With state testing upon us, here in Arizona, it brings me to a critical question, how can progressive educational efforts be measured in a quantitative, valid, and reliable way?
I'm sure that it's been previously acknowledged, that they cannot be, "quantitatively" measured, but instead, "qualitatively" measured.
Now, consider for a moment, you're looking for the most qualified brain surgeon, to operate on your child. Would you be satisfied with a qualitative measurement of how she's previously performed, measurements that include other patient opinions of the doctor's bedside manner, or instead, would you be concerned with the qualitative measurement of lives she's saved? Just food for thought, for those teachers who despise state testing initiatives. I believe that information should indeed be collective in an objective way. The part that I disagree with, is how students who've entered a school district, even a week before the state exams, are counted as a part of their new school's scores. This makes the testing efforts convoluted, and a little more aggravating. The way the current A-F labels are calculated in the state of Arizona begs improvement for this reason, and a few others. However, the simple act of testing the children alone, cannot be seen as the culprit.
Your thoughts?
I think that if a student has been a part of the school for a measurable amount of time, that their scores should count, however if they move to the new school a week before testing, the scores should stay with the school that did the educating up to that point. It is not fair for a student to enroll as a 3rd grader in a new school and then be expected to show what they know and have the new school judged on it. If the student "bombs" the test, how is that an accurate measurement of the school that they are attending? If scores stayed with the school that the student has just left, then that would make more accountability in the previous school.
ReplyDeleteNow, I consider a measurable amount of time to be more than a quarter of the school year because a teacher cannot be expected to teach an entire year (or more) worth of content in a quarter of the school year. What if a student has been in a failing school for 3 years? They are now 3 YEARS behind, and this teacher will be held accountable when that student takes their test in a week? How fair is that? Not at all. Arizona needs to revamp their way of recording the test scores.
I agree that students need to be tested, especially when you put it in the light of the brain surgeon (I like that example), but if a school did not do the prior educating (or fail to do the prior educating), they should not take the fall for the student that just enrolled with them.
I'm not sure how to fix this other than to say that the scores stay with the old school for that school year.
I believe students should be tested and held accountable for what they learn. I agree that having a student test for your school after they have only been in a week is not fair. They are not showing what they learned at your school but what they learned at their old school. There should be another way to find out what a student knows without hurting a school they have been in for a week.
ReplyDelete“You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”. Teachers vary in their strategies of teaching just as students each have their own way of learning. The variables are too great in each learning environment, if the school ranks high and receives state money for testing success, then that money should be dispersed among all the teachers. The other solution to make this “fair” is to have the administrators divide the state insensitive money as they are the ones who have evaluated the performance of their teachers.
ReplyDeleteStudents arriving at a new school days before the state testing is to take place should not be counted in the ranking of the new school. A means should be established to include thier scores in the ranking of the school they had left.
Hi Patti,
DeleteI'm unsure as to what state incentive money, and it's distribution to teachers and principals, has to do with how students are counted towards one school or another. Schools don't receive any money based on their A-F rating, and the issues is just that a school's reputation, not money, can be affected. Therefore, please clarify what you meant, as I'm not making this connection, but would like to know more about what you meant.
I understand the need for state testing and that teachers and students need to have accountability. The problem that I have with state testing is that it seems to measure what a student chooses to do on that day. I am not sure that you can say that a child knows how to do something or not based on a day of testing. Also it seems to me that the real accountability lies on the shoulders of the school and teachers. That is where funding is based and these tests determine which teachers keep their jobs. I think that the focus of the tests is a little lost. If we used the tests to determine what students need to focus on more or how to help the students then I would say state testing is beneficial. We also find ourselves teaching to the tests and test prep. I know that testing is something that people often encounter but I don’t think that should be the focus. We shouldn’t just judge the success or failure of a teacher or school on test scores alone. Teachers also like to do projects and activities with students. This is not tested anywhere in the state testing. How are these scores used to benefit the students? That is my question. I think the way that the tests are administered and that all students take the same test makes it more reliable. I do not agree that a new student should count against the school. That also raises the question of when the cut off should be then?
ReplyDeleteI disagree that state tests only measure what a child choses to do, "on that day." Here's why:
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona state AIMS assessment, the reading one, occurs on three separate days, so does the math test. That means a single day only accounts for 33% of their score. This is negligible in comparison to what you had believed to be the case.
I also disagree that the results of the tests affect whether or not teachers keep their jobs. If so, it's minimal and here's why:
Teacher contracts at most schools are typically given out in April and May. Teachers are already locked in before June AIMS results are given. If a teacher bombs, oh well. They're working another year, and are locked in. Likewise, there are laws that prohibit the firing of a teacher based on mere scores. Thus, administrators are diligent about keeping records "throughout the year" of good cause reasons for a non-contract renewal.
I also disagree that teaching to the test shouldn't be the focus. Teaching to the test should be a focus IF we live in a society that values testing. If our society valued weaving, we should teach to that...weaving. Here's why, Ayn Rand said, "Money demands that you feel, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason," and this notion supports capitalism and free enterprise. Free enterprise is what a strong America is about. If academics are what our society desires, and the ability to pass a test to receive a higher paying job, schools OWE THIS OBLIGATION to kids! "Money is the barometer of a society's virtue" Any Rand, and society will put money towards these high achievers, and they want high achievers to work for them. Kids need to be ready to respond in accordance to what society needs in order to reap the monetary benefit. Sure, if they don't want to participate in this capitalistic society, let them not enter into a social contract, and do what they want, including little projects like the ones you discussed above, that have no way of quantifiably being measured.
Now, contrary to Ayn Rand, in case you aren't buying objectivist notions, we are expected to, as citizens, contribute to the common good, and testing is one way of demonstrating "academic" skills that in turn, benefit the common good. I think schools should move in response to the needs of the community, and that's why I also don't believe every child should go to college. Pushing slow children there is unrealistic, and I cannot stand how teachers tell every child they should attend college when we simply know this isn't true. Imagine, not one person worked for Waste Management because they all had collegiate jobs. You get my point. We need citizens at every level. The secret is giving everyone an opportunity to go to college IF they want that option as an individual. But pushing the issue for them, and making then feel bad if they don't, is where I take issue. I digress.
I disagree with project based scores completely. This is a progressive methodology, and remember, I'm the Essential Perennialist. Research what this means. Projects don't get to the core of what we need as a society, following our own interests, and doing cute projects.