Arthur H. Camins, director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., is an insightful critic of contemporary “reforms.” In this post, he envisions a different way to use assessments.
“Frequent high-stakes testing and its misuse for teacher evaluation are poisoning the assessment waters. Assessment should not be the goal of learning. The word “assessment” should not make students, teachers, administrators and parents cringe. It does not have to be this way. For students and their teachers the most effective use of assessment is to guide next steps for learning.
“What if we shifted the balance of our assessment attention from the summative to the formative—assessment that can be used every day to support learning?
“What if we could more precisely identify where each student was along the pathway to learning?
“What if we could be more accurate at sorting out the nuances in his or her gaps in understanding?”
His central point: Don’t judge, inform.
He concludes:
“Less focus on summative assessment of learning and more focus on daily, embedded formative assessment will help us reclaim the central role of teachers and the art of teaching that I think has been de-emphasized by the focus on summative testing, Adequate Yearly Progress and value-added metrics for teacher evaluation. Research that compares the relative effects on posttest student performance from grades, grades with comments, and comments alone suggests that summative judgments, even when accompanied by comments intended to help, are far less effective than helpful guiding comments alone in motivating students and increasing their learning (Butler, 1987). It may be that summative and formative assessments have that same relationship on effective teaching. A focus on formative assessment and its key component—feedback to students—will shift our perspective on diagnostic data from a source of judgment to a source of information for improvement.
“Of course, not every educational goal is easily measured. Subject matter knowledge and skills are certainly important, but so are imagination, creativity, flexibility, respect and social responsibility. I am not arguing for turning classrooms into a diagnostic laboratory. Classrooms should be places of joy, friendship and discovery. However, I do believe that we can learn to be more productively tuned into the nuances of students learning. We can learn to more effectively provide feedback to students so that they can move their own learning forward.
“I have tried to articulate what I consider challenging aspirational goals. Achieving all of them will be a long-term effort, demanding shared learning and responsibility among teachers, principals, school systems, curriculum developers, psychometricians, and policy makers at all levels. Most importantly, it will require time for teachers to collaborate to share ideas and practice. However, I believe that this balanced view, with an emphasis on classroom assessment, gives us direction and points us toward small steps we all can begin to take on the journey.”

In my local high school at least it is the final exams in the classes that generate the cringing among the parents and students, not the no stakes standardized MAP exams.
LikeLike
In Ohio MAP is being used for teacher evaluation purposes in grades 3-8. According to the proposed SB 229, two years of not showing enough growth on the MAP and you cannot be assigned students to teach. That sounds like high stakes to me!
LikeLike
**Clarification: MAP is one of Ohio’s available options currently being used for Reading, Math, and Science VAM in grades 3 and grades/subjects not tested by OAAs in grades 4-8.
LikeLike
Tested,
Are there any stacks for the students?
LikeLike
Yes, there are stakes for the students. When their teachers have to worry about whether their students are going to show enough growth on the MAP tests, do you think that might affect the way teachers teach? Of course it will! If you are given criteria which must be met in order to be considered competent, your performance will be influenced. Since students are not widgets that can be molded to meet those standards, frustration and or desperation are going to play a role in the way a teacher teaches. Of course, you could figure this out for yourself. I don’t have to know whether a student has their own hurdles to know that there are stresses.
LikeLike
So you dismiss the concern that some teachers have expressed that their high school students will answer all A or draw Christmas trees on the exams?
LikeLike
TE, unless you are a total idiot, which you are not, you know I did not say that. Respond to what I did say. Don’t create false dichotomies. You do not further the discussions with your games.
LikeLike
It seems to me that ether these exams are high stakes for students and we don’t have to worry about students not doing their best or they are not high stakes for students and we do have to worry about students doing their best.
Because you position is that these exams are high stakes for students, it only makes sense that the students will do their best on those exams. Do you think that students will generally sand bag an exam that is high stakes for the students?
LikeLike
Are you really so limited in your thinking that every situation is an either/or?
LikeLike
I am certainly more nuanced than many that post here. I can easily believe that these exams are high stakes for some, low stakes for others involved, easily believe that these exams are high stakes in some states for some, low stakes in other states. Did I miss posters here making those distinctions?
LikeLike
TE, the whole point of introducing these state and national assessment is to use them as high-stakes accountability mechanisms. Why do you think people are pulling their hair out over these, and why do you think TestingTalk.org is filled with stories of children crying at their desks?
LikeLike
Robert,
Perhaps you missed the threads about how students do not take no stakes exams seriously.
If I can once again quote Dr. Ravitch:
“Although I have never put much stock in 12th grade NAEP results, due to lack of student motivation on a test that doesn’t count….”
Why would a test that doesn’t count create stress in students that lake any motivation to do well on the test?
LikeLike
TE, you are confusing apples and oranges here. The state exams and the new national exams (PARCC and SBAC) are high-stakes tests. NAEP is not. NAPE is a norm-referenced test. The state and national exams are criterion-referenced. The rationale for NAEP under NCLB was to provide a check on the states, to make sure that they weren’t fudging their criterion-referenced test numbers (which, of course, they were).
LikeLike
The state exams are not generally high stacks. I have run across two lists of states that require exit exam scores for graduation, one listing about 24 states, the other listing 32 states. There seem to be at least 18 states, including mine, where the state tests have absolutely no impact on the student at all.
LikeLike
Those are not the only stakes involved, TE. Under NCLB, ALL public schools had to meet Annual Yearly Progress requirements for improved scores on these tests or be taken over, restructured, or closed. Many states, as you note, require that students pass them in order to graduate. There are also many in which specific tests (e.g., the fifth-grade writing test) have to be passed in order to move to the next grade. Many, many states and districts have now made scores on these tests part of their teacher and administrator and school evaluation criteria, and matters like holding onto one’s job, getting a good reference, receiving merit pay, and promotion decisions are made on such bases. In addition, many schools make decisions about student placement based on these. The stakes are many, and they are typically high, and the plan is for them to be uniformly high throughout the country under the new national testing regime.
LikeLike
It’s troubling, TE, that you, who have been visiting this blog for so many months, do not understand this yet. How much more uninformed about the decisions being made by their leaders with regard to K-12 education must ordinary citizens be? That’s a very frightening thought.
LikeLike
There’s just a wee bit of difference between third graders worried that they won’t get promoted or their teacher will be fired or their school will be closed down vs. jaded 12th graders who realize the tests have no impact on their lives. As Robert said, apples and oranges.
Nice try, though.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that there is a large difference between primary school students and high school students, which is why i draw distinctions between the two groups rather than simply making claims about all students.
LikeLike
I’m surprised, TE, that you are still saying that these are not high-stakes tests after visiting this blog for so many months. What do you think all these writers on this blog are concerned about? They are concerned about the stakes being attached to these tests and about the inappropriateness of these tests, and the standards on which they are based, for the purposes to which they are being put, including purposes like student, teacher, and school evaluation and other high-stakes decisions. These have been the running themes of many thousands of posts on this blog. Do you think that these people are all nutcases with no reasons whatsoever for their concern? That doesn’t seem rational and belies a presumption toward dismissal of the opinions of the educators who post here. Go do some reading on testingtalk.org. I know that you have good intentions, TE, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of many of your posts and the often provocative and engaging questions that you ask. But this seems to be a blind spot. These are real educators, writing about very real concerns, about what they experience, on the ground, in classrooms and data chats and evaluation meetings, day in and day out.
Again, NCLB created a regime for EVERY public school in the country whereby it would be evaluated based upon meeting targets for improvement of scores on these summative standardized tests, and that legislation included severe sanctions. RttT leveraged those very sanctions, forcing states to choose between undergoing them or submitting to further top-down regulation. When Arne Duncan took office, 60 percent of schools in the country were on track for failing to meet the NCLB targets a year later. A couple years after that, the number would have reach 100 percent, because this INSANE LEGISLATION required 100 percent proficiency. My god, TE, a teacher in Orlando was sanctioned by the state because a student of hers born with little more than a brain stem had not shown adequate yearly progress on his FCAT tests. This was explained to the state, and it sent back a form letter saying that the law was the law. And only after a huge public firestorm over this did the state finally back down.
LikeLike
I post about this because the term “high stakes” is kicked around here a great deal with little thought about what exams are high stakes for the students. Certainly for all high school students, the exams that actually determine their grades and graduation status are the high stakes exams. If the reason to be concerned with exams is the stress that it causes students, shouldn’t we worry the most about the exams that create the most stress for students?
I certainly agree that the tests are often high stakes for the teachers, as you point out with your example in Florida. In fact I think that one good criticism of these exams is that they are low stakes for the students actually taking the tests, contributing to the already wide variance of scores. If you are right that students view these tests as high stakes, that criticism can be dismissed.
LikeLike
In other words, TE, under NCLB, without the RttT waivers with which Duncan blackmailed the country to force states either to adopt Common Core or develop and equivalent, with equivalent evaluation measures based on test scores, every public school in the United States in which there was a single student who had not reached proficiency as measured by these standardized summative assessments would have been taken over by the state and forced to undergo restructuring by THIS YEAR, 2014. That would be just about every school in the country.
I don’t know about you, but I think of losing my job and having my school closed as a high stake.
LikeLike
Losing your job makes it high stakes for you, not for your students.
Closing high schools is not really an option in my state. I live in one of the ten largest school districts in the state and the district has two high schools. Most districts have only one.
LikeLike
TE, NCLB applies to to ALL public schools, including those in your state. It’s still the law.
LikeLike
And yes, it’s crazy. Districts were told, if a school doesn’t meet AYP, it will undergo restructuring and management, and if it doesn’t turn around in 3 years, it will be closed. The targets are insane and would mean that most schools in the country would be closed, and students forced to go elsewhere. This is a candidate for stupidest law ever written.
LikeLike
I would have to look up exactly which country did this, but one country outlawed firing employees. As a result, no one was ever (formally) hired. The entire economy went underground, out of reach of any law. A terrible thing for employees.
LikeLike
And, TE, this stuff is being applied to Third Graders–pass the test or be retained–on the basis of ALEC-formulated model legislation being put forward in state after state, for even the federal high stakes are not enough for the troglodytes at ALEC.
LikeLike
And yes, TE, the law was written with no understanding, at all, of precisely such matters. Under the law, if a school doesn’t reach an impossible target, it is to be closed, and an alternative given to its former students. I know that this sounds crazy to you, but I didn’t write this crap. Our brilliant legislators did.
LikeLike
I wondered, TE, what the Obama administration was going to do about this. When it took office, 60 percent of U.S. schools were on target for failing to meet AYP under NCLB in the following year, and that would mean that 60 percent of U.S. schools would have to be taken over by the state and restructured. So, that’s when Arne Duncan came up with his blackmail scheme. He would offer states waivers under this policy in exchange for other requirements–Common Core or its equivalent and various HIGH STAKES concomitants to that.
LikeLike
A law that is impossible to enforce will be ignored or changed. It certainly will not be enforced. Canute could not prevent the tied from going in, the only high school in the county can not be closed.
LikeLike
And, of course, NCLB is still the law, though many states are now operating under waivers from it. However, Duncan has just denied the waiver in Washington because it will not give the exams the high stakes that he demands, and a similar battle is brewing in Indiana. So, Washington State is back to operating under pre-waiver NCLB and is threatened with losing the federal funding for its poorest kids–TItle I funding. High stakes.
And, of course, the whole point of the new national assessment system is to put into place a single high-stakes assessment system for the entire country.
LikeLike
Do you really believe grade school children are unaware that their test results can get their teachers fired or their school ratings lowered? That’s high stakes for a child who loves their teacher. Or for one who might deliberately flub a test to harm a hated teacher.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t believe that about elementary school students can be manipulated into caring a great deal, which is why I posted about high school students. A concern voiced here is that those students would deliberately tank an exam in order to get revenge on a teacher. Where is the stress there?
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd: IMHO, it is simply a given that not everyone does—or wants to do—their homework.
“None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.” [Matthew Henry]
The effect is like the following “gotcha” in press conferences: “Congressman [fill in name], there is some dispute about how many times a week you beat your wife. Please clarify.”
It raises a ruckus and seems like something important is being discussed but basically it is all “sound and fury signifying nothing” — except the desperate attempt to get noticed. [Please google “Macbeth” and the five words for the context]
A relatively recent example: the deaths of 1100 Bangladeshis in an avoidable garment factory fire is just another blip on the way to achieving progress. [Please read comments by Linda accessed below.]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/05/12/remembering-the-triangle-shirtwaist-fire-of-1911/
Save your powder. If only some folks would go beyond page one of their Marxist playbook they would find on page two a maxim that supports your POV:
“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
😎
LikeLike
Krazy,
How many teenage girls die in rural Bangladesh while giving birth? How many are married off at 12? How many are sold into the sex trade by their families? I know you take comfort from not seeing those lives and deaths on your TV, but you should not mistake the lack of television coverage for the absence of oppression and death.
LikeLike
And to top it off, the United States is number one in human trafficking.
There are a lot of sickos out there.
Education isn’t the only money maker.
LikeLike
TE – the high stakes can mean many things. An elementary school student faced with a series of questions they cannot answer experiences anxiety and fear that they are “stupid”. Even if the exam does not hold them back a year, they have to face a low test score arriving in the mail. If you are rated a one, that can effect your self confidence.
I have proctored many exams from grades one through twelve. Failing a test, due to no fault of your own, can be devastating. Even if it is your fault for not studying or paying attention in class (at the high school level) it still hurts.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that posters here use “high stakes” to mean different things at different times, but doing so does not strengthen the argument against these exams.
I also think that there could be an interesting discussion about telling students the truth about a comparative evaluation. Does it serve a student well if they are all told they are all above average at everything? I still remember the first student I ever failed in a class that I taught. After a mostly sleepless night I concluded that I would be doing this student a disservice by telling her that she had shown a minimal understanding of economics.
LikeLike
TE – Take the high stakes out of the equation. The assessments are unfair and poorly designed. Please don’t confuse these tests with a final exam testing proficiency in a subject area after a year or semester’s worth of coursework.
These exams are like giving a 300 level exam in a 100 level course. A few students will do well, the rest will fail miserably.
I worked at a school with above average students. The eighth grade assessment was filled with algebra. Now the accelerated math students who were taking algebra did well. The average eighth grader, who had not been exposed to algebra yet (it was in a future unit, not in the textbook) not only did poorly, but they were visibly upset.
How is it their fault that they didn’t know how to do something which was not in the curriculum?
LikeLike
And TE, many schools in the Buffalo Public Schools have been closed due to low assessments. Seneca Vocational School celebrated ninety nine years, then was closed and became MST (Math Science Technology) Grades 5-12. Grover Cleveland High School, an interesting architectural building, was closed and converted into the International School. There are others. The current schools on the docket are the Martin Luther King School and Bennett High School. Terms of their turn around are being discussed with King. He has already turned down the last proposal. The next idea for his perusal is due shortly.
King has threatened on more than one occasion to take over an individual school.
Is that high stakes enough for you?
LikeLike
When Seneca closed, I cried during the Farewell Party (and I never worked there).
LikeLike
High stakes for the students? That is not clear to me.
LikeLike
High stakes isn’t just for the students. The test results can affect the individual teacher or even the entire school.
LikeLike
I agree that an exam can be high stakes for teachers but not for students or high stakes for students but not for teachers. That is why I think it is useful to be clear about who has a stake in the outcome and who does not.
LikeLike
TE, you make a valid point. Sometimes we are having parallel discussions which do not intersect due to our miscommunication.
LikeLike
It would give me some small comfort if someone would take Linda’s advice:
“Grow a heart please.”
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/05/12/remembering-the-triangle-shirtwaist-fire-of-1911/
I know there wasn’t enough ‘progress’ way back when, but even an old dead Greek guy could offer some useful advice here:
“Words empty as the wind are best left unsaid.”
😎
LikeLike
Krazy,
I understand that you think preventing the women of Bangladesh from working in what you think are substandard conditions for substandard wages is a kindness, but it in fact is cruel. You would condemn them to live the lives that they are desperately seeking to escape.
LikeLike
Would agree, from a pedagogical standpoint with the substance of this comment. The reality of institutional schooling is an organization designed for institutional goals–granting of credits and diplomas. When certification/documentation is your sole goal, then formative evaluation will fall by the wayside. Not only does standardized testing tell us little or nothing about student learning, but all of those teacher made tests we take, the mountains of grades in grade books, and the dreaded quarterly report card are all institutional manifestations of a system designed to rank/sort/certify, but not to educate. The often used comment, what gets tested, gets done, says in few words what our schools are designed to accomplish. Those educators who have written and spoken out against, in Dewey’s words, the machinery of schooling, are considered soft pedagogues who are responsible for every social malady of the day. Of course the one exception to the rule of institutional schooling are the private schools politicians and CEO’s send their children to —they look for schools that John Dewey would be proud of.
LikeLike
I think the heart of the problem is cultural. Since the late ’70s, Americans—especially our so-called élites—have pushed the mantra that we’re all lazy and everyone is passing us by. Their answer is to force more competition on everyone for our own good. Thus, we need more judgmental testing, since only through testing and judgment as a winner or loser can we regain our “competitiveness”.
Of course, the folks who push these ideas—usually with economists at the front—usually have academic tenure and the sorts of connections that allow them success without that much struggle or risk. But I think this still has played well because of a lot of long standing resentments that reach back to the social movements of the late ’60s and early ’70s that shattered many of our illusory self-images of America as a fair and peaceful example for the world. We seem to have been stuck on a treadmill in which certain groups simply want to beat everyone else down to prove somehow that the shattered images were right all along.
So we just keep beating ourselves into the ground.
LikeLike
I think there is another motivation here. There has been a large increase in high school graduation rates over the last 40 years, and that might have been achieved by doing a better job of getting more students to learn the skills and knowledge required of a high school graduate or by doing the same job and reducing the skills and knowledge required to become a high school graduate. Giving students standardized tests is one way to try to figure out how much of each of those things is going on.
LikeLike
Who are these “certain groups”?
LikeLike
The high stakes assessments are created by people who do well on high stakes assessments. The resulting tunnel vision produces the garbage we have to deal with today. Tests only measure what is on the test at that moment in time. Stats 101 cautions against confusing correlarion with causation and the fallibility of extrapolation. Yet the entire junk science of measuring students and evaluating teachers trudges on in spite of evidence to the contrary. Tests are meant to be a diagnostic tool controlled by humans. Instead, we have the tests controlling the teachers, parents, and students.
I watched the CNN debate with Bill Nye against climate deniers. When Nye tried to explain scientific method and reasoning, the response was ridicule and simply shouting. Tyranny of Ignorance. Same with teaching. Methods are simply shouted at teachers and students even if lacking evidence or reason. Parents are ignored or ridiculed. Reasoned dissent is quashed.
LikeLike
As I told Bob Shepherd, I am reading “How We Know What Isn’t So: the fallibility of human reason in everyday life,” By Thomas Gilovich. it is not a new book but one I found as I renovated my office.
I love the chapter headings. “Too much from too little: the misinterpretation of incomplete and unrepresentative data.”
or “Believing What We Are Told: The biasing effect of second hand information”.
Personally, I think Gladwell made it simple in “Blink”. People do what they do instinctively with no reflection. Their world view and belief system is functioning below the conscious level.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ll look that one up. Right now, I’m studying Alan Turing. I finished last year Jonathan Haidt, “The Righteous Mind”. Interesting ideas and studies on morality.
LikeLike
I am so impressed with the level of intelligence at this blog, and the wonderful books that are read by you folks. Personally, I think the crew in charge of the show, Duncan and those who create these tests don’t read a thing of value beyond social media and the hype they create about themselves.
LikeLike
Haidt’s model is very useful. The conclusions he draws from it are totally caca.
LikeLike
SLS, that really is an oversimplification of what Gladwell had to say in Blink, and I’m not sure what your point is. One of the many things he said is in certain situations we need to make decisions without having to think about them. If we spend time over-analyzing, the window of opportunity is gone. I happen to think that in teaching that is often the case. You know what you are doing on an”unconscious ” level without having to reflect on each action. That is one of the things that is so annoying about Danielson type micromanagement. This dissection of teaching into discrete skills ignores the symphony that weaves the craft together.
LikeLike
LOVE THE WAY YOU WRITE”This dissection of teaching into discrete skills ignores the symphony that weaves the craft together.”
Wonderful!
LikeLike
Thank you. In true Blink fashion, my words are the result of devouring the thoughts and feelings I have heard expressed here. They have become a part of me; I am forever grateful to you and many others for furthering my education.
LikeLike
This is a unique blog, and I send people here all the time, not just for the relevant information that Diane posts, but for the conversation that you describe, and which YOU are an important part.
LikeLike
I agree. Formative assessments used to reach an end goal of true comprehension should be the goal. It is the only way to know if the students have mastered a concept. But, these open ended, random-like punitive assessments serve to decrease real learning. You can’t give accurate summative assessments if all students haven’t been exposed to the same material. A one size fits all students test is just absurd.
If you want to have all students progress at their own rates, then Individually Guided Education is the way to go. It may seem over-whelming, but when a student “gets it” then let them move on. And keep them where they need to be for the extra required time.
I have always envisioned that students K-6 should have learning provided in 28 quarters. If you don’t master quarter 1, take it over, immediately, instead of waiting until quarter 4 to be retained. Most kids with problems don’t need an entire grade level of repetition. Some kids could move fast through more than one quarter per 10 week period. That still leaves 12 weeks of time without any school. The agrarian model doesn’t fit the current needs of students and even of many parents. If I were starting a PUBLIC charter school, that is what I would promote.
LikeLike
Two of my kids attended a public “school within a school”. The school was staffed with educated veterans. They collaborated on tactics and strategies. The administration basically functioned as a shield and facilitator. Formative assessment was common. Mastery learning ensured students had to know each assignment before moving on. This eliminated gaps in knowledge, identified struggling students in real time, and actually made the classrooms highly efficient. The waiting list by the time my second child started was very long. The high stakes tests looked so out of place, but the kids did well.
LikeLike
Did the long waiting lest inspire the district to expand the program?
LikeLike
Now that is a fair question that isn’t passive agressive. No.
In our state, the governor cut billions from the schools. The fallout has been devastating. We are moving backwards.
LikeLike
I asked the question because some who post here point out that the specialized approaches to education that we see in some charter schools could be reproduced with traditional magnet school programs like the ones your children attended. I was interested to find out if districts would typically respond to demand by expanding this type of program.
You said that budget problems prevented your local district from expanding these programs. Were they significantly more expensive to run than traditional zoned schools?
LikeLike
I taught in a magnet school which was wildly successful, because the teachers, one and all were part of a collaborative effort. We knew every kid in the school, and they knew we were there for them. We talked about doing work, set clear expectations, offered rewards for genuine performance achievement and lo and behold, our students raced to the top of NYC middle schools.
Of course, what we did is GONE. Nothing that works is permitted.
LikeLike
Deb: I’m just curious what you think of the kinds of new assessments coming down the pike in the SBAC, for instance. As someone who’s been adamant that teachers have more influence in critical review of these poorly-designed tests being used by so many states, (in CA, we were all but prevented by non-disclosure agreements from doing so) I was pleasantly surprised by many of the items on the pilot 11th-grade tests we gave last week. They only took 3 hours, contained many open-ended questions, and asked students to solve pragmatic, interesting problems, thereby demonstrating skills in math and language.
The common core by itself doesn’t improve assessments, but offers at least a framework where a generally-challenging and meaningful, integrated task really can provide a goal that’s appropriate for all students in a grade, simply because it privileges the application of skills, not specific content sensitive to “coverage.”
LikeLike
Ideally, assessment should be a useful or joyful part of learning. It should include the opportunity to do checking to ensure that one is making progress and is ready for the next phase (embedded formative assessment) and opportunities to show off what one has learned (performative assessment). And, of course, some assessment should provide teachers with news they can use for designing instruction (diagnostic assessment).
The least valuable type of assessment is summative assessment, and the least valuable kind of summative assessment is standardized summative assessment, the results of which teachers get long after the assessments are given, and the questions for which teachers cannot even review to find out what students understood and didn’t understand. So, these tests provide almost no actionable information.
But our “leaders” have made these summative standardized assessments–the very kinds of assessments that are of least value instructionally–the engine that now largely drives our K-12 system.
That’s just really, really stupid policy, breathtakingly benighted and counterproductive.
Of course, all that extrinsic punishment and reward via summative standardized testing is demotivating for cognitive tasks, as any review of contemporary scientific studies of motivation by economists and cognitive psychologists would make abundantly clear.
And, of course, the standards being tested in ELA neither cover world knowledge (knowledge of what) nor formulate procedural knowledge (knowledge of how) in ways sufficiently operationalized to allow for valid testing. And they misconceive much of ELA that does not involve, primarily, explicit learning processes as involving such processes and so, again, misconceive, at a very basic level, much of what would be measured if we were following scientifically informed, rational assessment procedures.
Really, our Secretary of the Department for the Standardization, Regimentation, and Privatization of Education, formerly the USDE, should go back and take some introductory classes at one of the education schools he is so fond of bashing. He should learn some basics about types of assessment, about the rational uses and limitations of assessments of various types and about validity in testing, and about motivation and methods. In those methods classes, he might learn some fundamentals about learning processes in the subject areas that are being measured.
And, of course, he should be joined in those classes by Jeb Bush, Michelle Rhee, and the public policy wonks at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Achieve, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the CCSSO, the College Board, and the Carnegie Foundation.
It’s embarrassing and dangerous to have people running things who are clueless about fundamentals.
The results have long been in. It’s time to act on them.
It’s time for some remedial classes for these people.
LikeLike
Since they can’t seen to rewrite a new law, educators should write one and submit it to all our legislators. After all, they wrote our standards it is fittinig that educators rewrite the law. Perhaps that will finally be the opportunity to put students needs first and put funding for public education back where it belongs. Certainly out of the hands of textbook manufacturers, assessment consortiums, and curriculum publishers among others
LikeLike
We need a new law?
RU kidding. We need a law to give back to teachers the only tool that allows them to know what the heck each kid in the class has learned so she can ‘diagnose’ the problems and plan lessons.
We need a law that says that the principal of the school cannot slander a teacher or fatly document a teacher’s incompetence.
OH! I forgot. That is the law of the land, and is the rule of DUE PROCESS in all workplaces… except education… where the enforcer of the law and the contract is looking the other way.
http://www.speakingasateacher.com/SPEAKING_AS_A_TEACHER/No_Constitutional_Rights-_A_hidden_scandal_of_National_Proportion.html
LikeLike
“Ideally, assessment should be a useful or joyful part of learning.”
After I hand out a quiz or test (made by me) I say “Have at it and have fun.” At first the students think I’m crazy but as the year goes on they understand and many times beat me to the punch.
LikeLike
By “standardized assessment,” don’t you mean “state-administered assessments”? The distinction is substantive, not merely semantic–there are simply three or four questions tangled in the public policy in this area, and while conceptual simplicity is easier to push politically than nuanced wonkiness, it bears a little analysis.
The questions are:
What do states test on?
How are the tests written and administered?
When do teachers get the results?
What else are the results used for?
The shame of course is that it is hard to focus on questions 1 and 2 if we don’t get useful answers on #3 and have a gun to our heads on #4.
I’d push a 5th question: Why can’t states have better review processes to invite repairs and revisions to poorly-conceived test items.
I suspect that they haven’t felt a need to, so long as test experts can point to the “validity” measures of the tests. I agree with you that anyone who looks closely at true criterion-referenced tests will find that their aggregate results end up looking statistically anamolous compared to the tidy, normed items that may be completely nonsensical in real terms. We just need to keep speaking up for tests that resemble in more practical ways what we actually want students to do. This may end up being a chicken-or-egg, though, when we find that the very push for “psychometric validity” is driven by the need for something that passes muster as a valid instrument FOR accountability. No clear way to untangle the knot…
LikeLike
@drpohlmann
Of course, you are absolutely right here. I long ago gave in to the general sloppiness that prevails with regard to this terminology. Such sloppiness is absolutely rampant in education. For example, in the rest of the world, a benchmark is a measurable, high standard of performance set by top performers (so, for example, a Six Sigma or higher level of defects achieved by Company A would be a benchmark for others to try to meet), but on the education carnival midway, the term is used to refer to any interim assessment (a “benchmark assessment”). In other words, the term was adopted and used INCORRECTLY by educonsultants and edupundits who didn’t understand what it meant, and this sort of thing happens, in education, all the time.
When I studied educational measurement decades ago at Indiana University, I was taught that a standardized test was one a) that was consistent in content, b) that had itself been tested to ensure its validity (that it was measuring what it purported to be measuring) and its reliability (that it did so consistently across administrations), and, importantly, and c) for which the scores were given as “standard scores” reflecting the number of standard deviations from the mean (or some variant of standard scores, such as T scores). The term “standardized test,” of course, derives from that standardization of scores. So, for example, I would write in those days of “standardized” tests like the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the SAT—and strictly distinguish such tests from ones involving scores that had not been standardized. Ever since the passage of NCLB, however, people have used the term “standardized test” to refer to any test that meets the following definition (which comes from the Great Schools Partnership’s “Glossary of Education Reform”):
“A standardized test is any form of test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students.”
So, that definition covers, as well, tests given to determine whether students meet some absolute criterion (did or did not get correct some absolute number of questions that is set as a cutoff, for example) and does not delimit, as covered by the term, those tests, and only those tests, for which scores have been standardized and appropriate reliability and validity testing has been carried out.
As I pointed out above with regard to the “validity” criterion:
1. For the most part, the state and now national “standards” being tested in ELA neither cover world knowledge (knowledge of what) nor formulate procedural knowledge (knowledge of how) in ways sufficiently operationalized to allow for valid testing. Since much of attainment in ELA (world knowledge, or knowledge of what) was not covered in old state assessments and is not covered in the new national assessments, and since what was and is covered in these (procedural knowledge, or knowledge of how) was and is covered by spuriously operationalized means, those assessments cannot be valid measurements.
2. And, for the most part, those “standards,” old and new, describe whole domains of outcomes in ELA as though they were explicitly known (by the learner) outcomes of explicit learning processes when they are not and so misconceive, at the most fundamental level, much of what is be measured and so have led to the creation of tests that cannot be valid because they are not testing actual attainment, much of which does not involve explicit learning but, rather, acquisition.
But try explaining items 1 and 2, above, to the average ed deformer–to a Jeb Bush or to any of the deformer trolls who show up on this website.
Tilting at windmills.
LikeLike
So smart. But I all this is a head-jam. The point is not whether what “THEY” are doing is bogus. The point is HOW DO WE STOP THEM, when they own the media, and are selling this nonsense as education reform. The point is that with 52 states and thousands of school systems, they can confuse the public to such a degree that they willed public education. The point is, it all began with the assault on the classroom professional who KNOWS how learning occurs, and had to be removed.
The voice of the professional has to be heard in public discourse, on local news, and in the public forum. All the argument here will not change the fate of teachers across the country who are being thrown to the dogs while we argue about bogus evaluation tools.
Are you following what is going on in LA
http://www.citywatchla.com/4box-left/6855-the-lausd-dinosaur-dismantling-the-economics-of-scale
SAVE THE TEACHERS!
LikeLike
cx: a Six Sigma or higher level of lack of defects
of course
LikeLike
Ironically, the NYS Regents Exams are graded immediately by a committee of teachers from that subject area. Of course, that’s an end of the year exam. And once taken, the test is no longer secure. (The protocol surrounding the security of the exam is amazing).
A committee of teachers grade the third through eighth grade assessments, yet the results are not received for months. The exam remains secure.
Why can’t an exam be created that can be graded and recorded immediately, so that results can be applied prior to the end of the school year? Use the Regents protocol, and remove the security after the test has been taken.
After all, for the amount of money Pearson is receiving, they should be able to make up a new exam every year, not hang on to the old questions in perpetuity.
LikeLike
Susan, I don’t think it is just head jam. It’s very important that English teachers start learning the ways in which the CCSS for ELA misconceive learning in their subject area.
LikeLike
If the exam was shortened to no more than three hours, preferably two. And the test was age and/or grade level appropriate. And the results were available with an evaluation of mastered skills along with skills which needed strengthening. And they were only to be used as a teacher tool to assist in the creation of lessons to target specific skills for either the individual, small group, or the entire class.
Well, then, perhaps, there would be a valid reason to give the exam. If there were not some ulterior motive attached with the assessment.
LikeLike
“Well, then, perhaps, there would be a valid reason to give the exam.”
Can there ever be a valid reason to give an invalid and unreliable test?
If not (and all standardized tests suffer from being unvalid and unreliable) then why waste the time, effort and resources?”
LikeLike
“I’m surprised, TE, that you are still saying that these are not high-stakes tests after visiting this blog for so many months.”
Bob, TE is a contrarian troll who will always argue the opposite… His goal here is to not become educated and furthermore, it is to dishearten others…you give him to much credit.
He reminds me of an 8th grader I know. If it is black, she will say it is white…if you turned around and said, “Yes, white” she would say, “No, actually now it is black.”
That is the problem with many pro-privitization folks: they have a problem with everything when it involves pointing out any flaws or malfeasance in their agenda. Now that high-stakes is proving to be unable to magically raise test scores, it has been proven to be the emperor’s new, “NEW” clothes, they are shifting the goal posts to “choice”.
The other day, I actually encountered a charter school owner who declared (proudly!) that even if his students were to do lower on tests, and even if he were to only have students who were native English speakers, and from involved homes, and not SPED that that was okay….”The parents want a say!” His argument was so disingenuous, he said, when you unraveled his rhetoric “If my schools sucks and creates separatism, that that is totally okay, in fact, it is great, because the goal is choice, not education!”
This is where TE wants to lead us: my tax dollars should go to parents “having a say” if they don’t want their children exposed to “those kids”…EVEN if in the process, they are also getting a substandard education! How absurd is that!
The emperor does not only have no clothes, his new “no clothes” are also cheaply made now, made with the cheapest TFA labor, the tackiest, most flimsy ideas such as “choice” put forth as a new adjective to re-image its racist roots…it is constructed of the lowest “threads” of what used to be a proud, democratic creation: public education. His new, NEW clothes are polyester from China, not even the silk that the original Emperor’s sycophants imagined.
LikeLike
too
LikeLike
I suspect that you might well agree with some of my posts. For example, I have long advocated peer evaluation of teachers as an alternative to the current methods based on standardized test scores. Do you view that as a better alternative?
LikeLike
It is because you put forward arguments, TE, rather than simply position statements, that I believe you to be one who comes here, again and again, based on genuine intellectual and moral interest in the issues, and that is why I do not simply dismiss you but attempt to engage you, even when I disagree with positions that you have taken. I welcome reasoned debate for I believe, as I have said many times here, that
“Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” –Milton, Aereopagitica
However, you really need to get off the “there are no high stakes attached to these tests” position. That one is clearly just wrong.
I would like to see these many high stakes disappear. That’s something that I work toward all the time because the policies involving them are so damaging. But even if they did disappear, that would be insufficient, for people woul care about and act upon what the tests and the standards and the evaluation checklists look like, and so it matters what those look like. Educators are no different from other people in this regard. We care about doing our jobs well. Almost all of us do. We have personal investment in this. We are not motivated entirely or even primarily by extrinsic punishments and rewards (like test scores). That’s what people are like. Most people. Some, of course, are motivated almost entirely by “the game”–by making more money, for example, no matter how much they have. But those are very sick people who have lost all balance and reason.
LikeLike
Your ability to reason and argue based on observable reality is not a trait one finds often, not even among very bright people like TE. I am reading “How we know what isn’t so: the fallibility of human reason in everyday life,” By Thomas Gilovich. it is not a new book but one I found as I renovated my office.
I love the chapter headings. “Too much from too little: the misinterpretation of incomplete and unrepresentative data.”
or “Believing What We Are Told: The biasing effect of second hand information”.
Personally, I think Gladwell made it simple in “Blink”. People do what they do instinctively with no reflection. Their world view and belief system is functioning below the conscious level.
Bob, it is such a pleasure to have met you in cyberspace.
I have almost become anti-social, unable to debate with people so wedded to own beliefs that they will argue me into the ground. It is exhausting. It would be nice to be able to email with you. Messages with an email address can be left at my author’s page at Oped.
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
LikeLike
It is because I think that arguments are important that I find the claims about “high stakes” exams problematic. One reason given to scrap “high stakes” exams is that they impose high amounts of stress on students. Another reason given to scrap “high stakes” exams is that students do not care about exams because they are in fact are no stakes exams for the students. I do not see how you see both reasons as valid at the same time for high school students. That is why I think it is important to unpack this notion of “high stakes” to see exactly who sees these exams as high stakes and who does not. In states like mine where high school graduation depends entirely on the number of Carnegie units accumulated, all of these tests are no stakes for the students.
The actual high stakes exams, the ones that determine how many Carnegie units a student accumulates, are the exams in the high school classes. My university students will take the final exam that I write this weekend. I refer to my final exam as the grand celebration of learning. For some of my students it will be a celebration. For some of my students, it may result in them not graduating this semester, perhaps never graduating. I never forget that the exams that I write and grade are high stakes exams.
LikeLike
TE – sometimes our problem in these discussions is that each school, district, and or state has different rules or procedures. I grew up in NYS, went to elementary school in Brooklyn, Jr and Sr High School in Amherst (a suburb of Buffalo), and taught or subbed in numerous schools in Western New York, ending up with 23 years in Buffalo. I have literally seen all types of educational follies.
Your experiences obviously differ.
I always liked college professors who gave options for passing the course. My favorite was to write a paper or take the final. The final was less work, but you had more control with the paper. I did both to hedge my bets. Of course, I was an excellent student who cried if I got a B. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
I would be okay with that, if there was a range of peers and it was not based on only seniority and/or favoritism, i.e. administration chosen peers only: I like my principal now, but one of our old ones was notorious for promoting some of the weakest, least experienced teachers on our campus into academic coach jobs, because they were chummy with her. They were not hard workers and I had got stuck working with one, and she rarely contributed to our lesson plans.
To this end I would like one or two district based coaches who had at least 10 years exp more than I do, assessing me. I would like one or two teachers on my campus who has excellent quality lessons and who are strong, capable individuals with experience in my educational arena reviewing me. I would like a walk through by a “portfolio” of peers.
LikeLike
Well said. I saw peers in my tiny school coat up to administration and betray the trust of colleagues. On the other hand, I worked with a team of true professionals and I would have been comfortable with any review by them. They new my weaknesses and strengths, and I knew theirs, and we helped each other. It was a very special 2 years, and then along came the destroyers.
LikeLike
I would have thought this position would not be controversial, but one time frequent poster LG argued that it was unprofessional for one teacher to be critical of another unless there was the danger of immediate harm to the student. I don’t know how widespread this view is, but if it is common, the peer evaluation system will not work.
LikeLike
TE – you are right. This is an issue, not everyone feels comfortable being judged by their peers. It has been a contention in various contracts over the years.
Now it must seem the lesser of two evils.
LikeLike
Again, TE, you are comparing apples and oranges. A child who knows that he must pass the writing exam to get into the next grade certainly feels a great deal of stress about this, and a 12th-grader taking the NAEP could care less because it means nothing whatsoever to him or her.
And criterion-referenced tests do not tell people where they stand vis-a-vis the “average.” Norm-referenced tests do that.
LikeLike
The child who takes the MAP exam in my state feels exactly the same amount of stress as the child taking the NAEP exam. If stress is really the concern, we should look at the exams that cause the stress.
LikeLike
The stress experienced by children as a consequence of these exams is one of many, many concerns. Loss of instructional time to testing and test prep is another. Debasing of curricula to model it on the tests is another. Here’s an example, TE. Diana Seneschal provides here a perfect example of the kind of crappy InstaWriting to the Test that is now being taught in U.S. classrooms in lieu of teaching writing:
LikeLike
That debasing of curricula and of pedagogical techniques is a particularly insidious one, for the formats and methods employed inthe questions on these tests have metastasized throughout both, and they are killing a formerly healthy organism. And the stakes there are very high and are IN ADDITION TO the high stakes imposed by legislation and regulation in state after state, district after district. I see this debasement of curricula because of the tests EVERY DAY OF MY WORKING LIFE.
LikeLike
I treat this debasement here:
LikeLike
and here:
LikeLike
Shout-out, TE!
“One reason given to scrap “high stakes” exams is that they impose high amounts of stress on students. Another reason given to scrap “high stakes” exams is that students do not care about exams because they are in fact are no stakes exams for the students. I do not see how you see both reasons as valid at the same time for high school students.”
Second that. Let’s pick one position at a time to argue, all!
LikeLike
drpohlmann, I do not understand this “shout out.” Completely different situations involving completely different types of tests are being confused here. As I explained above, there is a difference between something like the 12th-grade NAEP, which makes no difference whatsoever to the student taking it, and the 3rd-grade reading test in Oklahoma, which students must pass in order to go to the next grade. So, when TE complains that people attack these tests for seemingly opposing reasons, he is confusing attacks on different tests for reasons that are valid for those tests.
LikeLike
What? Test for diagnostic reasons? Only educators do that – not governments. Remember this is all about competition and “accountability.” The current trend in testing has nothing to do with students or their educational growth. It is about endurance and stamina in a testing situation. We make our 9 year olds sit and test in math and reading for four hours after the rules changed again. My master’s comps didn’t last 4 hours nor did my state administrator test much less any “test” that I took in college or high school. The new English I and II test is now five hours long and some of our good students didn’t finish it – this doesn’t prove that they can’t write. it only proves they put more time and though into a topic than the “expert” think they should.
LikeLike
It’s about making a lot of money for testing companies and creators of computer-adaptive educational software. Pearson and Gates funded the CCSSO and paid to develop the standards. One contract, the PARCC contract, repays Pearson’s investment, there, many, many times over. And Pearson and Gates are partners in a new suite of CCSS software linked to Microsoft Office. InBloom failed but was meant to be a big CCSS cash cow. Billions will have to be spent on computers for every kid to take these tests online, and a lot of Microsoft software will be sold. How many of those machines will be running Windows, exactly?
LikeLike
The PARCC contract alone is worth over a billion in the first three years.
LikeLike
Gee Whiz. Ya think?
This man has discovered what everyone in the NATIONAL STANDARDS research knew from day one, that GENUINE EVALUATION and AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT was ONLY for the use of the teacher SO LESSONS COULD BE PLANNED to reach all student-learners.
This principle of learning — one of 4 for teachers– was PROVEN by the zillion dollar third level research funded by PEW, on Lauren Resnicks thesis The * Principles of Learning (at Harvard; THIS was the NATIONAL STANDARDS RESEARCH!
That NO ONE has heard about the real STANDARDS, and that the results appear NoWHERE demonstrates the enormous conspiracy to create a national narrative about testing and evaluation teaching.
LEARNING not teaching , was the object of the real research. I know. I was a cohort.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Learning-not-Teacher-evalu-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-111001-956.html
LikeLike
What are those “real STANDARDS”, Susan?
LikeLike
I write this as a larger reply to a question that Duane Swacker and others at this site have.
Duane wrote:
What are those “real STANDARDS”, Susan?
Now there’s a question, Duane!
The Pew funded THIRD LEVEL research was called the New National Standards research. (* 3rd level research means the results must be consistent everywhere… like she a drug is tested. It is not a cockamamie study which works in San Diego but not in NYC.)
Based on a thesis by Dr. Lauren Resnick, Harvard sent observer/staff developers (the tools people) from the Ph’d arm of the University Of Pittsburgh’s Learning & Research Development Center, into the classrooms of thousands of classrooms, in 12 school districts around the nation, to determine if this thesis THE 8 PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING, were valid for successful teachers and absent where children failed.
Into lower, middle and upper performing elementary, middle and high schools they went, looking for the many indicators for each principle. Mine was a high performing middle school in NYC, East Side Middle School, where I had created the entire Communication Arts curriculum from the day the school opened.
The 8 principles:
1- Clear Expectations. 21 indicators, and they found every one of these indicators were part of my best practice, in my classroom… often conveyed in a unique manner.
2- Rewards for Achievement and Work. What they noticed in my practice )where I gave no grades and were there were no tests) was also unique… Although I had to translate the performance of each child to a numerical grade, eventually, the parents and students knew what excellent work looked like from day one.
What they discovered was the reward for work in MY class, was fascinating…but for another time.
3- A firm grasp by the teacher of content and methodology, of best practice; including the education and licenses that testified to this.
4- AUTHENTIC Assessment, and GENUINE Performance Evaluation, but THE TEACHER, providing the information necessary to plan and meet the needs of a diverse population of students. My letter-writing curricula, and the portfolio system I developed was indisputable proof of progress. Children who came in writing 100 disorganized words, left writing between 1000 and 3000 words in clear, often lyrical sentences, organized into paragraphs and testifying to critical analysis. it left Harvard speechless, and the head of the LRDC, when she first saw the work, said, “Who is this brilliant teacher?”
The LRDC bought one of my units for their own book not the standards. Six teachers out of the tens of thousands studied met these National STANDARDS in a unique way, and the LRDC set up a room that showcased each teacher’s unique practice. I was one.
Yet, this” brilliant”t teacher was judged incompetent by a single superintendent in NYC, because the assault had begun, and where, to this day, there is no accountability for TOP-DOWN administrators under the law of the land.
Which brings me to the 4 PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING… the criteria …the STANDARDS BY WHICH ADMINISTRATION IS JUDGED.
1- A safe, healthy QUIET site where learning can take place.
2- Supplies for learning programs: books and classroom essentials, technology, etc.
3- Organization and programs that support the classroom practitioner… the principal sees to it that the school functions well… which he/she should for the ove 100k they get.
4- Hiring staff that supports learning, including teaches whose professional background attests to their competence. Teachers are expected to be licensed in the content area they teach, and can expect fair reviews of performance based on peer reviews, parent commentary and student progress over the year as demonstrated by GENUINE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
I have crates of performance standards from District 2, generated during the Pew study. District 2 received $40 million the first year that I brought the research into my classroom and thus TO THE DISTRICT. Millions more ensued each year for several years.
I have shelves filled with the work from the lectures and workshops I attended, and the articles that I wrote at the time, about my teacher-based research. I have all the ‘buz’z and bulletins that Anthony Alverado generated when HIS staff development efforts brought THE NATIONAL standards research.
What I do NOT have, is a single paper with my name on it, showing the celebrated work I did.
Not even at my school,–whethis sudden fame interrupted their intentions to break my tenure— was there a paper that showed what I had accomplished. In fact, a ‘cutie’ novice gal, teaching the 6th grade ( now that I only taught the entire seventh grade) had her name on the bulletins where SHE explained the national standards research at our school. hee hee. What a joke.
Look, the conspiracy to silence the classroom practitioner is vast, and was well established by 1998 when they sent me to the rubber room on the allegation that I had cursed at a child in front of a class, causing her to be ‘fearful’, and THAT was corporal punishment….well according to the administration at the DOE in NYC, but not the NY State law… The attorney I hired for 25k, made it clear that NYS had a different definition of CORPORAL, and my 4 million dollar lawsuit let them know what the union did not…that such criminal behavior by administration is unacceptable.
NO charges were ever put forth, no investigation, no hearing…just a letter saying I and been found guilty…by her. She BTW, got the main article in THE AMERICAN EDCUATOR about the teacher development and the standards research in HER district (she was Alverado’s fiancé). Not a word about me… and she soon retired, collected her pension and went off to be the chancellor in San Diego. * Ask me what happened to her! THAT is a story the playwright I am loves to relate.
That was the reward for my work.
Parents raged and wrote endless letters.
Nothing changed.
Nothing will, or this could not happen to Francesco Portelos in NY, right now.
http://protectportelos.org/does-workplace-bullying-continues-my-33-hrs-behind-bars/
Moreover, the very fact of YOUR question, shows how Bush and company changed the meaning of “standards” to mean TESTS, and no one knows about the REAL NATIONAL STANDARDS RESEARCH.
MY question is: WHERE IS HARVARD, AND LAUREN RESNICK, AND Stephanie McConaughie at the LRDC and PEW?
I know how the media was purchased, but WHERE are the people who worked with over 20,000 teachers in THAT multi-million dollar research?
Why is a lowly teacher like me the only one talking about the REAL national standards!
LikeLike
Mr. Camins makes in this post a case, an important case, for formative versus summative assessment. This is the issue. Let’s attend to it. I am very, very sorry that I took this thread off track by engaging TE on his completely looney notion that stanardized testing in the U.S. doesn’t have high stakes attached to it. Seriously, I am very sorry about having wasted people’s time with that. So, once again:
Ideally, assessment should be a useful or joyful part of learning. It should include the opportunity to do checking to ensure that one is making progress and is ready for the next phase (embedded formative assessment) and opportunities to show off what one has learned (performative assessment). And, of course, some assessment should provide teachers with news they can use for designing instruction (diagnostic assessment).
The least valuable type of assessment is summative assessment, and the least valuable kind of summative assessment is standardized summative assessment, the results of which teachers get long after the assessments are given, and the questions for which teachers cannot even review to find out what students understood and didn’t understand. So, these tests provide almost no actionable information.
But our “leaders” have made these summative standardized assessments–the very kinds of assessments that are of least value instructionally–the extraordinarily high stakes engine that drives our K-12 system.
That’s just really, really stupid policy, breathtakingly benighted and counterproductive.
LikeLike
Robert,
Please point out the comment where I said “stanardized testing in the U.S. doesn’t have high stakes attached to it”. I never made such a statement our argued for one.
What I did say is that it is important to distinguish between those for whome the exams are high stakes and those for whome the exams are not high stakes. Do you think this distinction irrelevant?
LikeLike
I think that distinction quite relevant. That’s why I made it several times over, above.
LikeLike
Than why claim that my position is that there are no high stakes standardized exams when in fact my position is that there are exams that are high stakes for some involved and low stakes for other?
LikeLike
This document is available on the Great Lakes Ce
nter website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org
Table 1: Overview of Requirements for States Under NCLB
1. All states must identify a set of academic
standards for core subject areas at each
grade level;
2. States must create a state assessment system to monitor student progress toward meeting these state-defined standards;
3. States must require schools and districts to publish report cards identifying academic achievement of its students in aggregate and disaggregated by ethnicity and other sub groups (e.g., for racial minor
ities, students for whom English is a Second Language (ESL) and special education students);
4. States must create a system of labels that communicate to the community how local
schools and districts are performing;
5. States must create a plan (i.e., Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP) that would ensure 100 percent of its students will reach academic proficiency by the year 2014-2015;
and
6. States must come up with a system of accountability that includes rewards and sanctions to schools, educators, and students that are tied to whether they meet state’s goals outlined in the AYP plan.
Source: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 §1001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. Retrieved February 18, 2005, from: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pd
Those high stakes for students vary from state to state but include various state statuary and regulatory requirements that the following be based on test outcomes:
1. promotion to the next grade level
2. graduation
3. student placement (in remediation programs or in particular tracks)
4. receipt of a particular type of diploma
5. receipt of scholarship money
6. placement in a different school from the one the student has been attending
But there are many stakes that are not statutory or regulatory, one of the greatest of which is that students are robbed of decent educations when the curricula and pedagogy to which they are subjected have been designed by schools, districts, state departments, or educational publishers to reflect the requirements, formats, and methods of extraordinarily poorly conceived bullets lists of standards and “standardized” criterion-referenced assessments.
LikeLike
I am sorry about my tone, TE. Sometimes I get very, very tired of all this. I am sick to death about how these amateurish standards and standardized tests are destroying the English language arts in the United States. This is very, very serious business, and the damage being done is enormous, and the issues that matter are difficult ones that cannot be explained to idiot legislators with a belly full of ALEC steak and wine in a soundbite. But I try. And I try. And sometimes, after spending a day looking at deformed lessons modeled on ridiculously conceived tests and thinking about what might have been instead, I get angry.
LikeLike
I would like to correct the misplaced modifier in that post:
This is very, very serious business, and the damage being done is enormous, and the issues that matter are difficult ones that cannot be explained in a soundbite to idiot legislators with a belly full of ALEC steak and wine. And so sometime what I do here seems like a lot of tilting at windmills.
LikeLike
Table 1: Overview of Requirements for States Under NCLB
1. All states must identify a set of academic standards for core subject areas at each grade level;
2. States must create a state assessment system to monitor student progress toward meeting these state-defined standards;
3. States must require schools and districts to publish report cards identifying academic achievement of its students in aggregate and disaggregated by ethnicity and other sub groups (e.g., for racial minorities, students for whom English is a Second Language (ESL) and special education students);
4. States must create a system of labels that communicate to the community how local schools and districts are performing;
5. States must create a plan (i.e., Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP) that would ensure 100 percent of its students will reach academic proficiency by the year 2014-2015;
and
6. States must come up with a system of accountability that includes rewards and sanctions to schools, educators, and students that are tied to whether they meet state’s goals outlined in the AYP plan.
Source: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 §1001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. Retrieved February 18, 2005, from: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pd
Those high stakes for students vary from state to state but include various state statuary and regulatory requirements that the following be based on test outcomes:
1. promotion to the next grade level
2. graduation
3. student placement (e.g., in remediation programs)
4. receipt of a particular type of diploma
5. receipt of scholarship money
6. placement in a different school from the one the student has been attending
But there are many stakes that are neither statutory nor regulatory but are matters of school or district policy or matters related to the educational consequences of the absurd standards-and-summative assessment model, one of the greatest of which is that students are robbed of decent educations when the curricula and pedagogy used in their classes have been designed by schools, districts, state departments, and educational publishers to reflect the requirements, formats, and methods of extraordinarily poorly conceived bullets lists of standards and “standardized” summative criterion-referenced assessments based on those poorly conceptualized lists.
LikeLike
Read Arthur’s essay linked to in Diane’s post. It’s excellent.
BTW, one of the biggest names in the Ed Deform Edupundit Collaboration business used to write books and give talks all the time about how summative testing need to be replaced with embedded formative assessment providing immediate feedback. However, this person saw who was writing the big checks these days. But these slimy Vichy types are everywhere these days.
LikeLike
cx: needed
LikeLike
TE – I can attest to the truth of so called high stakes testing in Buffalo. 1) Students who get a one or a two are automatically put in remedial classes.
2) High School students must pass five Regents (soon to be Common Core Regents) exams.
3) in the Buffalo Public Schools, 8th graders apply to high school. The assessments are used like an SAT score in determining placement.
Thus, the scores do have an impact on their lives. (Despite whether or not they take the exams seriously).
Do you consider this high stakes for students.
(Teachers also use these scores for evaluation purposes).
LikeLike
“Classrooms should be places of joy, friendship and discovery. However, I do believe that we can learn to be more productively tuned into the nuances of students learning. We can learn to more effectively provide feedback to students so that they can move their own learning forward.”
This idea is nothing new because it is what happens in Montessori classrooms every day. Education has become so unnecessarily complicated and convoluted.
LikeLike