Teachers refuse to give test, but aren’t there some tests that are worth giving?

Several sentences in this article concern me. I will address those concerns in a moment.

First, as an overview statement, I support testing students for diagnostic purposes so that instruction can be more precisely targeted to the each student’s correct instructional placement throughout the school year. If we had not used test results in the high school, in which I led the reading program, we might have erroneously placed some students in Personalized Reading who should have been correctly placed in Advanced Reading, and, likewise, we might have erroneously placed some students Advanced Reading who were not ready, yet, to take that course. Those misplaced students might have failed that course, as a result, and through no fault of their own, but simply through teacher/counselor error in placement of the student, to begin with.

Most people would never recommend that doctors should not order tests for their patients in order to formulate an accurate diagnosis of the patient’s medical condition. Likewise, citizens should support teachers’ using educational tests in order to assess correctly the accurate placement of the students and so that teachers can have the precise knowledge to teach correctly specific instructional skills to specific students.

Notice that the purpose of the testing that I suggested, above, is to use testing as a diagnostic tool to aid the teacher in ascertaining the correct instructional placement for each of his/her students. English teacher Kit McCormick in Seattle’s Public Schools is a teacher who is refusing to give the MAP test. From the article, above: “McCormick says teachers are never allowed to see the test, so she has no idea how to interpret her students’ scores.” “So I’m not going to do it. But I’d be happy to have my students evaluated in a way that would be meaningful for both them and me,” she says. From the article: “Instead of this kind of high-stakes testing, teachers at Garfield propose that student learning be judged by portfolios of their work.”

McCormick says teachers are never allowed to see the test so how could that test help pinpoint her instruction as she teaches, from day to day?

The article above states that “(t)he MAP test is used as part of the teacher-evaluation process, and it’s supposed to help teachers gauge students’ progress.” I suppose “gauging students’ progress” means “after the fact,” but “after the fact” does not help teachers’ pinpoint their instruction in the process of their teaching.

When we had tested all of the 9th, 10th, and 11th grade students in the high school in which I worked on the Nelson Reading Test, we shared those test results with teachers, parents, counselors, and even students (when appropriate) immediately the results were ascertained. In my workshops with parents after school, I further instructed parents in how to interpret their children’s standardized test scores, such as their children’s percentile scores on the CAT, so that these parents could ascertain their children’s academic progress from year-to-year. We used test results to inform and educate all, not to evaluate teachers.

Not to show teachers the test results until after the fact and to use the test results as a vehicle primarily to evaluate teachers is not the way to go in testing, imo. Did the Seattle school system, also, weigh each student’s IQ score before evaluating teachers on their students’ test results on the MAP? If the system did not also consider students’ IQ scores, then those administrators have done their teachers a disservice by not evaluating teachers comprehensively, nor fairly, because the degree of students’ progress has many variables, such as IQ, beyond teacher instruction, and especially if the teacher has not been shown test results, initiallly, in order to ascertain correct starting points of instruction for each student. (See my link below for more detail on this.)

In summary: In my opinion, testing of students should be used for the diagnostic purposes of determining students’ correct placement in instruction, and as not as a single means of evaluating teachers. Teachers should be given a fairer, and a more comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness than a single showing of test results of students, which should be weighed thoroughly and effectively against other variable factors, such as I.Q., if it is to be used in assessing teachers’ effectiveness.

http://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/about-education-essay-5-assessing-teachers-and-students/

• Link
• Report this comment

Most people would never recommend that doctors should not order tests for their patients in order to formulate an accurate diagnosis of the patient’s medical condition.

But there are not enough hours in the day to both teach and “diagnose” ad infinitum. Your logic-conversion is in direct opposition to teaching environment where the focus is organic teaching, and testing is held in check, if used at all. Most capable teachers do not require outside testing to know where their students are at or what they need, or what is the appropriate method to “teach” them and develop both capability/process skills and informational knowledge. It makes sense to have some sort of annual monitoring for sorting and placement of students, but otherwise testing-culture is highly intrusive to actual teaching environment. It is also highly significant that testing treats students as objects, whereas teaching and real learning treats students as individuals.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is a difference with the SAT test which is given at the conclusion of high school and is useful for students going somewhere and testing all the way through K-12 which is used as surveilling, a form of surveillance.

Therefore I suggest there are at least three types of / functions of “testing.”
1. Placement tests used for basic sorting of students to appropriate learning environment.
2. testing throughout the school year, rationalised by supposed need for “status information / feedback / know your students”
3. destination test to be used at conclusion of schooling for purpose of applying to college.

#2. is the concern and the one that has been growing like kudzu and mandated into the fabric of the school house / school year, whether the teachers want it or not.

• Link
• Report this comment

10:10, When’s the last time you make a 10 page “packet” for 120 students at a photocopying machine? Better hope you’ve got that “auto-stapler” thing figured out. That would mean 2.5 reams of paper available at $5.99 http://www.cvs.com/shop/product-detail/Georgia-Pacific-Copy-&-Print-Paper-85-In-X-11-In?skuId=206417 = you just spent $20. and you better hope the single photocopy machine for teachers is working because that machine is under heavy load, And then there is the time aspect, after school wait in line. Don’t try and do it in the morning (6:30-7 a.m.) because you’re in a fix if the machine is out of service. This is called “teaching without textbooks.” And there’s only so much eye-fry the kids can take from a projector.

• Link
• Report this comment

And if the school photocopier is out of service, you just spent $50.+ at the FedEx Kinko’s store doing photocopying. Consider this to be a weekly event, budget $200./month personal funds for such activity.

• Link
• Report this comment

Private Citizen, I do not have time this afternoon to write a well-structured, cohesive response to your posts to me, but I will try to give you a response because you have raised valid concerns of me.

You must consider my background. From the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s, I was an Instructional Lead Teacher for a principal (former Superintendent of Instruction) who had formed a continuous progress model school, without walls. It was based on mastery learning. Students advanced as rapidly as possible through 21 to 24 levels in reading and mathematics for grades 1 – 7, at their own rates to achieve mastery. We had to administer pre and post tests on each level in order to know if each child was properly placed. Monitoring all the children in the school in reading and math levels was a vital part of my job. Some children might advance only 2 levels in a year, and have spurt of growth the next year. Another student might advance 4 or 5 levels in a year. Children were neither bored or frustrated because our goal was to keep them all moving at their optimum levels of advancement according to their individual abilities to advance. All students were correctly placed at all times. Grade demarcations were not rigidly adherred to. On a given level – say level 8 – a 2nd and 3rd grade student might be in the same reading group on that Level 8, in reading.

Next, I went to a major suburban high school in the mid-1980s, I had had this sophisticated instructional background behind me. Therefore, as the Reading Chair for that 1,800 population high school, I wanted to give the Nelson Reading Test in-house to all of the students so that teachers and counselors would have current test results for accurate placement for instruction. I worked with all English teachers to accomplish this goal. Over the years (I retired in 2000), invariably 500 receiving 9th grade students would score on the reading vocabulary and comprehension parts of that test in the range from 4th grade level to grade level 16, with 1/2 of those 9th graders scoring on 6th grade level and below. We had a sprinkling of students even on 3rd grade level in 9th grade.

Many teachers thanked me for this knowledge. The French teacher and Foreign Language Chair, said that it was inaccurate for counselors to place students who were reading on 4th and 5th grade levels in French I in high school. She said that they should be taking the Personalized Reading course for remediation before being assigned to a foreign language course. That is why so many had failed freshmen French I in the past, she said. Likewise, poor reading scores, effect the students’ abilities to read accurately science textbooks and even math textbooks. The Mathematics Chair worked closely with me, and she found that beginning 9th graders, like beginning reading/English students, also had a wide range of mathematical skills mastered from the past upon entering 9th grade. Our reading program had schoolwide impact on all curriculum areas not only through our reading test results but also through my inservices to teachers (and parents) in how to teach reading in the content areas, thereafter.

From 33% to 40% of high school students presently drop out of school. Many have been taught on their frustration levels for years, not identified as such. 90% of prisoners in Georgia are high school drop outs. As educators, we must not put “our heads in the sand” regarding precise instructional placement throughout every student’s tenure in school.

That being said, I believe in balance. I started out as a Drama major, became an English major, and later earned an M.Ed. as a Reading Specialist. Thus, I believe in creativity in instruction as well as testing for precision so that we can turn around our poor showing with our school drop-out rates in Georgia. I am not “for” or “against” one mode of learning over another. We need both the precise and the creative in teaching. Teaching is both an art and a science. Perhaps, because of the pressure of “Race To the Top,” an over-emphasis is being placed on too much testing – and testing for the wrong purposes, i.e. to evaluate teachers and schools, instead as a diagnostic tool to pinpoint instruction. Even in the model continuous progress school in which I served as ILT, social studies classes and science classes did not incorporate the continuous progress, continuous testing model that I described for reading and math advancement. Courses are varied, and we must allow for creativity in education as much as for testing as a diagnostic tool. Too much testing is used wrongly now, imo, as a punitive vehicle instead of as an enlightening aid to foster more excellent, targeted instruction.

Reading effects every subject area. We must find a way in traditional public education to stop the drop-out rate among so many students. I believe I have shared information that could help curb this unacceptable drop-out rate, if those in positions to change public eduction will heed my thoughts which come from years of firsthand experience in which we had excellent results. The reading program in the high school in which I served as a teacher and Reading Department Chair was – at one time – the largest secondary reading program in the state of Georgia. We had 3 fulltime reading specialists and 2 reading paraprofessionals who served over 600 students daily counting our before and after school programs, and the lunchtime reading activities also. Most of our students elected our courses and programs and were not assigned to them. Our community/school outreach was to all interested parents and to all 100 teaching staff members.

This post is not as cohesive as my posts usually are, but I have no more time to edit it and to make it moreso. I hope I have addressed most of your inquiries of my thinking. We must reform public education so that we are not losing a third of our students as drop-outs. And, we must not allow schools to become places of fear for teachers and students because of the threat of tests to job security. Testing should be done for diagnostic purposes to enhance instruction, with teachers being a part of the process, and not intimidated by it. Teachers and students work best in a nurturing, creative environment. We must value teachers and treat them with respect and allow them some degree of instructional autonomy because they are professionals with unique knowledge not only of academics but also of human nature and of what fosters growth.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you don’t allow testing, it’s not possible for an outsider to evaluate the teacher. That is the goal…not that they really care about the test. Teachers do lots of things that they might not think make sense. They are taking this particular stand for a reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

Real world? You’re right, I’ve never worked on an offshore oil rig.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Private Citizen, 5:43 pm

Thank you for your gracious and kind remarks to me. I will be sure to read the Washington Post article which you have recommended to me, but it will have to be later – over the weekend – and, then, I will respond to it.

Thank you again, and enjoy your weekend!

• Link
• Report this comment

ZZzzzzzzzzz …

• Link
• Report this comment

Looks like your ears have been pinned back sufficiently. Bracey would have had your hide. A test is worth giving when it provides information to the teacher that’s usable to help the student. Your MAP might do that if it meets conditions as noted by others above. Otherwise, it’s wasted time. You already know what I think about the utility of the state’s testing.

I was given a testing schedule for a large metro district a few years ago. I added up the time taken for the local and state tests being given, and estimated the additional amount of instructional time lost caused by inane scheduling problems with state test administration (e.g., if a herd of students is off taking a math EOCT, they’re not in their math or science or English class that period, so teachers have to modifly their instruction that day because of the testing absences). I didn’t add in any estimate of real teaching lost to desperation test prep. Kinda boiled down to not much teaching going on after March. Looked like we lost about a month of learning out of the nine. Teachers risking their jobs by standing up to such destructive practice, in my book, is a good thing for our kids and the future of our society.

Point is, teachers “test” all the time. They’re ALWAYS assessing their kids. Hundreds of times a day. Those data taken together are far, far, far, far more accurate than the single shot in the dark of an high-stakes test required from above. I’d argue for using the money wasted on state testing to help teachers improve their classroom assessment practices.

• Link
• Report this comment

HS Public Teacher,

I wholeheartedly agree with you that mass standardized testing has gotten completely out of hand. Students need to be evaluated by their teachers, and deficiencies can be addressed in the classroom and/or (if money or volunteers are available) after school. I find fill-in-the-bubble rapid-read/rapid-response multiple choice tests to be vexing, if not reprehensible.

When I went to school, we took state tests once a year in 3rd through 6th grades. These were substantially IQ tests used to place students either in the first, second or third track, or beyond-regular-first-track “gifted” classes.

We took SAT in fall of 12th grade, and some of us took three 11th-12th grade subject-aligned “Achievement Tests” the Saturday after the SAT. One time. Some of us took the PSAT. One time as well, in 11th grade.

Not living in NYC, we didn’t have Kaplan’s SAT-prep courses, we just took the tests, largely unprepared, except for English teachers’ vocabulary teaching and quizzing.

Our home-taught kids didn’t take mass-administered tests until they were applying for summer enrichment programs as teenagers, when it became necessary for them to take the SAT for enrollment, so we went to B&N and got test-prep books and old-SAT practice tests. (Test-prep courses were available, but we did not avail ourselves of them.)

As an at-home tutor, it was necessary to “validate” my kids’ “education” by sending them to expensive distant “summer schools” so they could demonstrate their knowledge among conventionally schooled college-prep students and begin acclimating to classroom instruction, as well as experience dormitory-living.

The SAT (or ACT ) was required by the colleges and universities they applied to, as well. So we prepped for both, working 3 hours, three days a week for about 6 weeks, and my kids took both tests, as well as four 11th-12th-grade-level College Board Subject Tests: Writing, US History, Physics and Math Level II.

Test-prepping worked, as pre-prepping practice-test scores substantially rose for “the real thing” tests.

But I can’t countenance this as an every-year regimen for any young person (and I would note, private schools are exempted from this mandatory testing scheme, so their teachers can focus on what they believe is important for their students to learn).

On the PSAT, SAT and ACT:

The PSAT is not actually an SAT-preview test. Probably nearly half the kids who take PSAT never take the SAT, but they take the ACT, which is very different from the SAT.

The PSAT is a 1 hour test that contains a reduced-sampling of old otherwise-discarded SAT questions. It’s approximately one-third the length of the SAT, and is scored the same, with end-score SAT zero’s lopped off, e.g. a PSAT 195 score is the shorter test’s equivalent to the longer test’s 1950. PSAT is given, at no cost to students (whereas students have to pay to take the SAT, if not socioeconomically disadvantaged and eligible for fee waiver, which waiver is good for one SAT only, not repeated test-takings, in most cases), to the top 40% of public school students, who are selected by their enrollment in college-track classes, and their course grades.

Private schools often administer PSAT to most or all of their students, but private schools must pay fees to the College Board for the test’s administration, and parents are either charged by their children’s schools, or the fees are included in tuition.

The PSAT’s purpose is to identify students who “academically merit” National Merit Scholarship awards, originally funded solely by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC), but nowadays by many colleges and universities as well.

In a nutshell, the top 2% PSAT-scoring students are named “Semifinalists”. Their schools then submit information on the Semifinalists’ extracurricular activities, primarily in-school (school newspaper, yearbook, school-led community service, interscholastic sports, et al.), along with narrative comments by these activities’ faculty supervisors, and by any other teachers who know the Semifinalists and want to comment, as well.

The NMSC then picks “Finalists”. The Finalists school-submitted materials are scrutinized, and a small percentage of Finalists are hand-selected to receive NMSC-provided college scholarships, and be named National Merit Scholars.

In recent decades, the NMSC has encouraged colleges and universities to provide their own scholarships under the NMSC-authorized title “National Merit Scholarships”, thus greatly expanding the opportunity for beyond-NMSC’s-funding-limits Finalists to become college-grant-receiving National Merit Scholars.

The PSAT is administered in the vast majority of public high schools coast-to-coast, including thousands of high schools in ACT-primary states (today ca. 25 mostly inland states), so hundreds of thousands of students take the PSAT, and then take the ACT for college application purposes.

Practice testing is always beneficial. The NMSC allows schools to administer the test repeatedly, and so many private schools have been giving it to their 10th graders since the 1990s (in some schools this is most of their 10th graders), and a goodly number of private schools now even give it to many or most of their 9th graders, so that the “real thing” 11th grade administration is the second or third go-around for these students. (The College Board makes a lot of money from repeat testing, so it completely condones private-schools’ scores-boosting.)

Students are encouraged, but not required, to list colleges they are interested in in their pre-test form-filling out, and their PSAT scores are sent to these institutions of higher education. This generates slews of glossy brochures and “We hope you will consider visiting us, we encourage you to contact us,” boilerplate letters being sent to higher PSAT scorers.

For the SAT and ACT, it’s “standard practice” in “better” private schools for most, and often all, students to take either the SAT or ACT at least twice. Long ago, some private schools “picked up on” the fact that their moderate-ability students, and less-able students often earned higher “percentile scores” on ACT than on SAT, because the ACT was “aligned” with standard college-prep curricula (the reason for its original invention in the 1950s was to test students’ subject knowledge, when the SAT was substantially an “IQ test”.) In many communities, in SAT-primary states, public schools’ guidance counselors also began recommending the ACT to non-top students, and today this practice is widespread.

Some 15-20 years ago, researchers at the University of Texas-Austin performed a statistical evaluation of SAT and ACT scores for ca. 100,000 students who took both tests. This was done because the state was considering switching from the ACT to the SAT as its primary college-entrance test, due to the fact it was making a major push to expand College Board AP programs, and also because the College Board offered sub-AP 11th-12th grade level Subject Tests (formerly titled Achievement Tests, then SAT II Subject Tests), that more-prestigious colleges (e.g. Rice University and many outside-of-Texas private colleges) required, and it seemed sensible, in order to “coordinate” testing, to use only one test source. (This may have also saved money, ala modern telecommunications “service bundling”.)

But, the question was, would switching hurt students? UTA researchers were able to develop a scores “concordance” scale (essentially an SAT/ACT scores inter-conversion table), that the College Board and what is now ACT.org (its predecessor’s name eludes me) evaluated and supported.

UTA researchers statistically demonstrated that a large population’s mean 4-subject ACT score of 21, for example, concorded with a 990-1010 SAT M+V score. (Readers here can Google “SAT ACT scores concordance” to see the complete scores-comparison table).

As the concordance scale has been universally accepted, all colleges today that formerly required the SAT exclusively now accept ACT scores, and those that formerly required the ACT exclusively now accept SAT scores.

However this large-population statistical scores’ correspondence does not hold for many individual students, as significant numbers of individual 21 ACT takers score as low as the mid 900s and as high as 1100.

This is why many kids today take both the SAT and the ACT, then send their “best scores” to the colleges they apply to.

Colleges and universities are given ALL SAT results less than 5 years old for students who choose to have SAT scores submitted, while ACT.org allows students to personally select “their best” ACT result for ACT.org to submit to colleges, and thus any other ACT results are not seen by the colleges being applied to. Students can alternatively have ACT.org send two (or more) different-date results, as an option, as well.

Today, even though colleges receive all of an applicant’s different-date SAT scores, if a student selects to have SAT scores submitted, instead of ACT scores, the very-competitive colleges’ admissions office staff circle the highest component-test scores, and rewrite a “best composite score” for the admissions committees to evaluate. Hence, if test-date-1 has a 720 M, 690 V, 660 W, test-date-2 has a 700 M, 710 V, 690 W, test-date-3 has a 670 M, 690 V, 720 W, the admissions committee sees 720 M, 710 V, 730 W, and 2160 combined score, even though actual individual-date scores are substantially lower: 2070, 2100 and 2080.

These institutions do the same for multiple-date ACT scores.

The old days of “one and done”, little or no prep ACT/SAT taking, are quaint anachronisms for modern upper-middle-income and affluent families. The College Board maintains that repeated SAT-taking doesn’t boost scores significantly, but informed college counselors and families believe differently. They “get” the value of increasing their children’s familiarity with the test’s format, and students’ developing time-management strategies to complete the test, or as much of it, as is feasible, including skipping questions that students cannot quickly knowledgeably answer. These scores-boosting factors represent learning by doing repeatedly.

Moreover, the SAT deducts fractional points for wrong answers, relative to making no deductions for unfilled bubbles. The ACT does not impose this penalty, it only tabulates total correct answers. Naive first-time test takers often “get bogged down” on hard questions, and find that they haven’t gotten to the end of the test when the proctor shouts, in drill-sargeant fashion, “STOP! ALL PENCILS DOWN!

Princeton Review, which administers several practice tests trains students that if they can knowledgeably eliminate two wrong SAT choices on four-choice questions , then guessing between the remaining two choices is smart practice. In essence, if students face two questions like this, simple chance generates a mean outcome of one correct and and one incorrect choice. The former choice generates +1 point, the latter deducts .33 point, for a net +.67 point benefit.

The disadvantage to this stratagem is the time taken to tackle such questions, so PR trains students to run through all the questions that can be readily answered, then if time remains, go back and use the partial knowledgeable-elimination/ partial-guessing method on as many initially-skipped questions as possible before the proctor announces that time is up.

Finally, I was a cheater on the SAT. I did not higher a ringer, or look at other people’s test. I was A TIME CHEATER. They gave the SAT-M and V tests in a single booklet, and interspersed 2 M tests with 2-3 V tests. I zipped through the V sections long before time was up, and turned back to unfinished M tests. I knew math, but was “slow”. Actually, I was deliberate in doing math.

The College Board insists that extra time doesn’t help students, but yet CB now “accommodates” LD students with extended-period test-taking, for example ADD students, provided that their doctors’ supply proper documentation. In truth, SAT has always implicitly rewarded fast-reading skills, even on the M test which has “trick questions” that “trip up” students who in a rush make answer choices that appear to be “right” at first glance, but are not upon full consideration. (Kaplan noticed this perversity 6 decades ago.)

I believe that all students should have extended time, if they want it. My kids’ lowest SAT-family scores were 700-710 on the SAT M (94th-95th percentile among all SAT takers, including future humanities and arts majors) but they scored 780-800 on Level II Math, which was 95th-99th percentile among a far smaller test-taking population comprised almost exclusively of future STEM- major students.

The L2 Math test had, primarily Algebra II, Trigonometry and Precalculus functions course-aligned questions, generally multi-step, with much more time given to answer them. Basically SAT-M was a read-fast, eyeball-recognize, and choose the correct answer test, while the L2 Math test was a “Here are some complicated problems, solve them” test, which included a number of free-response questions that required more than “educated guessing” to get right.

L2 M is a sound mathematics-knowledge-and-skills assessment test. SAT M is not a sound mathematics-skills-assessment test, because it would be ludicrous to say that my kids didn’t have superb “basic” pre-algebra, algebra I, and elementary plane geometry level math skills, but they possessed superb “advanced high school math” skills. You can’t develop superb advanced-subject math skills without possessing superb more-elementary-subject math skills.

For example, in timed-at-home testing emulating “real test” conditions, my kids missed some problems. But in marking misses, and revisiting the questions, they readily corrected all their errors, on their own, without utilizing any textbooks, me or other resources. They knew the math, but the time-constraint and “trip up the unwary” format did not allow this knowledge to be properly demonstrated.

Machine-scored mass standardized testing applied to all public schoolchildren, and to nearly all 4-year college hopefuls (a few “elite” liberal arts colleges don’t require SAT or ACT for admission, but they do require transcripts and recommendation letters from people who have taught or supervised and know the applicants and can present them as persons, not test-performance statistics) is deeply flawed.

It is also deeply flawed that we have huge public “higher education” institutions that have historically only looked at applicants’ GPAs and SAT/ACT scores to make admit/reject decisions.
I attended such an institution. My kids went to colleges that required narrative evaluations for admission (which credible summer-school instructors were happy to write on my kids’ behalf.)

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s to kid ourselves anymore: high stakes tests are designed to show what teachers didn’t teach, not what students did or didn’t learn. The punitive nature of basing teacher evaluation on tests that are not properly vetted to ensure content/curriculum alignment demonstrates just how far the public impression of teachers has fallen. No other public or private sector career field has to endure this kind of humiliating, demeaning, and downright grossly unprofessional evaluation methodology with so remuneration.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have mixed feelings about the MAP test.

CONS:

-It costs a great deal for the district to purchase – money that could have gone elsewhere.

-It can take over an hour for a child to take one subject. If they take the three subjects (Reading, Math, ELA) we administer, that is almost three hours of testing. Administer it three times a year, and you are looking at nine hours or more on this test – and then ITBS, Cog AT, CRCT and unit tests on top of that.

- Some students do not take it seriously, and their scores are not particularly useful.

-Teachers and schools are judged by test results, which can be problematic, taken the point right above concerning student motivation to do their best.

-It books up our computer labs for three weeks straight, three times a year. That is nine weeks of the year when the computer labs are unavailable for anything else.

-It can be very difficult for struggling students to make it through the lengthy test.

-There is a real possibility of burning out children on high stakes test taking while they are still in elementary school.

PROS

- *IF* students take it seriously, it can provide some very detailed information about student strengths and weaknesses.

-*IF* students take it seriously, it can assist teachers in differentiated instruction and flexible grouping.

-*IF* students take it seriously it can assist in identifying students who might benefit from gifted instruction or support services.

-*IF* students take it seriously it can help schools determine overall areas of weaknesses in instruction.

-*IF* students take it seriously it can help identify teachers with higher scores in particular areas, so that those targeted teachers can share their particular instructional strategies with colleagues.

-*IF* students take it seriously, it can be used to provide parents with specific skills to target to help their children improve academically.

In short, it can be a very useful tool, if used appropriately – it can help guide instruction and target areas of strength and weakness. However, it only really works if children put forth effort and do well, and many will not bother as there are no consequences for them. There can, however, be serious consequences for the teacher.

• Link
• Report this comment

PS The Hindu spring festival of colors is known as: Holi. (There’s one for you. -I had that one wrong.)

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m not sure if anyone has already mentioned the following, but it bears a thought.

“McCormick said she was particularly dismayed when a district staff member told her that the test’s margin of error is greater than the gains her students are expected to make.”

If the district staff member is correct, then I would think that it would be difficult to figure out how much knowledge your students really did gain. It would also concern me if this were part of my professional evaluation.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020106684_notest11m.html

• Link
• Report this comment

As a teacher, I am fine with giving legitimate standardized tests and using them as part of the teacher evaluation as long as the students are also held accountable for their performance on the tests. However, when I taught in SC and gave a test that was going to be used in the future to evaluate teachers, I had 2 students who proudly showed me their answer sheets 5 minutes after testing started so I could see the Christmas tree they had made with their answers. And I’m supposed to be accountable for the results on their tests?

• Link
• Report this comment

Home Tutoring parent is not. Sounds too “PC” to me.
We can now assume the testing industry is well represented on today’s blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Ron
For mind control. Choker collar was correct to bring up CRESST and Eva Baker. Her tax payer funded group has been working on computer based assessments since the EARLY 90′S!
Here’s a detailed account of their work toward this goal of a “MAPS” type test from 1997:
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TECH459.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

This is not about testing, rather it is an issue of employees not doing as instructed. It is not the teachers’ call as to what tests should be administered. They work under the direction of the school board and must do as they are instructed. I would fire them at the end of the year and replace them with good young teachers who have just graduated and would appreieciate the opportunity to teach. My guess is these teachers are all union members, and that would say it all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lee / Truth, The question is are we getting anything done? That is my objective, real meaning. Posting times? Html and servers do not change in cost if you post ten words or a thousand. Fine with me if a discussion thread turns to 20 pages, I wish it would. Hey, here’s something I stumbled upon, God knows why. It’s treatment videos from a doctor at Medical College of Georgia (Augusta area) (one of the state’s few medical schools/ main public treatment medical school for the state) (there’s five medical schools total and maybe three main and two peripheral). Hey, learn about your state and real conditions. http://www.youtube.com/user/lmellick?feature=watch I, for one, vote for more dentists and doctors and have done my best, boots on the ground, to make that foundation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lance, This is not about testing, rather it is an issue of employees not doing as instructed. It is not the teachers’ call as to what tests should be administered.

But that’s the point, it should be. Lance here is how it works, vertical column of power:
1. the people at the top are entwined with business interests / conflict of interest. Gates probably owns shares in the testing company. You need to see this. They’re doing a corporate motive and a lot of checks are paid to corporate companies. “Race to the Top” “award” money is then paid out to the corporate entities.
2. the state level middle managers are not the decision makers who decide the testing that is needed. They are doing nothing more than following orders from central power and making people do things. This is a big change is how things are done or have been done in the United States. It is a radical development, this level of central command, and it is central command that is connected to corporate business interests. This is being done when 10% of the populace (the owners) has more wealth than the other 90% of the people. USA is at the top right now of income disparity in developed countries.
3. Teachers are the actual professional practitioners. They’re the ones who are trained licensed professionals and know their job. Their voice counts and should not be dismissed.

If you have been conditioned to obey while ignoring income disparity and where the money is going, you are exactly the kind of adult these folks desire to produce.

• Link
• Report this comment

NEW IDEA

The problem with the testing is that there is no market environment to assure quality.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s not an either/or proposition. It’s an issue of whether the testing administered accomplishes a sufficiently useful purpose to justify the class time that must be appropriated for it (MAP does not), AND whether employees of the state have the ability to determine whether they will obey the direction of those charged with administering their employment (they do not).

Simple civil disobedience lesson: you can stand up for your beliefs all you want, but you must be prepared to pay the price for doing so. If a classroom teacher refuses to administer a test as directed, then s/he runs the risk of losing the job. If enough teachers refuse, en masse, then the situation may or may not change. They have to decide if the risk is worth the potential reward.

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually, outside the Southeast, many public schools have deans. It’s just a matter of terminology. Deans can be compared to assistant principals. I was a Dean of Curriculum & Instruction when I worked in New England.

• Link
• Report this comment