By unanimous vote, the entire faculty at Garfield High School in Seattle voted not to administer the MAP test of reading and mathematics.
This is the first time, to my knowledge, that the faculty of an entire school refused to give mandated tests.
The action of the Garfield High School faculty could have national ramifications because it shows other teachers that there is strength in unity and that they do not have to endure unethical demands with passivity and resignation.
For their courage, their integrity, and their intelligence, I add the faculty of Garfield High School to the honor roll as champions of public education.
The teachers agreed that the tests are a waste of time and money. Students don’t take them seriously because they don’t count toward their grades. But teachers will be evaluated based on the results of these tests that students don’t take seriously. Even the organization that created the tests say they should not be used for teacher evaluation, but the district requires them anyway.
I hope that the example set by Garfield High School will resonate in school districts across the United States and around the world. High-stakes testing is bad for students, bad for teachers, and bad for education.
This is the statement by the teachers of Garfield High School:
SEATTLE – In perhaps the first instance anywhere in the nation, teachers at Seattle’s Garfield High School will announce this afternoon their refusal to administer a standardized test that students in other high schools across the district are scheduled to take in the first part of January. Known as the MAP test, it purports to evaluate student progress and skill in reading and math. The teachers contend that it wastes time, money, and precious school resources.
“Our teachers have come together and agree that the MAP test is not good for our students, nor is it an appropriate or useful tool in measuring progress,” says Kris McBride, who serves as Academic Dean and Testing Coordinator at Garfield. “Additionally, students don’t take it seriously. It produces specious results, and wreaks havoc on limited school resources during the weeks and weeks the test is administered.”
McBride explained that the MAP test, which stands for Measure of Academic Progress, is administered two to three times each year to 9th grade students as well as those receiving extra support services. The students are told the test will have no impact on their grades or class standing, and, because of this, students tend to give it little thought to the test and hurry through it. In addition, there seems to be little overlap between what teachers are expected to teach (state and district standards) and what is measured on the test.
Despite this flaw, McBride states, results of the MAP tests will be used by district officials to help evaluate the effectiveness of instructors who give the test. “Our teachers feel strongly that this type of evaluative tool is unfair based on the abundance of problems with the exam, the content, and the statistical insignificance of the students’ scores,” she says.
Refusing to administer a district-mandated test is not a decision the school’s teachers made casually, or without serious internal discussion.
“Those of us who give this test have talked about it for several years,” explained Mallory Clarke, Garfield’s Reading Specialist. “When we heard that district representatives themselves reported that the margin of error for this test is greater than an individual student’s expected score increase, we were appalled!”
After the affected faculty decided unanimously to make a stand against the MAP test, they told the rest of Garfield’s faculty of their decision. In a December 19 vote, the rest of the school’s teachers voted overwhelmingly to support their colleagues’ refusal to administer the test. Not a single teacher voted against the action. Four abstained from voting. the rest voted to support it.
“We really think our teachers are making the right decision,” said student body president Obadiah Stephens-Terry.“I know when I took the test, it didn’t seem relevant to what we were studying in class– and we have great classes here at Garfield. I know students who just go through the motions when taking the test, did it as quickly as possible so that they could do something more useful with their time.” History teacher Jesse Hagopian said, “What frustrates me about the MAP test is that the computer labs are monopolized for weeks by the MAP test, making research projects very difficult to assign.” Hagopian added “This especially hurts students who don’t have a computer at home.”
The $4 million MAP test was purchased by Seattle Public Schools during the tenure of former Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson, who left her position in 2011 and sadly passed away in 2012. Goodloe-Johnson sat on the board of directors of Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), the company that markets the MAP test. At the time, some pointed out this potential conflict of interest for Goodloe-Johnson, but the district went ahead with the purchase nonetheless. NWEA itself warns that districts should not use the map test to evaluate teachers. We teachers of Garfield High School believe that the NWEA is right—this test should not be used to evaluate teachers. For secondary teachers the test cannot provide useful information about students’ skills and progress. Still worse, this test should not rob students of precious class time away from instruction. “We believe the negative aspects of the MAP test so outweigh the positive ones that we are willing to take this step,” said Language Arts teacher Adam Gish.
# # #

I applaud the teachers of Garfield High School. They hit upon one of the key ideas of these tests for high schools: the students do not take them seriously. (And we cannot compel them to try their best.) By the time students reach high school, they know the tests are meaningless for them.
In Michigan, kids take the ACT then take MME tests (state exams) the following two days. They don’t even try on the MME because they know that it does not effect their grades, college acceptance or graduation status. I watched a student of mine who scored 5′s on AP US History and AP Econ simply create a pattern that looked like an octagon on the bubble sheet. No joke.
And we are supposed to take these results seriously? And be somewhat evaluated according to them?
I believe this is the same school where students walked out in protest of budget cuts in early December and where a teacher was arrested earlier for protesting in the House in Olympia.
My sincere admiration and thanks to all involved in this effort. Well done. Very well done.
Anecdotes aren’t data of course but my HS freshman took the first of three (!) sets of MAP tests he’ll be taking this year a couple of months ago and the results were misleading: he came out higher in some areas that I know he is weaker in, and lower in some areas I know is stronger in. SInce he has autism, he’s been tested a lot over the years and his progress is very well monitored by both school and the private interventionalists we work with. I have lots of other results to compare the MAP to.
I asked if he could be excused from the rest of the MAP testing but was given a runaround. I like the school staff very much and think they’re doing a great job so I decided this wasn’t a battle I was going to fight. But it does make me jealous of everyone at Garfield in Seattle.
I’ll add that I’ve watched my kid take on-line pretests as homework in some of his academic classes and it strikes me that there are some big differences in the test-taking skills required. His experience with computer games has taught him that speed is of the essence but that’s not true of a test, where reading a question and its answers carefully and thinking through the possibilities are essential. As a result of rushing through, he makes a lot of sloppy mistakes on computer tests.
Also, I think an on-line test can require more working memory than a paper test because you can’t cross out the answers you know are incorrect, or underline key words, or otherwise make notes for yourself. And you can’t skip over a question and go back to it later because the computer won’t let you, or go back and check your work when you are all done.
It makes me wonder if there is any good research on how changing tests from paper to computer effects results among different ages and types of learners.
I think that you bring up some very important points concerning computerized/multiple choice tests and different types and ages of learners. For one thing, I doubt most people realize that there is no going back to check over answers with the NWEA. The RI School for the Deaf started using this system several years ago (before I retired), and from my experience, I have zero confidence in the meaningfulness of the scores on this test for the population at our school, at least for the reading and English language arts portions. Also, the formula for calculating predicted growth is not transparent, and was certainly not arrived at by factoring in students with learning needs. Any student who has difficulty with English will not be able to show their true reading proficiency with the reading test, or language proficiency with the English language arts test. Nor are scores on this test appropriate for diagnosing English language or literacy challenges for individual students; these challenges need to be scaffolded by teachers trained to work with special needs students, and the NWEA scores are no help with this and do not take this into account.
Kudos to the Garfield High School teachers for having the courage and thoughtfulness to not only refuse to participate in this sham of testing/accountability, but to explain their reasons so articulately.
Have you child absent on the days the MAP are given.
MAP tests are made up at our school when students are absent. Being absent will only change the testing experience, not eliminate it. The MOY assessment is being given in a computer lab during the height of flu season —- one group after another.
I applaud the teachers of Garfield HS, but wonder what the consequence to the district will be from the State of Washington regarding financial aid.
I’m proud to be a teacher at this moment. What courage Garfield High has shown! Thank you to them.
Since standardized tests are a form of testing that involves human subjects, I have always wondered why the scripted instructions the teachers read to the students do not have to include a phrase that our IRBs have to include, that the testees have the right to NOT be involved if they chose.
If we say our teachers have a voice let them speak and be heard. It’s the teachers who educate the children to grow up with the skills to get jobs in order to keep America functioning.
Bravo! I hope the faculty of my Seattle High School will take this stand, also.
How good is the MAP test?
Most of my college professors use third or fifth edition text books because they believed that they had been gradually perfected. The Boeing 737 is an iteration of the 707, and it is refined and reliable product.
Is the MAP test the equivalent of america’s best automobile by consumer’s digest for the 11th year running? Because it should be at that level of excellence.
Do the tests and textbooks measure up to Steve Jobs design standards? If not, the purchasing decision process needs to be looked at.
Or how about we just teach and forget about the testing?
Hear hear.
The MAP test calculates what NWEA calls a Rasch unit named after Danish mathematician Georg Rasch or RIT score for short. This comes from the Rasch model he developed in the 50′s (i think) along with some Item Response Theory (I think). In any case I’ve tried to research Rasch and have found quite a bit about his life from about 1900 to 1980′s (I forget exactly). In any case he seems to have fallen off the “intellectual map” from the late 30′s through the mid to late 40′s. I suspect it has something to do with WWII. Denmark has an interesting relationship with Germany throughout the war. I am wondering what Rasch was doing during this time???? anyone know?
BTW, from what I have read the Rasch model was used by the Danish military to help sort out who was best suited for what job in the military, in which service was compulsory.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can fill in the blanks. If I am correct, should we be concerned that this is the same model NWEA is assessing kids with?
As a former co-educator of Garfield High School I applaud you for taking a solid stand.
You are to be congratulated for the unity of the staff as well as bringing this issue to the entire nation. Kudos to you all- Ms. Ginger
Do the teachers in this district have strong union support?
I feel a need to communicate directly with those teachers to tell them joust how great I think they are–they are informed, have fortitude in abundance and are so brave. I want them to know just how much support they have! Bravo!
I am against the use of any standardized test for the evaluation of teacher performance. However, I am a strong proponent of the use of the MAP tests. My district administers both the Iowa Assessments (formerly the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) and the MAP tests. Iowa Assessments are norm-referenced while MAP tests are criterion-referenced. We find value in what the data tells us about student growth over time. Perhaps the problem is in how the tests and resulting data are used. With MAP, we disaggregate the data to see where gaps in learning are occurring. For example, yesterday I participated in a data analysis of our reading scores. We compared students growth from fall to mid-year. We also looked at how well students were doing in the three sub-areas of reading literature, reading informationaltexts, and vocabulary. As a result of our analysis, we are making instructional decisions for interventions for both proficient and non-proficient readers. In addition, we are using the data to make decisions for our future professional development training in literacy.
The MAP tests are not the problem. The use of the MAP tests is the problem. To me, both the district and the teachers are wrong in the use of the tests. The Garfield teachers don’t have any buy-in to use the test effectively. That is reflected in the students’ lack of motivation to do well on the tests as well. The district is wrong in the use of the tests as a tool for teacher evaluation. Additionally, the evaluation problem is rooted in a distrust of administrators’ evaluations of teachers. Someone-I am not sure if it is legislators, political activists, or those folks that would like to see education privatized-but someone wants to quantify teacher performance with a single number and that is just not sound practice.
Teaching needs to be seen and felt and heard. You can tell you are in the presence of an effective teacher when you walk in the room. Test data is useful to see trends in student perdormance but in my opinion should be used to evaluate the performances of the people taking the test, the students, not the teacher.
To me, this district needs ro re-evaluate its use of the MAP test. If teachers aren’t invested in their use and students blow them off, the tests are a waste of money. But, the MAP test can be a valuable tool if used properly by districts. Don’t blame the test.
You have NO CLUE how great a school Garfield used to be. It was academically outstanding. But now, after a couple decades of Progressive Programs …. sighhhh.
I taught at Garfield 36 years ago, so know issues involving Progressive Programs were not a problem. Bravo to the courage of current the Garfield Staff!
Christine – were you still there in ’83? I’m an 1983 GHS grad.
I have a data meeting soon. I’d like to share that “NWEA itself warns that districts should not use the map test to evaluate teachers.” Who has a link to document this? Where do I find that on the web site? My administrator won’t just take my word for it. Thanks.
My school is giving the MAPs test for the first time this year. I have been looking at the data from the first administration and besides forming student groups, I am not sure what to do with the data. The data may show students strengths and weaknesses, but the assessment is not aligned with our curriculum- the confidence interval is 68%, reaching beyond the projected growth. Given the amount of time we are investing in testing our students I would like to be able to use the data to guide my instruction. Perhaps at the elementary level the data is more useful for instruction.
We will be giving the test 2 more times this year- if anyone has any ideas on how we can use this data to help our students I would like to know. I am a high school mathematics teacher.
Proud of my alma mater! Go bulldogs! I hope many many more follow suit.
Thank goodness. My sons go to a Montessori that has testing, they recently changed from Iowa Basics to something supposedly more intuitive – we opt out every year and I wish they would not interrupt the children’s work cycle with 3 days of testing. These tests never come back with good results
Great job garfield high school. I hope the teachers and parents of newark do the same.
My daughter had an excellent math teacher. While in his class, my child began to LOVE math. The teacher was professional, skilled, encouraging and inspiring.
At the end of the year I felt it was sad that he felt it necessary to motivate the students to take MAP testing seriously. He promised a pizza party to students that showed a five point gain.
Horray! Horray! Horray!
Anyone out there willing to write a song celebrating the teachers at Garfield?
In the Chicago Public Schools we’re pretty sure they’re looking for the big “gotcha.”
Five year old children who may have never used a computer before entering school take this test. Yes. Kindergarten & First-grade teachers will be evaluated by their students’ test scores, too. Iiiiiiiiiimagine.
I teach at an elementary school south of Garfield. We are deep into MAP testing. This is the first year we’ve reduced our MAP testing from three times per year to two. We’ve been told the scores are a predictor for passing or failing the MSP. (Washington’s state test) It didn’t prove to do so with my students last year. Many passed who, according to MAPs, shouldn’t have and vice versa. Teachers spend hours poring over the data and making “instructional decisions” grouping students for reading and math interventions. Although, the test results are not officially in our teacher evaluations, they’re certainly examined and we’re questioned about them. Meetings are called, forms are completed and filed. We’re asked to to explain them, set SMART goals, and include them in report cards. We even have to state that a child is at standard, slightly below standard, or significantly below standard in the report cards – though that was never the intention and there is no data to support these (I believe misunderstood) claims.
I’ve often wondered who benefits from all of our MAP test taking. I know it’s not the kids. I so appreciate the teachers at Garfield taking a stand. I’ve questioned the MAP on numerous occasions, but haven’t gotten anywhere, and have been too afraid to take it much further. Perhaps this will spark a more serious examination of the use of this test.
Encourage your colleagues to join the boycott.
Catfish,
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you’re talking about the school I taught at in Colorado.
I created a Facebook page for parents and teachers to continue the conversation and follow along for subsequent
Comment got cutoff. “for subsequent news and events related to this.”
The Facebook page is here: https://www.facebook.com/ParentsAndTeachersAgainstMapTesting
There is a lot I could write here, but for now, from this kindergarten teacher in Ohio… THANK YOU!!!
Yes!! Kindergarten is where it all starts.
How many assessments & how often in Ohio, jsboogiev11? In Chicago we are buried under them.
I teach second grade in CT. The amount of testing is insane. My students just completed a five-page math test. Our math consultant told us that any answer with reversed numerals should be marked wrong. I pointed out that the test is not about numeral formation, but on computation, counting, and place value. My argument got nowhere. Yes, most second-graders right their numerals the correct way most of the time, but reversals still occur. One reader of this blog asked, why do we hate children so much? I agree. I decided to just keep my mouth closed and score the tests as I see fit.
Marking reversals wrong? Who are these people??? They don’t know anything about children. And why DO they hate children so much? I just read that in Chicago kg. kids take as many as 14 assessments a year. Ha! If they score poorly on Dibels at the BOY that’s how many assessments they take by HALLOWEEN with all the mandated progress monitoring. The amount of instruction time lost to the testing insanity is unacceptable and can never be made up. Rahm Emanuel made our school day over an hour longer for the children. More time for testing.
I hope that the situation improves in CT. We hold out little hope in IL. The teachers in Seattle have put it all on the line.
Oops: “right” should be “write”, of course. Never WRITE when you’re pissed! Our consultant has NO experience teaching younger children but has no problem telling us what second-graders are supposed to do!
I figured it out early in the year… I gave about ten different types of assessment by October! We have to give the MAP test three times a year (each time two portions reading, two portions math) and if I recall correctly, it is the assessment they are going to use in their formula for the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System! By the way, here is a direct quote from my principal: “The reason we have OTES is because teachers didn’t like the way they were being evaluated.” We do DIBELS, AIMS math, MAP, unit assessments for our reading program, weekly progress monitoring, Clay’s Letter ID, etc., etc., etc. Assessment can help you know where your child is going, but it should only measure how much progress they are making and what they still need to learn in my humble opinion.