If you are not familiar with #Edchat, it is a Twitter discussion on specific topics held every Tuesday at Noon and 7 PM EST. A full explanation may be found at this Link: https://tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/edchat-revisited/. I am revealing in this post that I am the one who makes up a bulk of the #Edchat Topic choices. We do get some outside contributions, but each week I try to lift relevant topics from the Twitterstream and current Educational Blogs to explore further in an #Edchat discussion. It has been a successful formula thus far. My dilemma however, is always when is it a good time to revisit a topic. I recently received a comment from an educator that stated he always found the topic choices very interesting, but eventually we would need to discuss Standardized Testing or High Stakes Testing as a topic. Actually, #Edchat has discussed this topic in the past. The problem I have however is that in trying to keep the pulse of education concerns, Standardized Testing is the one topic that has an overwhelming majority of educators mentioning their opposition on a daily basis. Educators seem to be in agreement that Standardized Testing is a major roadblock to Education Reform. One growing opinion seems to be that the emphasis has become the tests and not the education.
Assessment has been and always will be part of education. A simple explanation: As educators we use Formative assessment to make sure we are succeeding with our students as we go. Do they get it? This allows for adjustments along the way. The Summative assessment tells educators how successful the complete endeavor was. After all is said and done, have the students gotten it? Educators do this to determine the next step, so they may continue to build on this education. This is the teacher’s assessment of learning for the purpose of the determining of what comes next. The curriculum is the roadmap of where to go. The assessments tell the teacher if the students are there yet. Teachers can always take students beyond the original destination.
Now we should look at High stakes testing. Its purpose is to accumulate data on education. Data requires simple, objective answers that are easily converted to numbers for analysis. As a former English teacher, I often envied Math teachers whose test answers were either right or wrong. As an English teacher I was always trying to figure out shades of right or wrong with essays. That oversimplification of math testing is less true of Math today with the changes that have been made requiring more of an explanation of reasoning. I hope no math teachers were offended.
The purpose of High Stakes testing seems to be changing. If it was originally intended to assess where we were with student learning in order to offer directions for places to improve, we may have strayed from that goal. It is now used to: determine funding, determine remediation, determine school closings, determine careers, and as a stretch, determine elections. These reasons have little to do with what educators use testing for.
Of course there is a simple solution; Teach to the test. That would give everyone what was needed. A problem with this however is that it will not work. It will not work because it does not consider all of the other factors involved in a student’s education; poverty, environment, culture, and even family relationships. How do we ask questions for the purpose of converting these factors into data in order to take all of this into account? Of course a more obvious reason teaching to the test won’t work is that it is not educating any one. Teaching to the test is preparing kids for a Jeopardy round, not life.
Now here is where I begin to sound like a conspiracy theorist. I, along with almost everyone in America, recognize that we are in a dire economic period. I understand we need to cut costs and increase revenue, and we will all need to sacrifice. One of our greatest expenses is education. Education has been highlighted as a political concern. It is apparent to some of us that the call for education Reform is code for cut taxes. The high stakes tests are not being used to examine and address changes in methods and curriculum as much as to vilify teachers. This call for reform by some is not a call for education reform, but rather a call for labor reform. It is a call to do away with Unions and due process for teachers. These tests are not being used to free teachers to innovate, but rather to begin to dismantle public education for the purpose of privatization for profit.
How can so many educators on every level be so opposed to high stakes testing and still it thrives? How can the mixed to dismal results of a Charter School movement still allow politicians to call for more Charter Schools? How can the influence on education by Poverty, Race, Environment, and Family go unrecognized as factors in need of reform?
We do need to reform education, but we need a better understanding of what changes will have a meaningful effect. There are many things that unions and teachers can do to affect change, but the greater changes however need to be made in methods and focus of curriculum. The emphasis of needed skills for a growing technology-driven society will be another game changer.
Assessment is needed and has a purpose in education. We need to focus assessments on the learning and not the Labor. The vast majority of educators are intelligent, dedicated, people-oriented, sharers. They may need to be given guidance and professional development in the latest methods and technologies, but they are the best source we have to support our education system. Firing teachers, closing schools, busting unions, and dismantling Public Education may be Reform to some, but to many others this is a destructive path. We need educational leaders to stand up and be heard on this. Voices of education need to be heard over those voices of business and politics and vocal disgruntled taxpayers. ( We are probably all disgruntled about taxes.)
Now I have to put up an #Edchat Topic dealing with High Stakes Testing. Your comments are welcomed here.
My Island View 
I have a created a forum for people to offer ideas (concrete or abstract) for how we can create a better system of assessment that goes beyond standardized tests and is more authentic. It can be accessed at http://bettertests.blogspot.com and everyone is invited to comment. On a personal note, I am very interested in collaborating with a group to “invent” a new means of assessment using the various open source technologies available to us these days.
Tom,
I, along with many educators have been having the same thoughts. It’s like a bad zombie dream where people are in control of what goes on in our profession and no one is listening to teachers. I was reading in Education Week this morning about how there will be a need for materials to teach the Common Core Standards. Chester E. Finn Jr. , the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington-based education think tank states: “The bad news is nobody has materials that are aligned to common-core standards, therefore somebody is going to have to invest significantly in developing suitable materials and lessons and online assessments, which takes time, money, and talent.” How about allowing teachers to write and create these materials?
There are two assessment consortia that received federal grants through the Race to the Top Fund. They are Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Careers (The Florida Department of Education): http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/
and the smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/ .
They were awarded $170 million and $160 million, to create assessments that evaluate students based on common-core standards by the 2014-15 school year.
In the early 1990s the then UK government introduced national testing for 11 year old. They said that the introduction of the tests was to raise standards in schools, especially schools located in the deprived inner city areas.
The reality was that because results, which were cohort based, favored schools in the more affluent areas. To add insult to injury result were given to the news media who,
surprise surprise, created league tables that either dammed or praised not on the quality of teaching or education provided but by bald statistics that were meaningless. For a great many years I have lobbied our successive government to re visit the tests, getting replies that quite frankly indicated a lack of knowledge of what is happening in our schools. The good news is that the present government, following a strike of teachers refusing to set the tests, have set up a commission under Lord Bew to look at the question of testing. The following is my submission to the Bew commission. Whether my comments have any bearing on testing in the US I don’t know, what is good is that a forum exists where one can blow of steam
Regard
Terence Ayres
Online Governor. Com
Dear Lord Bew
Since its inception I have advocated changes to national testing for KS2, your commission is not only welcome but long overdue. It is hoped your conclusions will ease the concerns of those who provide education for our young, especially in respect of schools in the less than affluent inner city areas who have had to operate a system that is biased against them and does not reflect the true quality of education they provide.
Having been chair of governors for over seventeen years of a inner primary school I have experienced the anger and frustration felt by people of immense talent,dedication and total commitment to their charges when SATS results are placed in the public domain that unfairly suggests failure simply because league tables are based on attainment of the cohort and not on the progress of the individual pupil. Can I suggest a possible solution that allows for testing at KS2 and provide an accurate assessment which is based on individual school targets. The following is an example, though simplistic, could form a basis:
1. KS1 pupils are assessed on how they would perform when taking KS2 test. In a class of 30 it is considered that 5 will not achieve level 4 in English or maths, 20 will achieve level 4 and the remaining 5 should gain level 5.
2. The first group (A) are rated as 1: the second group (B) rated 2 and the final group (C) rated 3; added together the points total for that class, for that year, (5×1 + 20×2 + 5×3) 6o. Using a minimum 2 point progress the points target for that year, for that class would be (5×3 + 20×4 + 5×5) 120.
3. In the case of this particular class results for English and Maths above or below the figure of 120 would defined performance be placed in the public domain as a plus or minus against the school target for that particular KS2 test – each year would be different and assessed accordingly. Over the intervening years annual assessment of individual pupils would need to take place simply because some children take longer to understand, also pupils move from school to school would take their points assessment with them.
Finally I have firmly believed that the introduction of a Certificate of Primary Education awarded to children and based on attendance, behavior and achieving the 2 point progress – what a boost in confidence it would provide a child of limited ability to know that he or she is as much a success as fellow class mates and using the certificate as a stepping stone the the chasm between primary and secondary education less daunting.
In addition using individual pupil progress as a measure the unjust accusation of ‘coasting’ leveled at some schools would be ended and conversely the value added component would also be seen as irrelevant and not an excuse for poor performance.
Terry Ayres
Chair Governors
Seacroft Grange Primary School
Tom, there is much to agree with here, and there are many questions to second.
Respectfully, I’d encourage us to look at the charter school movement as an opportunity for the creation of more diverse schools that can research for us innovative and useful ways to move away from punitive models of assessment.
While I am no fan of test-prep – successful or not, charter or not – I don’t think it’s fair to damn the charter school movement when schools like Northwest Passage High School and others I cite here exist thanks in part to charter school legislation.
I work at a charter school that recruits struggling students, offers an arts-infused curriculum, and accepts all kinds of students. It does little to foster in me any faith in traditional schools’ willingness to collaborate on solutions for our kids when my charter-enabled career in alternative education is drubbed by educators who at the same time drub politicians for their lack of appreciation of the nuances and complexities of schools and students’ lives.
Our charter is in fact meant to enable us to search for “the greater changes…that need to be made in methods and focus of curriculum.”
Here is another post for your consideration.
Fundamentally, I don’t think we can employ “the mixed to dismal results of a Charter School movement,” as an argument against the chatter movement and at the same ask for “assessments on the learning and not the Labor.” If we want to discredit charter schools because of their results on standardized tests, we can’t say others shouldn’t hold our own results against us. Are we against charter schools or the high-stakes testing that has benefited some charter schools and charter management organizations? If we’re against both, where do we out our energy? How do we harm the fewest students and teachers and help the most? Addressing the flaws in our assessment systems will help far more kids in traditional public schools than attacking charter schools will.
I don’t accept the tests or support the economic system behind them. I’d love to work with traditional school teachers on developing evidence-based alternative assessments and agitating for legislation to support their use. I’m in a public school – a charter school – in search of those solutions.
If you want to call my results “mixed to dismal,” that’s fine, but acknowledge that I’m achieving them in pursuit of better schools and better assessments for kids. Not every charter school teacher is focused on the tests.
I wish more of us teachers in all of our schools could say the same.
All the best,
Chad
Chad
I apologize if I sounded as if I was attacking Charters. That was not my intent. I am not a Charter fan, but I have an appreciation for those Charters that offer innovative alternatives and some can be models for Public Education. My point however was that politicians and others are pushing Charters in place of Public Education with little regard for the comparative results between Charters and Public schools. Your points are well taken. Thanks
Chad,
I think most educators (and parents and students) would support the kind of charters you describe. Sadly, these seem more the exception than the norm with charters. Most charters, especially the big chains, not only focus too much of standardized tests, but are part of an effort (often openly) to undermine public education (charters as “vouchers-lite”) and promote corporate/”free-market” principals to education. I would love to restore the original notion of charters, which it sounds like your school is a example of, but for practical purposes, the term has been permanently co-opted. Charters, in this practical usage, should be opposed.
-Demian
Good points, all, Tom. As a math teacher though, I need to point out that “the answer” in math is much, much less important than a student’s thinking as reflected in their written work, or in dialogic discourse. For math, assessment is akin to your “shades of gray…” analogy; I am not a fan of right / wrong per se since things are rarely that clear cut in reality. Sadly, too many, even in education, believe math is all about either a right or wrong answer. That could not be further from the truth though. Said as a standard bearer for the math teachers everywhere…
I believe you get that based on your statement “That oversimplification of math testing is less true of Math today with the changes that have been made requiring more of an explanation of reasoning. I hope no math teachers were offended.”
I just wanted to make sure though… 🙂
Thanks for the clarification and the help.
Your points are well-taken, as well, Tom, though charter schools are public schools – some serve the under-served; some seem elite. In this regard, they are no different from traditional public schools and their diversity of settings and affluence. For example, when I look at the divides between a KIPP school and a struggling neighborhood school – especially regarding enrollment – I don’t see anything different than I do in a traditional public school that tracks students and closes a large percentage of its population out of a very different set of curricula, instruction, and assessment than the most affluent game-players get in classrooms next door. I don’t like either form of exclusion.
Moreover, given how well our least poor schools did on PISA, it’s quite possible that we’re both after red herrings here – poverty continues to be a factor schools inadequately address. Take away the tests and – even if we don’t “solve” poverty – we still don’t do enough to build the background knowledge of our students who come from impoverished homes.
I think that if we take away the tests and get into inquiry, community-based, project-based, and expeditionary learning we have a better shot giving all kids more background knowledge and giving them reasons to read and calculate and hypothesize and reflect and express.
In so much as charter legislation helps school-starters create schools for purposes such as those kinds of learning, I think we have to support that legislation or else more aggressively lobby for real transformation in all schools to make the distracting “public” vs. “charter” (also public) debate moot. Transformation. That’s what I want to hear from my leaders and unions – not protection. If we dig in where we are, once again we’re not positioned to fight the tests.
Thanks for your reply and thoughtful post. We definitely do agree on more than we disagree –
Best,
C
Tom,
I teach at a cyber charter school. http://www.palcs.org
I really appreciate the way you are encouraging social media into the educational process through #edchat.
In the cyber school environment we have additional challenges. It takes additional creativity to assess formatively when you can not see students catch concepts through their facial expressions or feedback on line.
T.H. Wang a teacher from Taiwan has given me some insight that I have found valuable.
Click to access whatStrategies.pdf
He has found that assessments that allow the student to retake the test online multiple times to reach a mastery level is a successful way to formatively assess on line.
Teaching to the test does show a certain level of compliance and demonstrates the school’s ability to move students. I agree that it will never meet the goal of preparing students to meet the challenges of a global competitive economy.
Tom,
Your comments on how education reform is really labour reform is frighteningly true. A wolf in sheep’s clothing it is. And it has many teachers cheering for their own deprofessionalism.
Brilliant post
Joe
Your post was well written and I have enjoyed the responses so far.
What I see as a teacher in Texas is that schools can really be punished for poor performances in one subject area of testing. For example, our school received Exemplary ratings in all academic subjects except Math. Our Math scores were very low and our overall school rating was set as the lowest score.
So when someone comes to this town they see that we are only rated as Academically Acceptable – not a good rating at all. At the same time our TAP Value Added Score was a 5 (the highest rating) because of doing so well with raising students scores from previous years. That, is a more accurate rating of what is going on in our school. But the TAP scores won’t ever be seen by Realtors or politicians.
As a military parent who had his kids in school all over this country(and with DoDDs in 2 countries), and, having taught in schools with high transient populations I do see the need for national standards and, possibly, a national curriculum. But I have a problem with standardized tests that are poorly written and do not allow students to explain their reasoning for selecting the answer they chose.
The teachers at my school spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing tests analyzing for: Bad or confusing/misleading questions, Questions where a large number of students were incorrect, Questions that are about a topic that has not been taught, and Any other interesting trend or insight that can be gleaned from the data.
We then color code students like a medical triage area. Some students aren’t going to make it, some require immediate resuscitation and will need constant monitoring, some may just need some rehab, the rest will make it and won’t need any other assistance.
When a representative of our superintendent comes into our teacher’s rooms, the teachers must be able to point out which students are the ones needing constant monitoring and what they have done for those students that day. This makes for an incredibly tense school day.
In the end it all comes down to our state rating which will sell houses and will increase the student population bringing in much needed tax revenue so that our school district can pay for teacher salaries.
Those families already attending our school can tell people that we have a great school in town. Apple Corp. can call us an Apple Distinguished School. The Texas Education Administration can make a video about how great our school is (and they are the ones who also give out the ratings of which we are considered fairly low). But if you move to Central Texas and are looking for a place to buy a house and raise a family you would never be steered in our direction because of scores on our standardized tests. That’s seems unfair.
[…] devices really lead to an educational revolution and make schools unrecognizable by 2020?What’s Our Stake in High Stakes Testing? « My Island View–I recently received a comment from an educator that stated he always found the topic choices […]
Wow, Tom, great conversation. Better than can be held on an Ed chat.
One of the problems I have with the testing discussion, and I guess politics in general, is how the conversation inevitably leads to black and white thinking about various issues: tests, teacher evaluation, charters, standards, etc.
I love how the conversation here has revealed how complex each point may actually be, and so when we make blanket statements for or against a given thing it leads to denying the entire practice when really we are aiming at one part of it. I guess we feel like if we become willing to look at and consider the nuances we will be giving way to the entire position.
I would like us, as educators, to develop agreements and methods to producing a better, more flexible means of talking about the issues that are important. I would like us to learn how to talk and to develop discussion that does not polarize every issue, but considers every issue in all of it’s nuances and possibilities ( as well as concerns and frustrations).
How about an edchat or some other vehicle discuss how to address that problem in public discussion? I could see a list of agreed upon rules: no name-calling, avoid polarizing language choices, be open to the positive and negative qualities of each item under consideration, recognize their are many gray areas, do not demonize the other point of view, etc. And that list of rules is followed by topics like testing, tenure, charters, evaluation, standards, etc. And under each topic we converse with sensitivity, intelligence, provoking thoughts, experiences… But we stop making these issues all or none issues.
I have lived through the whole language wars, the math wars, and now the testing wars. In quality classrooms it should never have been a choice between phonics or rich language, concepts or calculation. These should not have been presented as either- or paradigms. And now I hear us doing the same with testing versus performance, standards versus themes, etc.
I dream of a better quality of discussion and decisionmaking. Can we have a discussion about that?
You are so right here and we all need to see this argument over education for what it is—a way for private companies to make money. It’s disgusting—and depressing that so many are falling in line.
Parents and community members want numbers–they want to know how many students are succeeding and how many are not…can’t we just publish the report card figures? Can’t we send these numbers to the state? And for oversight—every year a certain number of schools, or maybe just a certain number of students randomly chosen will have their record audited. Then the % error would be published and if a district had too many errors then they would be on a watch list.
This is what the IRS does. Actually this is what businesses do too. When I go to the market and use the self-scanner every 10 trips or so I need to be “re-scanned”—the clerk chooses 5 items from my bags and checks to see if I actually scanned them. Now the store also hires detectives and has one-way mirrors to monitor stealing. But the shoppers are rarely inconvenienced.
What we do to kids today is a huge waste of time and waste of money. Would love to sue my state on behalf of my biologicial children, but have been told by lawyers I don’t have a case….or maybe sue as a taxpayer….we need to do something to bring attention to this matter and really get everyone to see the nonsense of it all.