Andrea Gabor, The Bloomberg Professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York, is one of the nation’s worthy and thoughtful education writers. Her book about W. Edwards Deming has the best refutation of merit pay that I have read (chapter 9, The Man Who Invented Quality). Her latest book book, Education After The Culture Wars, gathers stories of districts where collaboration, not competition, creates a healthy environment for education.
In this post, she argues that America’s infatuation with standardized testing is waning, and it’s time to find a better way to assess how students are progressing.
America’s decades-long infatuation with standardized testing is finally waning, and for good reasons. Despite years of training students to do better on tests, the performance of 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation’s report card, has flatlined. At the same time, the focus on testing produced unintended consequences, including inattention to important educational priorities and growing teacher shortages.
That’s in part because test performance became a goal in many districts instead of a means to an end and, thus, a prime example of Campbell’s Law, which points to the corrupting influence of using a single measurement as a target, thus ensuring that “it ceases to be a good measure.
Gabor says there is a better way. She describes the work of the New York Performance Standards Consortium as a model.
The country’s best under-the-radar experiments are a useful guide. Chief among these is the New York State Performance Standards Consortium, a decades-old effort led by progressive educators and involving 38 high schools, which won exemptions from all standardized tests except English. Instead, students complete ambitious projects known as performance-based assessments — think mini theses with lots of research, writing and real-world projects in everything from social studies to physics, which students present to expert panels, including teachers (often from different schools) and community members.
Since launching in the 1990s, the consortium has racked up far higher graduation rates and college matriculation ratesfor its schools than New York’s traditional public schools.
The consortium prevailed even as New York became Exhibit A for the nation’s testing follies. New York adopted “Common Core-aligned” tests before the standards were completed, and introduced new tests almost every year — making it difficult to track student progress.
Is she right? Is there a big change coming?
Boston is among a few cities that have become early members of the MA Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment: http://mciea.org/
Key leader in that initiative has been Jack Schneider, author of “Beyond Test Scores
A Better Way to Measure School Quality” http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674976399
and co-host with Jennifer Berkshire of the Have You Heard podcast
https://haveyouheardblog.com/have-you-heard/
Well, from the article
It might be easy to say good riddance, but schools still need ways to measure student progress. The accountability movement that pushed testing was a response to a genuine need to improve K-12 education. Since the 1983 publication of “A Nation at Risk,” a bipartisan report by a commission appointed by President Ronald Reagan, business leaders have warned that schools weren’t developing the knowledge workers modern industry needs, and progressive educators have criticized traditional factory-style schools for not fostering an engaged and informed citizenry.
Now we know that the Nation was not at risk, but people used “The Nationa at Risk” to push for big and crazy changes in education. Project based assessments seem to assume that in highschool, we need to churn out researchers.
Is that what we want?
“…but schools still need ways to measure student progress.”
Sigh. With a nod to Senor Swacker, how exactly do we “measure” student progress? What would a standard unit of student progress look like?
There is no standard unit of measurement in project based or portfolio assessment. New York schools, even those that are not in consortium, have been using rubrics to evaluate students’ writing for years. Before teachers can evaluate, they are given training on various criteria for the rating scale. Then, teachers practice rating students’ work, and they discuss any differences in scores based on the rubric. The whole idea of the training is to prepare teachers to come to a consensus on the rating system. Yes, it is time consuming, but the goal is to minimize the variability in the scoring. This same type of scoring can be applied to projects and portfolios.
This system is much more fair to diverse students. It allows students to show what they know instead of showing how much money their family makes as on a standardized test. It also places most of the responsibility for students evaluation on the local level which, frankly, knows the student. It is in my opinion a more authentic form of assessment. If you search rubrics on-line, you can see many samples of criteria for various rubrics.
My issue is with the word “measure”. By definition, measurement requires standardization. You can’t talk about “measuring” learning by project-based assessment. (Of course, you can’t talk about “measuring” learning at all because learning itself isn’t standardized; trying to make it standardized is what has led to the last 20+ years of nightmare of teaching to the test.)
The Consortium doesn’t “measure.” None of its assessments are based on standard measurements.
Measurement is generally assumed to be discreet and accurate. As someone that has administered standardized tests to ELLs, I have seen these students fail a standardized math test even though their math skills were not that bad. They failed the test because they could not read it. This test will claim that the student failed due to poor math skills. However, the test is not measuring what it purports to measure. There are many misleading and unfair aspects to so-called standardized tests. VAM was also presumed to be “scientific” and accurate.
My main question is not about measuring but with asking kids to do research projects:
students complete ambitious projects known as performance-based assessments — think mini theses with lots of research, writing and real-world projects in everything from social studies to physics, which students present to expert panels, including teachers (often from different schools) and community members.
Is this what every higschool student needs to be able to do?
Rubric based grading suffers as many problems as any other grade/numerical based assessment. It is a pseudo-objective, in other words a subjective (which is fine, I have no problem with subjective evaluations as that is what all evaluations are) evaluation. Breaking up learning assessment into little check mark boxed descriptions of behavior and assigning a number to each box does not make it objective.
For me the main fundamental problem is using an assessment to judge a student/student performance instead of using assessment to help the student learn where he/she is in their learning.
“But, but we have to be able to compare what the students know, or at least compare it to some standard, and by then extension how good/bad the teacher/school/district is.”
Says who?
Until we can break free from judging students and placing labels upon them we will continue to not fulfill the promise of having students learn as much as they can, desire, need for their own purposes as unique human beings.
Máté,
NO!
You are correct to point out that fallacy as there are many, if not most students who would be better served with more personal assessments of themselves (along with the teacher and parents, of course) as part of their growing and learning process, which are more “in tune” with their life goals and aspirations and more likely than not have nothing to do with portfolio and rubric evaluations.
You are correct. Even with rubrics there is a certain level of subjectivity. However, it gives diverse students a way to show their level of understanding in a less biased way than in a standardized format. No system of evaluation is perfect.
No, it’s not less biased. Now if properly handled and a student completely understands the rubric (tell me how often that happens) and is allowed to be the one using the rubric, obviously in conjunction with the teacher, then perhaps it can be used to enhance the teaching and learning process. But not when it is just the teacher “judging” the student and giving them the results of the grading.
As it is, I’ve never implied or implored for a “perfect system of evaluation”. There is none. What I plead for is a more open and honest system of evaluation that puts the student at the center and in control of their own evaluation.
But, but students won’t be honest or won’t know how to use the evaluation system. Well, I disagree with the honest part and if they don’t understand the evaluation system why the hell are we subjecting them to it?
Do students need evaluation beyond what’s being done in the classroom by their teachers?
Not in my thinking. Unless we are talking about determining disabilities and/or other impairments such as vision/hearing problems to determine correctives and how the teaching and learning process could be modified in order to best help the student learn.
Do students in K-12 need evaluation beyond that done by their teachers? Absolutely not. We should learn from the mistake that was the high-stakes testing regime. Teacher grades, btw, have always been more predictive of college success than the SAT, in its various metastases, has been.
so many long years of taking a nation NOT at risk and pushing it belligerantly into high risk territory….
See my comment . We have it already!
I’m all about project based learning. What I’m not about is the federal or even state government dictating projects as graduation requirements or mandatory assessments along the way. I can see endless nightmares involved in coming up with some kind of “standardized” system of project-based assessment. I can just imagine that the projects for kids wanting to be auto mechanics and cosmetologists are going to have to be the same projects as kids graduating with an art focus and the kids going on to academic universities.
“I can just imagine that the projects for kids wanting to be auto mechanics and cosmetologists are going to have to be the same projects as kids graduating with an art focus and the kids going on to academic universities.”
Why would a kid who wants to be a mechanic need to do a semester or year long research in anything—regardless of topic?
The whole thing smells like college profs imagining kids’ doing work similar to theirs. Reformists have been trying to reshape education as if business was the ultimate goal of learning.
I’d like to see a proposal that would consider only the kids interest and I wouldn’t be able to detect the taste of some adult group in it.
“I’d like to see a proposal that would consider only the kids interest and I wouldn’t be able to detect the taste of some adult group in it.”
¡Sí sí sí, señor!
YES!!!
Well, Stephen Hawking was a cosmetologist and he had to know all sorts of stuff one learns at University to study the universe.
This is exactly the point, SDP: this is high school for all kids, not a preparatory program for researchers in some science. Working on long term projects is a method very few people use in their jobs or in their lives. Is it then useful to introduce in public education? If it had some proven educational value, like motivating students to study, its use might be justified. But its value cannot be justified by saying “It works for some students”.
Scientists love working on longterm projects, and for the sake of reaching the project’s goal, they are willing to learn many things. But I think there are many other ways to be motivated to do ones work. Doctors, mechanics, plumbers don’t have long term goals; they have to solve new problems every day.
The problem with tests is that they need a particular skill, namely whipping out answers quickly, few people have and is not used in most jobs.
Working on longterm projects is the other end of trying to evaluate kids, requiring “slow thinking” skills.
I am not sure kids need to be evaluated by any method that requires the development of special skills useful only for the assessment.
The whole thing smells like college profs imagining kids’ doing work similar to theirs.
YES!!! Exactly, Mate!!! Thank you!!!!
Sure, change is coming. But not in the way Gabor hopes.
The students will still be subjected to constant monitoring and standardized testing, but it will come in the form of “personalized learning.” It’s already happening in a number of places, including the district in which I work. Kids are now constantly “performance based” tested multiple times a day, and in many cases, such as math in my district, ONLY the tests count for grading or anything else.
The data overlords won’t want the project based assessments that Gabor describes, because it won’t allow them to sell the data–it’s too “squishy.” It’s the constant standardized garbage that the data overlords want. And that’s what students will get.
The billionaires and corporations will not let standardized testing die an easy death. There is too much money behind it, and testing is their prime vehicle to justify privatization.
Right. That’s why “personalized learning” is the new “it” thing.
The testing companies can move away from BS Tests that people are getting wise to, and still make bank with the new imbedded standardized testing that is part and parcel of “personalized learning.”
Exactly
Agree, rt: It’s all about the $$$$ & privatization & taking real education away from the 99%, so our kids grow up into unquestioning, below minimum wage, drone workers in Amazon warehouses.
&–as even those jobs will be taken over by robots (& drones!)–the underclass will increase, greater death rates will occur through despair–alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness (& good riddance to them!), & the corporate heads & billionaires will become even richer.
I brought opt-out parent leaders to meet with New York Commissioner Elia after her first month on the job. She assured them that the day of the one-shot standardized test would soon end, because students would work online and be continually assessed. Hello, Big Bro.
OY!
“Kids are now constantly “performance based” tested multiple times a day, and in many cases, such as math in my district, ONLY the tests count for grading or anything else.”
Typical adminimal implementation of educational malpractices of which they have no clue how to evaluate.
The year I retired they were making a push to have tests and quizzes be 75% of the grade. My scheme, and yes it was a scheme that I made sure the students knew was just a BS scheme, was that 75% of the grade was completion points with tests, quizzes, projects and extra credit points counting for about 25%. In other words if they did all the assigned work (which was daily exercises that if they did them at the end of the hour when I gave time they could probably complete them) then they were guaranteed a “C”, really a “B” and those that did all the work almost always received an “A”.
I would have gotten around the forced grading scheme by labeling all the completion grades as quizzes and everything else a project.
See my comment!
Just got to it. See my response. As usual you are spot on Susan!
Duane: Yeah it’s been a catastrophe at the schools. Kids don’t do the work, and therefore can’t pass the quizzes. Theoretically, they’re supposed to keep retaking quizzes until they pass them, but then you have 40 kids per class in different places. It’s been a disaster.
So sad to hear.
Why even bother testing humans when we could just let robots take the tests?
When robots take the test
Our problems will be gone
Cuz robots are the best
And never ever wrong
I am afraid that you are right, Threatened. This will be the next big fight after we end the federal standardized testing mandate–to stop the metastasis of personalized learning throughout K-12. That crap is, of course, just the old Behaviorist programmed learning with new graphical interfaces.
cx: depersonalized learning
I think the time has come to stop “measuring” students by their test scores. Personally,– I never measured students at all; I considered their efforts, their growth, and their feelings about them. Although it may sound like I was a softy, I saw good learning and the willingness to do even better in all my students.
Exactly!!
“The time has come,” the Billionaire
said,
“To talk of many things:
Of Common Core — and standard tests
— of passing score — and VAMs —
And why the schools are failing [Not!] —
And whether pigs have wings.”
— from the Billionaire and the Reformer
https://dianeravitch.net/2018/04/20/somedam-poet-lewis-carroll-on-reformers-and-testing/#comment-2803309
LOL. Well done, SomeDAM!
Andrea Gabor is a light in the darkness. That said, any system that empowers people above the school building level to codify and administer assessments will be rife with problems like those we find with the current ridiculous high-stakes standardized testing system. I can easily imagine state or federal performance assessment systems that are saddled with well-intentioned but Procrustean requirements that limit the creative imaginations of teachers and students in destructive ways; that place burdens on students that only the wealthiest can easily meet; that do not take into consideration the range of diversity of student interests, proclivities, and goals; that are themselves subject to Campbell’s Law; that are absurdly keyed to the puerile Gates/Coleman bullet list of skills, and so on.
So, yes, performance assessment–great idea–but let’s keep it at the building level, where individual departments and the teachers within them can formulate the projects and make the judgments, drawing upon a national wiki of models and templates continuously added to by teacher-practitioners, researchers, and subject-area specialists.
And here’s another suggestion for changing the way we do things so as to accommodate a diversity of student needs, interests, and paths:
We need to do away, in high school, with transcripts of grades for classes and replace these with a great many certificates of accomplishment that are much more specific–that are tied to concrete accomplishments (again, in keeping with the performance assessment model). So, for example, a student would earn a certificate for writing a research paper in proper form; for writing, directing, shooting, and editing a short film; for having completed a reading list in World War II history or European Romantic literature; for having replaced the transmission in a car; for having written a small business plan with five years’ worth of projected sales, costs, income statements, balance sheets, and cash-flow; for writing the software program for a simple e-reader; for creating a painting in oils, acrylics, watercolors,or gouaches; for doing an analysis of a major twentieth-century poem; for performing a major role in a play; for writing a press release; for collecting oral histories; for writing an essay or short story in French or Spanish or German or Latin or Japanese; and so on. These would be judged by juries of teachers at the building level and the certificate awarded. A transcript would consist of a long list of such certificates. Each transcript would be unique and reflective of the students gifts and inclinations. Each student would have a committee consisting of a couple teachers, a guidance counselor, the student, and his or her parents and guardians who would meet regularly to counsel him or her on building a portfolio of certificates attractive to employers and/or colleges. Such transcripts could also include scores on tests voluntarily undertaken by the student.
There’s a saying in the software biz: “I don’t care what degrees you have. I care whether you can write the code.” I couldn’t agree more.
And here are a couple more relevant aphorisms: Standardization is for automobiles, and diversity is strength.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
We don’t need “certificates of achievement in skills.” That’s the crap going around with “personalized learning:” microcredentials. As if learning can be put into a series of digital badges.
That’s the WORST thing that could happen to schools. I know you know better, Bob.
These are EMPHATICALLY NOT “certificates of achievement in skills,” not at all. These are lists of concrete accomplishments–products requiring both descriptive and procedural knowledge for their accomplishment.
I recognize the idea behind CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENTS. As Bob explains, no matter the appellation, a student’s portfolio of work is assessed, and the rubrics are listed, so that they can be checked as ‘accomplished’ or achieved. There was a long list of rubrics for a writing portfolio in my class. IN fact, each student had to evaluate their portfolio, and check what they had accomplished. Then, the teacher did the final evaluation.
Also, each piece in the portfolio was accomplished by a student description of the assignment, discussing why they feel this pice met the rubric’s objectives. The LRDC staff developers that ran the Pew project on The Principles of Learning demanded that both he student and the teacher constantly THINK ABOUT what learning looked like.
Those words were the crux of the standards research, because everyone who went to school, believes that they KNOW what it looks like… for example…pretty bulletin boards, quiet children sitting at computers…. agggh!
“Lists of concrete achievements” sounds an awful lot like microcredentials. Educate me–HOW are these different?
Threatened, I’ve made the point a number of times on this blog that I detest the use in education of this term “skills” because it leads to breathtaking vagueness of the kind that runs throughout the puerile Common [sic] Core [sic]. I prefer the term “procedural knowledge” and assessments that demonstrate concrete descriptive and procedural knowledge attained. For example, when people ask two questions on a high-stakes standardized test and think that they have tested, in general, the ability “to make inferences from text,” lol, well, they are mistaken.
The federal government should not be forcing students to be tested. These decisions should be left to the states. The federal government inserted itself into testing with NCLB and eligibility for Title 1 funds. Now, the feds act like they have to right to impose testing on everyone.
These decisions should be left to building-level teachers, departments, and administrators, subject to broad frameworks promulgated by states and abetted by a national wiki of COMPETING assessments (diagnostic and otherwise); project templates and rubrics,; reading lists; domain-specific and general vocabulary lists; sample lesson plans; learning progressions; course outlines; and so on, freely available for adoption by teachers and freely added to by classroom practitioners, educational researchers, content developers, and subject-area specialists.
I agree that these decisions are best left to individual districts, but states also come up with mandates. In New York when I started there were few standardized tests. By the time I retired, I lost about twenty-eight mornings of instruction due to standardized testing. The testing becomes a vice-grip that impedes real learning.
Emphatically agree that Job 1 for the Resistance to Ed Deform is ending the federal high-stakes standardized testing mandate, which dramatically distorts (and dumbs down) curricula and pedagogy, costs billions of dollars (1.7 billion per year in state testing contracts alone), and has breathtaking opportunity costs (time wasted on data chats, standardized-test-related pretesting and benchmark testing, test prep, preparation of data walls, and test-prep-style exercises and activities in textbooks and in depersonalized education software. And this doesn’t even include the stress placed on teachers and administrators and parents and, most of all, students. All this cost and the tests haven’t a) improved outcomes or b) lowered achievement gaps, by the Deformers’ own measures–test scores. When will we ever learn?
Bob: This is an interesting idea. It somewhat mimics what the military does when they train soldiers to do a specific job. A retired Navy guy I know taught photography in the same manner some years ago.
Bascially, the transcript becomes a list of “What I can do, and the evidence of that.”
cx: Of what I can do (and thus have demonstrated that I know), and concrete examples of that. Knowledge is key. Being able to create a web site, from scratch, solely using HTML and cascading style sheets shows that you know HTML and cascading style sheets. That you have attained a body of knowledge, descriptive and procedural. Same with creating a Works Cited page with a variety of references in proper MLA or APA style. The concrete product demonstrates command of a body of knowledge.
Bob,
Is what you have in mind something like students showing that they can “solve linear equations and inequalities in one variable, including equations with coefficients represented by letters”? A sort of unpacking of the common core math standards?
Would you propose that once a student had satisfied enough of the correct certificates they would be awarded a high school diploma, or would we simply stop with those sorts of summary certifications entirely?
Would we also want to get rid of the idea of a student being in a specific grade as students of the same age might well have very different sets of certificates?
“What I can do, and the evidence of that.”
No, it may be evidence that I did something but it is not evidence that I can do it. Learning, as I know you know, is not linear in that once we learned something we can be said to know it as many times what is learned or done one day is forgotten by the next week or year. What is learned, especially for the long term, is what is relevant to the individual student.
Why even grade or supposedly provide evidence of learning? Why not just put down what courses were taken, and in your scenario list what they did without any judgement issued?
Duane,
How can you list the things “they did” without judging if they, in fact, did them?
There is always a judgement.
TE,
I agree that there is always judgement. And that is neither inherently a good thing nor a bad thing. We can’t get around that fact. Your question smacks of a circularity trap.
Duane,
Do I understand correctly that we both agree that the answer to your question in the earlier post “Why not just put down what courses were taken, and in your scenario list what they did WITHOUT any judgement issued?” is that it is not possible do list items without any judgement?
Duane, pls don’t answer.
Along this line, I think schools need to shorten the time frame for academic success. Forty week courses for 14 to 17 year old kids are 24 weeks longer than a college semester. This standard public school time frame using the average of four marking periods plus mid-term and final exams disadvantages far to many students, causing many to give up by February or March.
This is also a very easy fix – and its free!
Courses should run on either 20 week or preferably 10 week time frames. This provides students with multiple chances for success and a much wider variety of offerings.
Another suggestion for making school more humane. This one, I think, is a biggie:
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/one-way-to-make-high-school-suck-less/
This is a crucial observation, Bob. Even under strict Communism, we had five 45 minute long classes a day with 15 minute breaks—-and we stayed in our own classroom. It was the teachers who went from class to class. In grades 1-4 I think we had only one day with five classes, on the other days, we had four classes.
“There’s a saying in the software biz: “I don’t care what degrees you have. I care whether you can write the code.” I couldn’t agree more.
As someone who spent a good part of my career in the software biz developing software, I’d have to disagree of at least partly disagree.
Writing the code does not require any degrees.
But that ps actually the easy part of software development. The hard part is specifying what the software should accomplish and how that should be done and then testing it to see that it does what it is supposed to do.
For the latter steps, thinking before coding is ALL important and I would have to say that few people with just a high school diploma do this.
Bill Gates is a perfect example of someone who can code but can’t think — or at least did not think before coding, even if he can think.The crappy software that Microsoft has produced over the years reflects this.
Boeing’s current mess with the 737 max 8 is also a direct result of not really thinking before coding.
The concerns people have about fully automated planes after the recent Boeing crashes are very justified.
People are getting a peek at what previously went on behind the curtain. And they are seeing that the Wizard ain’t what he pretended to be.
Point well made, SomeDAM. Yes. Of course, I meant “write the code” in the broader sense–be capable of creating something that works and works well. I care a lot more about whether a person can write than whether he or she has a degree from a writing program. I’m with Ivan Illych on this one.
I would also say one more thing about the implication that degrees don’t matter in the software biz..
While that may be true for making lots of money, it’s not true for making good software.
And the best programmers I worked with did not have a computer “science” (sic) degree but DID have degrees (eg, in engineering and real science)
And SomeDAM, I do want to point out that I didn’t write, “I don’t care what degrees you have; I care that you can write some crappy, inelegant, barely usable code that you didn’t think through clearly before you plunged in and started kludging routines together.” LOL.
Trump has a degree from Wharton. Bush, Jr., an undergraduate degree from Yale and an M.B.A. from Harvard. I stick by my original point: what matters is what you know and what you can do, and one of the values of properly done performance assessment is that it shows this. If someone applied for an editing job with me, I wanted to see some of their writing, and I wanted them to edit some copy, because that’s what mattered.
cxs: his or her writing, wanted him or her
ofc
Would we replace successful procedures for surgery, and then throw out the doctors who actually knew what healing required — so that the new crap could be sold as a better choice? Only in the profession of education is their constant turmoil about everything that is already established. How learning occurs is no mystery, and yet any and all cockamamie idea that emerges become the ‘go-to for a while ,until it fails, because. no one consulted the classroom practitioner as to its efficacy. Throw out PHinics and use ‘word walls’? Agggh!
Moreover — in the nineties, Pew spent millions on third level research (it has to work everywhere, (not just some suburban district).
Using the thesis of Lauren Resnick, at Harvard on The Principle of LEARNING, twenty thousand teachers in 12 districts across the entire nation were observed by the University of Pittsburgh’s’ LRDC (Learning & Research Development Center).
They did this over 2 years, to see if these principles identified the practices that underlie LEARNING… (Forgive the capitals; it is all about LEARNING, just as. the practice of medicine I call about HEALING, not which pharmaceutical can make the most money).
Authentic Assessment & Genuine Evaluation was the third principle of learning of 4 Principles that teachers had to meet. I used PORTFOLIO to assess writing & reading performance … never gave a test ( although short quizzes were part of activities).
Because I taught the entire 7th grade, and wrote the curriculum from day one, when the school opened, — and because my students scored at the top of the reading and ELA writing exams EVERY year… and whose scores were third in NY STATE, I was chosen as the NYC classroom cohort in the Pew study. How did I do this…they asked, and then watched, and filmed.
When the study was finished, The PERFORMANCE STANDARDS were published.
(FYI: I was one of six teachers in the research study, that was chosen by the LRDC to be featured in their seminars. My work toured the nation… even as NYC tried to harass me out for incompetence – so the EDUCATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (the cabal that runs the nation’s war on public education) could replace the voice of the genuine teacher-practitioner with the common core crap. https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/eic-oct_11.pdf
Huge volumes for each subject and grade were published! I gave copies to Diane.
I saw them line the shelves in the NYC District Office storeroom.
THEY DISAPPEARED.
So, why are we still wondering how to evaluate student work????????
The conversation about how to assess performance is exhausting to me, who began teaching in 1963, and never had a problem determining if a child in my class met the. objectives!
PHONICS… not PHinics
“Only in the profession of education is their constant turmoil about everything that is already established. How learning occurs is no mystery, and yet any and all cockamamie idea that emerges become the ‘go-to for a while ,until it fails, because. no one consulted the classroom practitioner as to its efficacy.”
Bingo, bangle, boingo! Give that lady a Kewpie Doll!
What you both said.
Although I would disagree that “how learning occurs is no mystery”. It is THE greatest mystery of the teaching and learning process that no one has come close to figuring out.
Now perhaps you mean that there are teaching and learning practices that are effective and we’ve known about those for a long time. . .
IF. . .
we would listen to classroom teachers instead of falling for “cockamamie reform ideas du juor” I agree.
&–one more thing–WHY was there a testing moratorium in the Sandy Hook aftermath, yet our kids who are (& multiply) traumatized (just this past weekend TWO mothers–leaders of Mothers Against Senseless Killings–were killed in a drive-by in Chicago, although the Chicago Chief of Police has denied they were targeted (the head of this group isn’t having it). The two mothers left behind a total of seven children, not to mention all of the kids who had been helped by these wonderful women ({Tamar} “Manasseh started the group in 2015–w/moms ‘occupying’ the s.e. corner of 75th & Stewart–hanging out, cooking & walking the neighborhood…the mothers also offer youths counseling, healthy meals & homes for those who don’t have them. Instead of a lively group of kids playing & adults enjoying the summer weather Monday, mourners stopped by to leave candles & flowers & sign a poster at a memorial set up by friends…” (Chicago Sun-Times, Tuesday, 7/30/19).
And yet these kids, so psychologically scarred & traumatized &, most likely, fearful for their lives (& those of their families) on a daily basis not only have to be able to sit at a desk & pay attention in school (that’s right, they need to attend a no-excuses charter!), but are expected to do well on ridiculous, NOT “standardized” tests.
And then their schools are closed because they are “underperforming.”
We have momentum now. Hopefully, teachers strikes will continue to force politicians to confront what they are doing to students with data driven drivel and privatization. When the day finally comes for reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds [sic] Act, two phrases on everyone’s lips should be privacy of student work and professional teacher autonomy. No standardization of any kind. Period. Just let us teachers teach. We need to keep greedy corporate meddlers out of our schools and the only way to do that is to keep them from anything that can be scaled up. Teachers and school administrators, keep those student portfolios and all student work off the web where Bill Gates and his data driven, dirty, sticky fingers hide.
The educator comments here are well-informed and very interesting to read. I only view this issue from the perspective of a parent and a former K-12 elementary school student in the 1970s.
I get a little worried about some of the absolutes like “no testing”. I think there is a place for an independent assessment of students that is not entirely dependent on their own teacher. I also believe it is very different to talk about annual testing of 7 to 12 year olds — who are going to develop their academic strengths and weaknesses at different times and are not widgets — and having high school students given an assessment to see if they have mastered the material.
I am a supporter of there being no single way, but that students should be assessed using many different measurements, and that includes standardized tests. Those tests are merely a single factor used with other classroom based observations and projects and other criteria.
“Project based learning” works for some students and not others. Demonstrating a grasp of knowledge by correctly answering questions on a test works for some students and not others. Grades based on “class participation” or the ability to turn in every homework assignment before the due date works for some students and not others.
Not sure how to address this except that hopefully we all recognize that using all kinds of different measures is useful. I remember when strong athletes (and also just ordinary students) would be passed through K-12 education without ever learning how to read (they were often very smart and able to cover this up). Back in the 1970s students took “Iowa Tests” that were low-stakes as far as students and their parents knew, but presumably might provide a red flag for a quiet, well-behaved student whose learning issues aren’t always seen. They also provided a red flag for a quiet student who was capable of doing higher level work whose academic strengths were not noticed by the teacher. Using such a standardized test as some ultimate measure of a student is absolutely wrong, but using it as something that would result in the teacher or school looking much more closely at a student whose weaknesses or strengths were not evident in the classroom is very useful.
Please note that the Performance Assessments in the New York State Performance Standards Consortium are all for high school. Most seem to me for grade 12 and planned as practice for collegiate admission, not unlike a version of AP Course specifications and criteria for evaluation. I looked at the the visual arts component at the Consortium website. The performance requires a written statement and student artwork. In the example at the Consortium website, the student was heading to Bennington.
I think that performance assessments will be extremely difficult to put in place across all grade levels and subjects. In addition, rubrics are not much more than elaborate checklists. In other words the testing industry will not go quietly into the night. It will just morph into non-stop assessments any time the student uses software connected to the internet.
Performance assessments are also taking the form that Bob Shepard has described, with stackable micro-credentials. Twenty-one states have policies in place, or pending, for professional development and teacher recertification with micro-credentials or badges. Some badges are part of an effort to eliminate degree programs in education and expand the number of people who have skill-sets that qualify them to offer education services. Think of vouchers and a “gig economy” for ESPers (Education Service Providers). https://system.suny.edu/academic-affairs/microcredentials/definitions/
BADGE PROMOTERS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: https://digitalpromise.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Microcredentials_Driving_teacher_learning_leadership.pdf
Promoters of micro credentials and badges hope toi replace any record of “seat time in school,” grades, and conventional diplomas. Open Badges is one authority offering technical specifications for badges. The typical result of the badge-making process is a portable and reasonably permanent digital image file.
In 2017, the Open Badges project became an official part of the IMS Global Learning Consortium. IMS stands for Instructional Management Systems. Badging systems are also promoted by members and affiliates of IMS Global, the Mozilla Foundation, and over 30 groups organized in ten US metro areas as “Collective Shift/LRNG.”
Collective Shift/LRNG is a campaign to support “anytime and anywhere learning,” not just in schools, and not just with traditionally certified teachers. LRNG offers competitive grants for projects with some connection to schools, on-line networks, community volunteers and social service agencies working on after school or summer activities.
Collective Shift began as a program of the MacArthur Foundation with rationales that included a commitment to STEM learning and corporate engagement in efforts to de-school education through the use of technology.
BADGES & THE GIG ECONOMY: https://seattleducation.com/2018/04/04/competency-based-education-cbe-and-alec-preparing-students-for-the-gig-economy/
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, DIGITAL BADGES: https://www.imsglobal.org/sites/default/files/summitDCpres/022818-West-Coalition-Open-Badges.pdf
I think that that the hoopla over competency-based learning is a crock, but it is also well-funded and cheap. The tech infrastructure is in place and the marketing machinery is revved up. Badges/microcredentials are sometimes compared with earning a badge in a scouting program. Unless I am mistaken, earning these badges remains a form of performance assessment.
Please note, Laura, that I emphatically DO NOT support having these projects and their assessments formulated by or assessed according to criteria promulgated by the federal government or by state departments of education. I think that this needs to be done by teachers at the building level–just like any classroom testing, and I would like to have them be optional. What I’m striving toward is a) acceptance of greater diversity in student products, b) the creation by students of portfolios demonstrating concrete applications of their learning, and c) more concreteness in our measurement techniques. I strongly agree with you that if this stuff becomes part of a top-down assessment regime, it will be just another overreach–another failed attempt at micromanagement of classrooms. So, I would like to see this idea be one the table as an option for teachers in departments to choose. I agree that the creation of a product is not in every instance the best measure of whether learning has occurred. I also agree that much of the most important learning that occurs in schools isn’t easily measurable at all. It’s often the case that more or two small events in a high-school career stick with a student, ramify, and make a difference in his or her life not captured in any assessment. The kid who was blown away by Hesse’s Siddhartha becomes a reader, and this unfolds years after high school. A history teacher notices a kid’s doodles, praises them, and that kid ends up studying graphic design because some adult thought he or she had the right stuff.
Top-down standardization is for nuts and bolts and screws.
One way to do this would simply be to expand transcripts to include, in addition to course names and grades, if teachers and students choose to do so, a brief indication of one or more concrete products created by the student as part of his or her work in the class.
The second self-portrait is “minimal”?
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/07/24/nations-report-card-to-get-trimmed-four.html
I coulda shown ’em minimal…