Archives for category: Testing

In the wake of massive technology breakdowns in the online testing in Tennessee and Alaska, this teacher posted a warning:

“Based on my experiences trying to teach lessons with various age groups in the computer lab, I must say I am not surprised by the technology issues when giving a statewide test. The Buffalo Publc School System couldn’t support a normal day’s worth of computer use. In our lab of thirty computers, a number of computers were broken and wouldn’t turn on, several were missing a keyboard or the mouse, some kids forgot their passwords, the hardware took at least five minutes to boot up, and some computers crashed or froze midlesson.

“In a state like New York with over a million students, I shiver to think about the log jam that will occur when everyone logs in at once. Alaska’s problems will look like a walk in the park.

“Of course, they all think it can’t happen here. I simply refer the administrators to Murphy’s Law when the make their arrangements.”

In this article that appeared in Education Week, testing expert W. James Popham explains why the current wave of assessments are fundamentally flawed.

 

He writes:

 

Today’s educational tests are intended to satisfy three primary purposes, all of which can play a constructive role in students’ education: to compare, to instruct, and to evaluate.

 
Comparison-focused educational tests permit us to identify score-based differences among individual students or among groups of students. The resulting comparisons often lead to classifications of students’ scores on a student-by-student basis (such as by using percentiles) or on a group-by-group basis (such as by distinguishing between “proficient” and “nonproficient” students).

 

A second purpose of educational testing is instructional—that is, to elicit ongoing evidence regarding students’ levels of achievement so that better decisions can be made about how to teach those students. Test-based evidence can also help students themselves decide whether to modify how they are trying to learn.

 

A third purpose of educational testing is evaluation—that is, determining the quality of a completed set of instructional activities provided by one or more teachers. These evaluations often focus on a lengthy segment of instruction, such as an entire school year.

 

All three of these purposes, if implemented by using appropriate tests, can benefit students. The trouble is that one of those purposes—comparison—has completely dominated America’s educational testing for almost a century.

 

Why are we so obsessed with wanting to compare children? Does it really matter if your son or daughter in Michigan has a higher or lower score than someone of the same age in Texas or Maine?

 

This is the silliest possible misuse of educational testing, and the least valuable.

 

Education is not a basketball game or a race horse. It is about developing the human beings in our care to be the best they can be. Not by punishment, not by scare tactics, not by humiliation, but by the same care and support we would give to a precious flower in our garden. If you crush a flower, it never grows.

Remember those reliable tests that teachers gave? Pencils always came through. 

Politico reported this morning:

ALASKA HAD DOUBTS BEFORE TESTING SEASON BEGAN: The Alaska Department of Education was concerned about this year’s computer-based statewide student assessments even before last week’s Internet connectivity problems, Interim Commissioner Susan McCauley told Morning Education. “We had very shaky confidence going into this assessment, but from an administrative standpoint, assumed it would be fine,” McCauley said. Alaska had already decided in February that it would begin the search for a new testing vendor for next year and beyond, and this experience made clear their need for an institution that can provide “high-quality, useful data for Alaska parents and educators.” The state canceled testing entirely last week: http://politico.pro/201LR38.

– “While there’s no way we could have predicted this outcome,” McCauley added, “there should have been a plan in place” in the event of a situation like this. “We learned a lot to better prepare us for future assessments.” The University of Kansas’ Center for Education Testing and Evaluation noted that other students using its tests Monday were having no trouble: http://bit.ly/1S5n2Np.

– In addition to Internet woes, the testing system also failed on another front: Students who were disrupted were often taken back to the start of the assessment rather than where they left off. Because of this, the data surrounding test completion rates pose a problem as well. The state reports that just 8.2 percent of students completed the entire ELA portion of the Alaska Measures of Progress assessment, and just 5 percent completed the whole math portion. Only 4 percent of students were able to complete all stages of the Alaska Science Assessment exam. And those could be too high. Brian Laurent, the Department’s data management supervisor, notes that these figures must be taken with “extreme caution,” since there is no way to assess whether the percentages reflect actual completion of the exam or “‘completion’ as interpreted by the testing platform.” Whatever the real figures, they will surely fall below the required 95 percent of students who must be tested according to federal law. [http://politico.pro/1QFIhua]


The Texas legislature has a strange obsession. Its members think that the best and only way to improve education is to require standardized tests and to make them harder every few years. Those tests can never be too hard. A few years back, the legislature decided that all students had to pass 15 tests to graduate, and parents across the state rebelled, forcing the test-lovers to scale it back to five tests to graduate. But they still believe that harder tests=better schools.

The legislators of Texas should take the Great Testing Challenge: Take the tests you mandate and publish your scores. Any legislator who can’t pass the eighth grade math test should resign. How many do you think would dare to take the tests?

 

This year, for the first time, ETS wrote the tests, and surprise!, there were computer glitches. Open the link and you will see a picture of little children at an elementary school in Abilene cheering the bigger children who were on their way to take the tests that would determine their worth and put a number on it.

 

Veteran teacher Jennifer Rumsey writes here about the state’s mandates and how they affect her and her students.

 

She writes:

 

 

“It’s that time again. Time for STAAR testing in Texas. STAAR is the legislatively mandated series of high-stakes tests for public school children in Texas, and it is the most recent and most difficult of several testing program iterations that began in the 1980’s.

 

“I’ve seen them all. I have been a Texas public school teacher since 1999. I have experienced TAAS, TAAS prep, TAAS workbooks, TAAS-aligned textbooks, TAAS packets, and even a TAAS pep rally.

 

“Once students’ statewide overall TAAS scores became pretty high, the legislature made the costly move (paid to Pearson) to TAKS. The public schools adjusted: we adopted TAKS-aligned textbooks (published by Pearson), bought TAKS workbooks, held TAKS bootcamps and tutorials.

 

“And then came STAAR, or State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, which is the most ambitious testing program yet. The Texas legislature decided to gut public education funding that year, 2011. The cuts amounted to a loss of $5.4 billion, while they voted to create STAAR and pay Pearson $500,000,000. At first adoption, high school students were required to pass 15 end of course exams to graduate. Now, thanks to grassroots efforts to change excessive testing requirements, high school students only take five graduation exams. However, their future life success remains impacted by rules that they must pass these exams to graduate, even with their academic credits earned. [Note: Because of the deep cuts, Texas schools had larger classes and took cuts to librarians, school nurses, the arts, and physical education.]

 

“This week my freshmen students must take the 5-hour English I end of course exam. I will be one of the lucky test administrators. During one of my test administration trainings, I found out that I am now required to write down the name of each student who leaves the testing room to use the bathroom, the time the student leaves, and the time that they return. This information, along with a seating chart, will be turned in to the Texas Education Agency. I am not sure why. Is it an additional measure of control over the students? Is it an additional measure of control over myself and other education professionals? Is it a deliberate attempt at de-professionalization of educators? When I mentioned to my students that I had to keep track of their times in and out from the restroom, they were puzzled and irritated. One savvy freshman girl asked, “Do they want to know the stall I used also?”

 

“What I do know for sure is that these tests have become far too important. They are treated as top secret, national security-level documents. Why is the material in a standardized test treated as more confidential than the information in the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails? I have already signed my oath, and in my test administrator’s manual I am threatened with the loss of my hard-earned professional certification if I share information relating to what is on the test. I am cautioned to in no way purposely view the tests. Ironically, I am allowed to read the writing prompt to a student who requests it.

 

“Tuesday was a big day for my own family. My 10-year-old daughter is one of the unlucky guinea pig fifth graders in the state of Texas. She is one of the unlucky children affected by the State Board of Education decision in 2015 that “pushed down” developmentally inappropriate math objectives. Some of the newly required fifith grade material was, until 2015, not taught until the children were in the seventh grade.

 

“What does this “pushing down” of objectives do? It requires more material to be taught during the school year, stealing valuable time that math teachers need to teach the foundational material for that year. It makes math harder and more rushed for the children. It is wrong. The TEA suspended the math passing requirements for 5th graders last year. But not so this year. Nope. My child and her peers must pass this test or face retention in grade.

 

“And wait, the news just gets better. The outgoing Commissioner of Education announced near his departure that, “STAAR performance standards have been scheduled to move to the more rigorous phase-in 2 passing standard this school year. Each time the performance standard is increased, a student must achieve a higher score in order to pass a STAAR exam.” Thus, my daughter and all her 10- and 11-year old friends are being held accountable for inappropriate math standards and will be judged at a higher performance standard at the same time. Something is not right here. Something is very, very wrong. My child is not a subject to be experimented on.”

 

If your child is a data point, don’t watch this short video.

 

Don’t watch it if you think your child can be summed up by a number or a test score.

 

But watch it if you see your child as a unique individual, different from every other child and precious to you.

Norm Scott, a retired New York City teacher, blogs at EdNotes Online. He posted today the onslaught against opt out in the mainstream media in New York City. Norm taught in low-income schools for many years. He was also the producer of one of the first anti-reform films: “The Inconvenient Truth About ‘Waiting for Superman.'”

 

 

I seriously doubt that any of the people who wrote these articles understand that the tests provide no useful information to teachers or parents. I wonder if any of them have school-age children. Teachers are not allowed to see the answers or to learn what their students got wrong. Parents get nothing more than a number (1, 2, 3, 4) and a percentile ranking. Do we really need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rank students yet learn nothing about their instructional needs? Do they know that the tests were designed to fail the majority of students? Can they explain why?

 

 

Norm Scott writes:

 

 

Every single link in today’s Rise and Shine is an assault on Opt-out.

 

 

Eva Moskowitz: Opt-out movement will leave students unprepared
“I really believe in the tests – I seem to be the only one left standing,” the Success Academy CEO said Friday afternoon, against the backdrop of thousands of children singing to pop songs whose lyrics were changed to extoll the virtues of learning and test preparation. Read more.

 
And follow up with these:

 

 

With state tests set to begin Tuesday, some are predicting that the opt-out movement will continue to grow, even though the consequences of those tests have diminished. Wall Street Journal

 
Plenty of New York City principals and parents still see the tests as a normal, and even helpful, part of a child’s school experience. New York Times

 
Some teachers have gone further in encouraging students to opt out by sending anti-testing information home to parents. New York Post

 
The nonprofit High Achievement New York has launched a counter-campaign, with the tagline “Say Yes to the Test.” New York Daily News

 
Al Sharpton says he opposes the opt-out movement because the test results help shine a light on educational inequality. New York Post, Politico New York

 
Upper West Side parents are still worried that opting out will hurt their children’s chances of admission to a selective middle school. DNAinfo

 
Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz said Friday that she seems “to be the only one left standing” supporting state tests, just after thousands of her students gathered for a “slam the exam” pep rally. Chalkbeat

 
Three Success Academy charter schools didn’t have copies of the tests last week, worrying school officials. New York Daily News

 
Editorial: Parents, you’ve been heard. Now have your kids take the damn tests. New York Daily News

 
Editorial: It’s “pathetic” to see education leaders across the city and state pander to the opt-outers. New York Post

I saw this terrible incident on the television news the day it happened, but I heard no mention of the fact that the event was a pep rally to get students “fired up” for the Florida state tests.

 

The student body of 2,000 was assembled in the gymnasium of the Atlantic Community High School for a pep rally, whose purpose was to “jazz up students in advance of the Florida Standards Assessment test.”

 

“Students were quizzed on sample test questions during the rally. When they answered correctly, they were rewarded with showy slam-dunks on the basketball court.”

 

After the questions and answers, a professional stuntman who performed fire-breathing tricks started his act. However, the stunt went wrong, and he caught on fire. The fire-breather was severely burned, and 20 students required medical treatment afterwards.

 

The principal had approved the stunt, which was contrary to district rules about indoor fires.

 

But no one asked what the high school was having a pep rally to “jazz up” preparations for the state tests.

 

One was a dangerous stunt, the other was just a stupid stunt on behalf of a dumb policy.

 

 

Laura Chapman, who lives in Ohio, has written extensively on this blog about the defects of the Common Core standards. She notes here that the state of Ohio is pretending to review the CCSS. But they have made the review so difficult that few parents or educators will be able to make their views known to the state. This cannot be an accident.

 

 

Chapman writes:

 

 

Common Core is up for review in Ohio, sort of.

 

 

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) only wants comments from the public that will tweak specific standards, not reasoning that might warrant dumping them all. The press (in this case the Newark Advocate) repeats the myth that the standards were developed by a broad coalition and correctly raise the bar for U.S. students, who often lag their international counterparts.”

 

 

The ODE only wants to know which standards need to be tweaked and according to a spokesperson, the current review has nothing to do with controversies.

 

 

ODE has set up a website for “feedback” relevant to three questions:

 
1. Are these standards still appropriate for the students in each grade?
2. Do these standards still reflect what is most important in each subject area?
3. Do these standards still reflect what students need to know to be successful after high school?

 

 

In order to offer a response you must go to a website where you can enter the feedback system. It is structured with five entry points for 963 Common Core standards: K-8 Math (229), HS Math (156), K-12 ELA (32), K-5 ELA (250), 6-12 ELA Literacy (296).

 

 

The number of standards is daunting enough (the system as dropped subordinate parts (e.g., a-f ) attached to many of standards–the parts that steer instruction and complicate judgments. The feedback system is semi-structured. You can search for standards by grade level and major topics, or enter a key word and see what that turns up.

 

 

Casual comments are clearly ruled out. When you have identified one standard for a comment, you are asked to follow these steps. (Begin quote)

 
1. Type of Suggestion Select the type of edit being suggested for the standard above. —Clarity—Grade Level Appropriate—Content Error—Other
2. Claim. Provide a description of your content-focused issue or concern with the standard you identified.
 Characters 0/1000
3. Resolution. Provide a description of a possible resolution to the issue that you claimed above.
 Characters 0/1000
4. Research/Rationale* Provide research, information or data that supports the claim made above concerning this standard. Characters 0/1000 If you have none, enter “None” into the box. (End Quote.)

 

 

So far the state has received over 350 comments. I am trying to find out the ending date for the on-line comments and more about “a committee” that will meet after the on-line comment period is closed.

 

 

This on-line comment “opportunity” is inexpensive, limits responses, and demands more time than most people can devote to it. I think the CCSS will not be changed much. It is not just that educators played such a marginal role from the get-go, and that Bill Gates paid for the CCSS, and the rest.

 

 

Ohio already has 3,203 standards on the books, an average of 267 per grade level, including the existing Common Core (including parts a-e). There are no caps on standard-setting.

 

 

There are also brand new national standards that might be worthy of concurrent review—including National Core Arts Standards (2014) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013). In fact, the NGSS include 410 cross references to the Common Core: 203 in math, 96 in reading, 90 in writing, and 21 in ELA literacy—all before high school.

 

 

Apparently Ohio “continues to review the NGSS document for the purpose of identifying related resources and strategies that schools can use to support Ohio’s Learning Standards in Science, which began serving as the foundation for Ohio’s State Tests in Science in 2014-2015.”

 

 

It seems doubtful that Ohio ever intended to have a serious and “actionable” review of the CCCS. Why? Ohio has already contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for math and English tests that are supposed to be ready now (Spring 2016) having dumped PARCC. In addition, AIR already has contracts for science and social studies tests. The “feedback form” is at http://www.ohio-k12.help/standards


Jesse Hagopian, a teacher of history and social studies at Garfield High School in Seattle and editor of the book More Than a Score, explains in this TED talk why parents and students are boycotting standardized testing. Jesse has an in-depth knowledge of the history of standardized testing; he knows its roots in racism, bias, and elitism. It is not an instrument of egalitarianism. It is meant to label, rank, and rate students, and it does so in relation to family income.

 

This is well worth your time to watch.

The tabloid press in New York City, which has consistently supported corporate reform, such as charters and high-stakes testing, regularly claims in its editorials that the parents’ opt out movement is secretly funded and manipulated by teachers’ unions.

 

This is absolutely untrue. There are teachers involved in the opt out movement, but as individuals and parents, not as representatives of their unions. When Karen Magee, the president of the New York State teachers’ union, endorsed opt out last spring, right before the testing started, it was big news. (My blog got the biggest one-day readership in its history [about 140,000 views in one day] when I reported Magee’s decision).

 

The New York City United Federation of Teachers never endorsed opt out, never funded it.

 

Please, editorial writers for the New York Post, the New York Daily News, and yes, even the New York Times, please take note: The opt out movement is parent-led, parent-organized, and depends on parents for its energy and passion. It is not union-led, union-funded, or union-controlled. In short, the opt out movement is a grassroots uprising against the absurd emphasis on standardized tests that consume instructional time without any benefit to students and without providing any useful information to teachers.