Should schools require more rigorous testing of students to determine literacy levels?

I think it is the structure, rather than the message, in the statement above which raises the alarm signals in the minds of stake-holders of our schools. Perhaps if the comparative 'more' were omitted it would be less intimidating to the ears of anti-testing crusaders. But even without it, I can still visualise them up in arms and yelling that their children are being turned into testing zombies.

The most detestable word in the statement this time round would be 'rigorous', and they would qualify it by suggesting that rigorous testing, or any formalised examination of their children's learning was unfair, selective, intimidating, inhuman or just plain unsuitable for children.

For starters, I have had to look up the meaning of the word 'rigorous' to determine its suitability in the statement. Out of the four meanings that came up, the first three gave it the negative connotation of strict, harsh, unrelenting, and severe activity. The other meaning which describes it as an extremely standardized, precise and formalized activity, has been intentionally ignored by anti-testing crusaders. In line with this latter definition I wish to discuss the merits of a formal standardized and precise testing.

But first, there is need to explain that tests are not intended as punishment to students or as a selective device to separate, as it were, the chaff from the grain. There are various tests, and depending on their purpose, level and legal requirements of the testing institution, will vary in their rigor. Granted that teachers have at their disposal the ability to make tests less formal, testing has been with us for ages, and will always remain in any learning environment.

Now let us get back to the bone of contention; whether more rigorous testing will help to determine students' literacy levels or not. To begin, we will need to agree that testing is a useful feedback tool for both teachers and learners for gauging learning levels. There are short, medium and long-term tests. Short term feedbacks include verbal answers that students give in class. The next level could be continuous assessment tests, and homework that go hand-in-hand with learning.

But more formalised assessments may be necessary for purposes of placing students to the next level of learning, to show competence at the end of a course, and to also help the teachers to plan for the future. Would they have to revisit what they have already taught or would remedial work be necessary for only a few pupils?

Placement assessment tests can be standardized, formalised and precise without seeming intimidating or giving the impression of being an ordeal. The atmosphere should be formal and strict, to dissuade cheating and unfairness from students who want to get it the easy way.

Without rigorous testing, there would be no clear cut way forward; the teacher should have pass-marks and actual records of marks, to show that learning had taken place. From the records of marks with names of real pupils, s/he will decide which learners will move to the next level of learning. We all know that it is unthinkable for a teacher to make a verbal announcement at the end of the year without any records to show for it, that his class had shown remarkable progress and would be promoted to the next level. The records are not only an important legal requirement for the school, but are necessary for the pupils and their parents who would want to see their children's progress report.

Now that I have, hopefully, made a case for the importance of a precise, formal and standardized testing, the next question would be whether we need more or less of these. We all agree that testing is a useful tool in the learning environment; teachers use them to assess whether learning has taken place. If testing is necessary for determining the levels of learning, then it follows that testing is only necessary as long as learning takes place. Testing on its own cannot determine learning. Thus, more testing in an environment where little or no learning has taken place is like putting the cart before the horse.

My submission, therefore, is that to determine literacy levels, testing should only follow appropriate teaching and learning. It shouldn't be the case that more rigorous testing alone should determine literacy levels.