We Blamed the Tests. Now We’re Blaming the Screens.

The Innovative Educator By Lisa Nielsen · 4 hrs ago · 16 views

For years, parents and educators knew what they were fighting: high-stakes testing. Families organized opt-out movements. Teachers explained how testing narrowed the curriculum, consumed instructional time, and replaced meaningful learning with test preparation. Students spent weeks taking assessments that produced scores too late to help their teachers.Then the tests moved onto computers, and our attention moved with them. Instead of continuing to challenge the testing system, we started blaming the technology used to deliver it.As education journalist Natasha Singer points out in a recent post about her forthcoming book, corporations were shaping what schools bought, taught, and measured long before today’s technology companies entered classrooms. Consumer-product companies supplied branded materials. Publishers sold textbooks and packaged curricula. Testing companies influenced what counted as learning and how students demonstrated it.None of this required a screen.Take the technology out of schools and many of those same corporations will return with paper. Testing companies will continue selling unnecessary high-stakes assessments, now with additional costs for printing, shipping, handling, and scoring. Publishers will continue selling dull, one-size-fits-all textbooks, workbooks, and scripted curricula.We may get Big Tech out of classrooms while leaving Big Testing and Big Publishing firmly in control.Technology Became the Convenient TargetTechnology makes an easy villain because it is visible. We see the laptop on the desk and the student clicking through test-preparation programs. We do not see the contracts, purchasing decisions, accountability rules, and corporate interests determining what appears on the screen.When students spend an hour answering low-level questions on a computer, blaming “screen time” allows the testing company, curriculum vendor, and decision-makers who purchased the program to escape scrutiny. Put those questions in a workbook and the learning does not improve.I have made this point in Screen Time Is the Wrong Unit of Measurement and Reverting to Pen and Paper Won’t Improve Learning. Better Learning Design Will. The quality of learning depends on what students are doing, why they are doing it, and what they can do as a result. The delivery format tells us very little.The Opt-Out Movement Had the Target RightThe opt-out movement did not argue that paper and pencils were harming children because students used them to take standardized tests. Parents challenged the tests. They questioned the instructional time lost, the misuse of scores, the pressure placed on children, and the corporations profiting from public education.I was part of that conversation. In 12 Most Convincing Reasons to Opt Your Child Out of Standardized Tests, I helped parents understand why and how to resist excessive testing. In Common Core State Standards: The Precursor to Testing Disaster, I questioned why assessment had become synonymous with standardized testing when students could demonstrate learning through more meaningful work.We need that same clarity now. Digital testing did not transform the underlying system. It gave the system a new delivery method. Yet the backlash has shifted from opting out of bad assessments to restricting the devices on which those assessments appear.That shift benefits the testing and publishing industries. If the public focuses on screens, corporations can continue selling the same standardized learning model in whatever format is politically acceptable. As I argued in Laptops Did Not Take Away Their Brains. The School Model Did, blaming devices ignores what schools were asking students to do with them.Follow the MoneyIf we want to identify what is shaping learning, follow the money. Technology companies are only part of the picture. Testing companies, publishers, curriculum providers, and consulting firms have profited from public education for decades. The product may change from a textbook to a platform or from a paper test to a digital one, but the business model remains.Schools should scrutinize technology companies. Privacy, surveillance, addictive design, biased algorithms, poor-quality products, and aggressive marketing are legitimate concerns. Replacing corporate technology with corporate paper, however, does not return control to educators or students.Too often, teachers are handed programs selected without their meaningful input and told to implement them with fidelity. Students move through the same content, at the same pace, and demonstrate learning in the same way. Whether that program arrives through a platform or in a box of workbooks is beside the point.Models such as Schoolwide Enrichment and Big Picture Learning offer a better direction. As I described in 5 Innovative School Models You Might Not Know, powerful learning begins with student strengths, interests, projects, and real-world work. The learning goal determines whether students need technology, books, interviews, art supplies, hands-on materials, or some combination of them.We once understood that high-stakes testing and the system surrounding it were the targets. We should not lose sight of that because the test now appears on a screen.Technology is the messenger. To find the real problem, follow the money beyond the screen. Look at who profits from controlling what schools buy, what teachers teach, and what students are expected to produce. When educators and students regain that agency, corporations lose their grip and students win.

For years, parents and educators knew what they were fighting: high-stakes testing. Families organized opt-out movements. Teachers explained how testing narrowed the curriculum, consumed instructional time, and replaced meaningful learning with test preparation. Students spent weeks taking assessments that produced scores too late to help their teachers.

Then the tests moved onto computers, and our attention moved with them. Instead of continuing to challenge the testing system, we started blaming the technology used to deliver it.

As education journalist Natasha Singer points out in a recent post about her forthcoming book, corporations were shaping what schools bought, taught, and measured long before today’s technology companies entered classrooms. Consumer-product companies supplied branded materials. Publishers sold textbooks and packaged curricula. Testing companies influenced what counted as learning and how students demonstrated it.

None of this required a screen.

Take the technology out of schools and many of those same corporations will return with paper. Testing companies will continue selling unnecessary high-stakes assessments, now with additional costs for printing, shipping, handling, and scoring. Publishers will continue selling dull, one-size-fits-all textbooks, workbooks, and scripted curricula.

We may get Big Tech out of classrooms while leaving Big Testing and Big Publishing firmly in control.

Technology Became the Convenient Target

Technology makes an easy villain because it is visible. We see the laptop on the desk and the student clicking through test-preparation programs. We do not see the contracts, purchasing decisions, accountability rules, and corporate interests determining what appears on the screen.

When students spend an hour answering low-level questions on a computer, blaming “screen time” allows the testing company, curriculum vendor, and decision-makers who purchased the program to escape scrutiny. Put those questions in a workbook and the learning does not improve.

I have made this point in Screen Time Is the Wrong Unit of Measurement and Reverting to Pen and Paper Won’t Improve Learning. Better Learning Design Will. The quality of learning depends on what students are doing, why they are doing it, and what they can do as a result. The delivery format tells us very little.

The Opt-Out Movement Had the Target Right

The opt-out movement did not argue that paper and pencils were harming children because students used them to take standardized tests. Parents challenged the tests. They questioned the instructional time lost, the misuse of scores, the pressure placed on children, and the corporations profiting from public education.

I was part of that conversation. In 12 Most Convincing Reasons to Opt Your Child Out of Standardized Tests, I helped parents understand why and how to resist excessive testing. In Common Core State Standards: The Precursor to Testing Disaster, I questioned why assessment had become synonymous with standardized testing when students could demonstrate learning through more meaningful work.

We need that same clarity now. Digital testing did not transform the underlying system. It gave the system a new delivery method. Yet the backlash has shifted from opting out of bad assessments to restricting the devices on which those assessments appear.

That shift benefits the testing and publishing industries. If the public focuses on screens, corporations can continue selling the same standardized learning model in whatever format is politically acceptable. As I argued in Laptops Did Not Take Away Their Brains. The School Model Did, blaming devices ignores what schools were asking students to do with them.

Follow the Money

If we want to identify what is shaping learning, follow the money. Technology companies are only part of the picture. Testing companies, publishers, curriculum providers, and consulting firms have profited from public education for decades. The product may change from a textbook to a platform or from a paper test to a digital one, but the business model remains.

Schools should scrutinize technology companies. Privacy, surveillance, addictive design, biased algorithms, poor-quality products, and aggressive marketing are legitimate concerns. Replacing corporate technology with corporate paper, however, does not return control to educators or students.

Too often, teachers are handed programs selected without their meaningful input and told to implement them with fidelity. Students move through the same content, at the same pace, and demonstrate learning in the same way. Whether that program arrives through a platform or in a box of workbooks is beside the point.

Models such as Schoolwide Enrichment and Big Picture Learning offer a better direction. As I described in 5 Innovative School Models You Might Not Know, powerful learning begins with student strengths, interests, projects, and real-world work. The learning goal determines whether students need technology, books, interviews, art supplies, hands-on materials, or some combination of them.

We once understood that high-stakes testing and the system surrounding it were the targets. We should not lose sight of that because the test now appears on a screen.

Technology is the messenger. To find the real problem, follow the money beyond the screen. Look at who profits from controlling what schools buy, what teachers teach, and what students are expected to produce. When educators and students regain that agency, corporations lose their grip and students win.