movement.Speaking of testing, could there ever possibly be one to identify future collegepresidents? Not likely, given the lengthy list of expectations for an auspiciouspresidency: the endowment should go up and the discount rate down; campusaesthetics should improve; enrollment should yield more diversity and scholarlyquality; and institutional reputation should shine more brilliantly, among otherthings. In the story “Leader, Marketer, Visionary, Fund Raiser: College Presidentsin Academia Today,” writer Kris Berggren sets out to learn what talents, skillsand experiences are essential for presidents to succeed in higher education today.Also in this issue, you’ll find an interesting Q & A with Michael Wesch,Ph.D., a cultural anthropologist whose research focuses on the cultural and socialphenomenon of technology. His digital ethnography work group is studying Web2.0 and revealing fascinating insights into the cultural shifts that have been set inmotion by this digital revolution.Testing, leadership and technology: diverse topics indeed, yet incrediblyrelevant to the landscape of higher education today. We hope this issue inspiresas much discussion and new thinking in your office as it has in ours.Virginia R. Buege
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Spring 2007© The Lawlor Review
[3]
A Two-Way Trend
By some estimates, Americans inschools, workplaces and the militarytake 600 million standardized testsa year. Our interest in—some say“obsession with”—testing can betraced to the Reagan administration’s1983 report “A Nation at Risk” andresulting federal studies that foundhigh rates of illiteracy and lowaverage standardized test scores forAmerican students relative to thosein other industrialized nations. Facedwith a weak national economyand burgeoning commercial andtechnological competition fromabroad, the federal governmentbecame a driving force in educationthat’s been steadily acceleratingever since.In 2003, Vanderbilt University’sPeabody Center for Education(Nashville, Tennessee) published a20-year re-appraisal of “A Nation atRisk” (NAR). It observes that thegreatest legacy of NAR might be theraising of standards in education. Highschool graduation requirements, morestringent course content and otherstandards-based policies, such as thecurrent administration’s No Child LeftBehind law, are commonplace today.Since NAR, the federal plea toeducators has been to showaccountability. The Peabodyreport ties standardized testingto accountability as a method of measuring school performance.Nevertheless, the Peabody authorsstate that while NAR referred totest scores as “evidence” of schoolfailure, there was no suggestion atthe time that more testing wouldsolve any part of the problem.Bob Schaeffer has been attackingstandardized testing for more than20 years as the public educationdirector of FairTest: The NationalCenter for Fair & Open Testing. Hepoints out that the organization is not“The National Center for No Testing,”as some suppose. “If kids believe thatsilly-odd bubbles and essays onSaturday morning mean more thangrades in courses—which, of course,include a lot of tests,” says Schaeffer,
© The Lawlor ReviewSpring 2007
Recent national media attention has thrust the standardized testingdebate into the mainstream. Critics condemn it as biased, inaccurate andunfair, yet the Commission on the Future of Higher Education hassuggested that testing college graduates to measure achievement mightbe in order. What’s going on here? Is there any consensus? We look at therole of standardized testing in K-12, and hear from higher-ed institutionsas widely divergent as Pitzer College and MIT about how and why theymade their admission-test decisions. We share insights from experts onall sides of the issue and offer a glimpse into the possible future of standardized testing in American education.
?
?
?
?
? ?
?
?
?
? ? ?
?
?
TO TEST OR NOT TO TEST
Examining the Role of Standardized Testing in Education
by Christine Stern
Add a Comment