On April 15, 2008, the first day of the year's WASL testing, Carl Chew, a 6th grade science teacher at Nathan Eckstein Middle School in Seattle, refused to administer the WASL, and was escorted from the school by the building principal and district supervisor.
Through a press release, he explained the reasons for his actions. CURE's position is that the WASL is not valid, reliable, educationally effective, or cost effective. Thus, we agree with Mr. Chew on most, although not all, of his points.
It is important to note that requiring students to pass the WASL is not part of the federal No Child Left Behind law.1 The high stakes nature of the WASL is a decision made by Washington's state school Superintendent and the Legislature, as is the choice of which test to use.2 Thus many of Mr. Chew's grievances could be solved in-state with the right leadership in the Legislature, Governor's office, and Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
CURE believes the real problem with the WASL is the nature, not the language, of the questions. The questions are vague and require students to look at a situation from the same viewpoint as the WASL-designer. This is characteristic of the math and science portions as well as the reading and writing portions. Students are expected to follow and explain thought-processes which match the scorer's "rubric", and this presents a difficulty for all students, regardless of race or background. Non-English speakers are at a particular disadvantage.
Mr. Chew accurately describes the anxiety created by the WASL system. The emotional drain on students (and teachers) could be alleviated if Washington removed the requirement that the WASL be used as a diploma-denying instrument.
CURE and many other organizations deplore the huge amounts of money that have been spent on the WASL: item creation and analysis, committees to create rubrics, committees to set the cut scores, teacher training, public relations meetings, brochures, motivational presentations and rewards for students, shortened school days during two WASL weeks, changing the curriculum to WASL-prep materials, WASL administration, grading, sorting, inventorying, storing, and guarding the WASL, and many more elements of WASL spending. These funds could have been used for increased salaries, and/or improved classroom conditions. In 2005, it cost about $75 for four parts per student, just to administer and grade the WASL, while the Iowa test cost about $3 per student and yielded more timely and understandable results. (A law was passed to discontinue the Iowa test in 2005.) Thus the solution is not to spend more money. Taxpayers are already paying too much. Instead, funds must be redirected and used more wisely.
While CURE may have differing opinions on some issues, we admire and applaud Mr. Chew's willingness to take a much needed stand against a process with the potential to destroy the success of hundreds, if not thousands, of students. Many young people will never be able to achieve their dreams because of a single unreliable, un-normed, non-standardized, subjective assessment of their ability by someone who has never met them. In fact, the assessment-scorer may have never even taught a single class, but is deemed "qualified" by a private for-profit corporation to decide a child's future potential. CURE endorses Mr. Chew's integrity in refusing to participate. It's a step more teachers, who see the true impact of the WASL, need to make.
1NCLB (Public Law 107-110) Title I, Part A, SubPart 1, Section 1111(l).
2NCLB (Public Law 107-110) Title I, Part A, SubPart 1, Section 1111(b)(1 and 2).
Follow up article:
See "Many factors crafted teacher's decision to not give WASL" from the News Tribune