Testing at a Crossroads?

Rebecca Schmidt

I teach 4th grade in a school that uses an innovative and effective residency model to train new teachers. I have a resident working in my classroom this year, on his way to becoming a skillful and knowledgeable D.C. Public Schools teacher in August. I do my best to teach him best teaching practices that I've learned over the past few years. Most of the time, these best practices have to do with pedagogy, or teaching strategies. But sometimes we tackle more macro topics.

Today we were planning our next math unit about measurement when he asked me a question about baseline testing. "Well, we haven't taught a measurement unit yet, so do we really need to give a pre-test? They probably don't know much, right?" he asked.

I paused before responding, "If we only care about what they know by the end of the unit, sure. We don't need to get a baseline. But I want to find out what they know about measurement right now, and I want to know for two reasons: one, so we don't waste time teaching things that the class already knows, and two, so we can see if our teaching actually works." He nodded in agreemen—he's heard this before—but then added, "but the DC-CAS [our standardized test]doesn't have a pre-test. Right?"

I stopped and thought—I actually sat down and paused in the middle of this conversation, and thought about this. I test my students regularly in both reading (using the DRA test) and math (using teacher-created Common-Core-aligned assessments) to find out what they can do at a particular moment (to help me plan) and how effective my teaching is. By doing this, I have a pretty decent sense of where my students are, where we need to go next, and, by the end of the units or the quarter, if we met those goals. I try to model this for my resident, and he is probably tired of hearing me talk about assessment.

In April, when my students take the DC-CAS for 8 days, the school district (and the rest of the country, thanks NCLB!) will use my students' test scores to determine if I did my job well this year, if my students learned to read and do math on a 4th grade level. And yet the DC-CAS doesn't have a baseline. The DC-CAS scores don't measure growth in individual students. The DC-CAS scores won't tell me if it was actually my teaching that helped my students improve, or if my students already knew these 4th grade skills and knowledge.

Even so, these test scores are used in teacher evaluations each year. The inconsistency and unfairness of this system is a tough lesson to teach my resident. I often remind him that DC-CAS is probably the most meaningless test for us this year—that he should focus on our DRA tests and our math unit assessments, to really judge teaching and learning. By the end of the school year, I hope he can confidently teach reading, math, writing, science, and social studies, and navigate the often complicated bureaucracy of the school system. I also hope he understands the unfairness of the DC-CAS, but holds onto the importance (and usefulness) of some standardized testing in his classroom.

The conversation about standardized testing is far from over—lthe comments and columns of this past week remind me that it is just the beginning. No one has all the answers to a quick fix for the system, but I look forward to seeing many of these ideas for reforms begin to take shape. Maybe my resident, in his teaching career, won't have to grapple with as many inconsistencies as we have—at least not in standardized testing.

Rebecca Schmidt teaches at a public charter school in Washington, D.C.

Posted by Rebecca Schmidt at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Ryan Kinser

"This push on tests ... is missing out on some serious parts of what it means to be a successful human."
—Dominic Randolph, quoted in Paul Tough's How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character

I recently finished reading How Children Succeed in a book club with my fellow Roundtabler Sarah Henchey. Now, on the eve of my state's writing assessment, I worry about my students' collective stress and individual grit. I have no doubt these kids will shine on the essay. But how will tests like the FCAT Writes affect the type of success Randolph describes? How can we turn around this testing madness?

As I read the posts of my fellow bloggers, I pause at Elizabeth Duffey's discussion of the Seattle MAP boycott. She mentioned the test as "the hill [teachers] chose to die on" and that folks tend to "cluster around two poles" with regard to assessment. I know there exists a middle ground, a place more hopeful than that unfortunate hill.

Perhaps there are also multiple paths to that compromise. Here are three positive changes worth considering:

1) Engage parents before policymakers. My colleague Lindsey Durant, teaching in the middle of Seattle's sudden firestorm, modeled exactly the type of communication that leads to solutions. She crafted a thoughtful email to the parents of her students inviting them to consider the purpose of their children's assessments and then to take action.

Here's a snippet of that email which appeared in GOOD Magazine:

I urge you to become informed about the various assessments our district uses. I would also ask that you begin to share your thinking by engaging in discussion with your friends and neighbors about the current testing climate. Does it truly serve the best interest of our children, or do we need to take another look at the way we use testing and data?

She received several responses, at least one of which mentioned a parent's intention to contact a local lawmaker. Who else will follow Durant's lead?

2) The potential of gaming. There are pockets of innovators answering Durant's question by "gamifying" assessment. Arizona State University professor James Gee is a long-time proponent. Florida State University professor Valerie Shute won a grant in 2011 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to implement "stealth assessment," a research project designing games so that students don't even know they're being assessed. Results will be published this spring. Other organizations like The Institute of Play and Pixelearning are working to redesign assessment through gaming. Perhaps the future of these games will provide teachers with real-time data while students work tirelessly to accomplish relevant objectives, completely undaunted by failure.

3) Reflect on real data using classroom video. The best data may just be what happens in our classrooms each day, not in front of multiple-choice exams on a computer. We are seeing the development of video learning communities in which teachers film lesson clips and reflect on student performance together, dissecting conversations to find out what children are learning and analyzing these moments with a scientist's eye. Think about how video artifacts might show us what standardized tests cannot.

Heading into tomorrow's exam, I'm resolved to find the relevance in it. I'm resolved to continue these conversations. How might we build on them?

Ryan Kinser, a teacherpreneur with the Center for Teaching Quality, teaches English at Walker Middle Magnet School for International Studies in Tampa, Fla.

Posted by Ryan Kinser at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Elizabeth Duffey

The work of Smarter Balanced is guided by the belief that a high-quality assessment system can provide information and tools for teachers and schools to improve instruction and help students succeed—regardless of disability, language or subgroup. Smarter Balanced involves experienced educators, researchers, state and local policymakers, and community groups working together in a transparent and consensus-driven process.

—From the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium website.

SBAC is one of two consortia writing the assessments that will measure progress on the Common Core State Standards beginning in the Spring of 2015. The mission statement gives me hope about the future of standardized testing; the Common Core State Standards give me hope about the future of education.

For too long, standardized test data have been misused, and perhaps the most insidious misuse of test results is teacher evaluation. One of the reasons the Garfield teachers revolted against the MAP test, among others, was the idea that the results were used in part to measure teacher effectiveness. Even if the MAP data were not flawed at the 9th grade level as the Garfield teachers assert, using a test for teacher evaluation is just plain wrong. Too many factors enter into what a student brings to the testing table: the number of words a student has been exposed to at home, the quality of instruction beginning in preschool, possible drug impairment, seriousness with which students take the test, language issues—and hundreds more that teachers cannot control.

The good news is that teacher evaluation is moving in the direction of standards and rubrics to measure teacher performance. In our district, the standards are the Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning (5-D) from the Center for Educational Leadership out of the University of Washington. Other districts use Charlotte Danielson or Robert Marzano. They're all good standards and assessments, written by the smartest people in our profession—just as the common-core standards and their subsequent assessments are. Let's keep student assessment of learning and teacher assessment of pedagogy separate. The temptation to mix them up is great—AP teachers love to brag about their scores—but student scores were never meant to measure teacher performance.

The SBAC mission asserts the true purpose of standardized testing: to inform teachers and building and district leaders of student performance so they can focus their time and resources on improving the quality of instruction. This will help every student meet the new standard of being ready for college and the requirements of 21st-century jobs.

After 37 years as a high school English teacher, Elizabeth Duffey took a position as facilitator of instruction in literacy in the Tacoma Public Schools. A National Board-certified teacher, she also works as a trainer for the ELA Common Core Standards in her district and as a consultant for the College Board.

Posted by Elizabeth Duffey at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Sarah Henchey

"As teacher leaders, how would we answer the question, 'What recommendations do you have for policymakers regarding testing?'"

During our first round of posts, Ali Crowley posed the above question. The question both encourages us to synthesize our recommendations and to proactively put them forth. To end the cyclical pattern of standardized testing, it's time to insert our voices, share our experiences, and advocate for change.

With this in mind, I believe there are a few key take-aways from this dialogue:

• Work alongside of teacher leaders. Policymakers and those entrusted with creating and mandating standardized tests must seek the leadership of individuals embedded in the classroom. As contributors to this discussion have noted, "all tests are not created equal". And teachers are uniquely situated to assess the value of tests and make recommendations on how to use them strategically to promote student learning.

• Recognize the limitations of standardized data. While various types of data are helpful in determining patterns and measuring student growth, none of them exists in isolation. "Snapshot" assessments, as many standardized tests tend to be, often serve a single purpose—providing insight based on a narrow set of factors. As Rebecca Schmidt notes, standardized testing does serve a certain function within our current educational system. However, it's essential we not confuse the role of standardized tests with the data gathered on a moment by moment basis in the classroom. And it's imperative that we respect the daily assessment and responsive teaching occurring within classrooms by requiring only the most reliable and valid assessments.

• Value instructional time. Ryan Kinser's itemized testing schedule sheds light on the greatest casualty within the standardized testing movement—real learning time. Students deserve extended, authentic experiences to engage with content and their peers. Creating the conditions for that kind of learning are difficult to create amid constant testing.

• Acknowledge that not all learning can be measured in a standardized way. In How Children Succeed, Paul Tough asserts that noncognitive skills, including perseverance and conscientiousness, are pivotal to supporting the long-term success of students. Teachers naturally nurture these skills by fostering cultures of innovation and inquiry and encouraging risk-taking and creativity. Yet, like many essential elements of learning, these skills are not reflected on standardized tests. Their value, however, cannot be diminished.

As Elizabeth Duffey points out, situations are rarely simple. And the issue of standardized testing is no exception.

The Seattle MAP boycott has provided an opening for a larger conversation around standardized testing. Which points from the above list will you share with colleagues, administrators, parents, and policymakers? What would you add to the list?

Sarah Henchey is a teacher-in-residence at the Center for Teaching Quality, spending this year leading and supporting Common Core implementation. A National Board-certified teacher, she has taught middle school for seven years in North Carolina's Orange County school district.

Posted by Sarah Henchey at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Alison Crowley

As teachers have voiced in this forum, policies surrounding the number of assessments and the quality of assessments being used in schools need a serious makeover. In a recent article NEA Today, Colorado teacher Jessica Keigan is quote as saying, "The best model for setting and implementing policy is one where those who spend the most time in direct contact with students have the most say." Now that we have begun the conversations in this forum, what can we do as teachers to influence change?

A few years ago, my district mandated that high school students take the math MAP test three times a year as a measure of student growth. Teachers soon realized that students' scores weren't changing that much even though we knew that students had made progress during the year. It became evident that most of the content on the MAP test didn't match up with what we were required to teach in high school.

Before long, several math teachers had an open dialogue with district administrators about the MAP test. Our concerns were identical to the ones outlined by the Garfield High School teachers. However, the response was quite different. Once the administrators heard what we had to say—and specifically how the MAP test was not, in our view, helping improve student achievement—they agreed that teachers should have the option whether or not to administer the test and that the MAP scores would no longer be used as a school or district-wide measure of student progress.

I know that I am lucky to work in a district that encourages teacher-administrator collaboration like this. But regardless of the situation, as teachers we have a responsibility to speak up about what is happening in our classrooms—because we know firsthand how testing affects students. Here are some tips from my own experiences getting this process started:

• Start with a dialogue. Ask your colleagues, students, and parents what they think about the current testing situation at your school or in your state. After you've heard their opinions, ask them what they would like to see changed. Which assessments are helpful in measuring progress? Which ones aren't?

• Do your homework. Which assessments are given to which groups of students? How many times a year? Do teachers and parents have access to test scores? Do teachers have access to scoring rubrics and released items? Who is writing and scoring the assessments? Does the content on the assessment correlate to the curriculum?

• Make sure you voice is heard. Set up a meeting with district or state administrators. Be prepared to offer plausible solutions. Make sure that you have your students and their best interests in the forefront of your mind. Stakeholders want to increase student achievement—so framing your discussion around that creates common ground.

• Be patient and don't give up. Reform doesn't happen overnight, and it takes time to build momentum. Offer to serve on committees or provide feedback on proposed assessments. Continue to reach out to anyone who will listen to your concerns about testing, and remember that teachers are among the nation's most trusted professionals.

Here's hoping that this conversation leads to action and that eventually teachers will have the most say in creating assessment systems that work for our students.

Alison Crowley is a National Board-certified teacher in Lexington, Ky., where she teaches Algebra 2 and AP Calculus.

Posted by Alison Crowley at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Elizabeth Duffey

As in all matters educational, things are seldom as simple as they seem. Take standardized testing--educators and non-educators alike tend to cluster around two poles: Standardized testing is a force of evil that forces teachers to abandon good pedagogy and teach to the test, or standardized testing is the salvation of a fallen educational system. The reasoned position, of course, lies somewhere in the middle. However, there is no middle road concerning the administration of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Test at Garfield High School in Seattle.

Garfield High School has taken neither a safe nor a moderate position concerning the MAP test. To the contrary, the MAP test is the hill they choose to die on. The staff members (with a couple of abstentions) signed a letter stating they would not administer the MAP test. Let me be clear, though: Their position is neither safe nor moderate; it is ground-breaking, courageous, and spot-on.

Their reasons are compelling. At the 9th grade level, the test's margin of error is larger than the expected student gains. How can that kind of flawed data possibly justify the loss of instructional time? The computer-adaptive test ties up the 90 computers in the research hub of the school—the library—for weeks. The NAACP has gotten involved because students who do not have computers at home will have no access to computers at school for a prolonged period of time. The test is also used in part to judge teacher performance. With the rigorous new teacher-evaluation standards and rubrics that will become the benchmark by which all teachers are evaluated in 2015-16, using a flawed tool such as this is nothing short of silly.

Locally, the issue is a tempest in a teapot. The test started on Feb. 6, proctored by a handful of school administrators. Teachers taught classes as usual, three out of four parents opted their students out of the test, and creative students developed the "nine-second MAP" (which consists of hitting the "Enter" key successively until the end of the test). I predict MAP will quietly depart Garfield High School, never to return.

What comes of all this is amazing solidarity among teachers, students, and community, and among teachers across the nation. Although the issue here has faded into the background, what will not fade is the fact that a band of teachers spoke in one voice on behalf of quality teaching and learning, and a nation listened.

After 37 years as a high school English teacher, Elizabeth Duffey took a position as facilitator of instruction in literacy in the Tacoma Public Schools. A National Board-certified teacher, she also works as a trainer for the ELA Common Core Standards in her district and as a consultant for the College Board.

Posted by Elizabeth Duffey at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Ryan Kinser

It's early in the second semester, and my language arts students have read exactly zero books. We've momentarily cut down on our debates, trimmed class-building activities, and minimized student-centered projects. We're paying less attention to current events and intriguing articles or websites. There's little time to explore timeless themes of the human condition through literature and even less autonomy to do it.

What has sapped the passion in my classroom and probably many others like it? It's standardized testing season again in Florida, with nearly four months remain in the school year.

Can you find value in a testing schedule like that of my 8th graders?

• January 7 - 8: Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR). Again.
• January 7 - 11: Semester exam review week
• January 14 - 18: Semester exams
• January 29: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test
• February 6: Mock Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in Reading
• February 26: FCAT Writes Test

This obsession with accountability and measuring it with standardized tests has to change before American education suffers an irreparable defeat, one where we sacrifice opportunities to inspire students, to attract and retain great teachers, and to prevent kids from buckling under the pressure.

We are starting to see the stress fractures caused by intensive standardized testing in other countries. A December 2012 New York Times article, "Singapore Aims to Curb Stress on Students," chronicles a growing debate over that nation's testing phenomenon. It even cites a study by Hong Kong Polytechnic University where "about one-third of local students admitted engaging in 'self-harm' and 13.7 percent had contemplated suicide."

In China, educators and the companies hiring graduates are acknowledging the national emphasis on rote testing has resulted in "a loss of curiosity and passion for learning" has resulted from a. How long will it be before American students join them (if they haven't already)?

There are already signs of revolt among students. On our mid-year writing assessment, one of my star International Baccaluareate students revolted against the system. Given a prompt that asked her to explain a job she wanted someday, the young lady wrote an insightful essay detailing her desire to be an FCAT assessor so she could redesign a worthless exam. Flippant? Maybe, but she was right on the money.

Policymakers are so concerned lately with whether or not schools and teachers are effective that we've forgotten to consider the effectiveness of our nation's educational philosophy. Are we still trying to develop critically thinking participants in a fluid democracy as Thomas Jefferson championed in his famous "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge," or would we rather churn out automatons capable of demonstrating low-level skills in snapshot testing sessions?

Thankfully some hope exists. The teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle have had enough, and more importantly, they've said so. Other solutions are bubbling to the surface. In my follow-up post, I'll describe a few positive initiatives and how they return value to the way we measure student progress.

Ryan Kinser, a teacherpreneur with the Center for Teaching Quality, teaches English at Walker Middle Magnet School for International Studies in Tampa, Fla.

Posted by Ryan Kinser at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Alison Crowley

"Your teacher's goal is simple—to help you reach yours." I use this motto, displayed on a poster in my classroom, to frame my thinking when it comes to educational issues—and the role of standardized testing is no exception. I have two criteria for judging assessments: 1) They must measure what students are learning in my classroom; and 2) they must in some way inform instruction to help my students reach their academic goals.

Two assessments that meet these criteria are: The ACT and the AP Calculus Exam.

In Kentucky, every high school junior is required to take the ACT in March. I spend instructional time preparing my students for that test because I know that their scores will have a direct impact on future opportunities, such as college admissions. The content on the math portion of the ACT matches what I am teaching in Algebra 2. The scores are used as a part of my school's accountability model, and I'm okay with that because the ACT math score (along with other measures of student progress) is a fairly accurate reflection of what students know and are able to do.

As an AP Calculus teacher, I believe that the College Board's AP Exam is an example of a quality summative assessment. It has a direct impact on my students since they have the opportunity to receive college credit during high school. The exam is written and scored by teachers and professors who know the subject matter like the back of their hands. Furthermore, the scores are based on student responses to multiple-choice and free-response questions, both of which require critical thinking skills.

These exams provide me with data that I use to make instructional decisions, both before and after the actual test date. I imbed released items into the curriculum and use them as formative assessments throughout the year. I chart my students' progress and talk to them about their goals. After I receive the results, I use the detailed summary reports to inform decisions for the following year.

The MAP test, however, does not meet my criteria—and that is why I stand behind the teachers at Garfield High School 100 percent. Unlike the ACT and the AP Calculus exam, the MAP test includes topics (such as adding fractions) that are not part of high school math curriculum. Therefore, a student's MAP score is not an accurate reflection of how much a student has progressed during the academic year. In addition to students being tested on content that is not taught in the classroom, the MAP test results have no impact on students' class grades, graduation or college admissions status. As the Garfield High teachers have stated, "We object to spending scarce resources on a test that is peripheral to our students' education."

It is inspiring to see a group of teachers stand up for what they know is best for their students, and it begs the question: What might have happened if teachers had a voice in the initial decision to administer the MAP test at Garfield High? What can we learn from this as we move towards Common Core-aligned assessments? How can we pro-actively ensure that future assessments accurately measure student learning and provide teachers with valid information that informs and improves instructional practices?

Alison Crowley is a National Board-certified teacher in Lexington, Ky., where she teaches Algebra 2 and AP Calculus.

Posted by Alison Crowley at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Sarah Henchey

"[Teachers]accept the idea of accountability but believe it has been pushed too far and is being used in a counterproductive way that narrows education and unfairly burdens schools serving very poorly prepared students without requiring any changes in conditions that make some schools profoundly unequal."

Without context, one might believe the above quote was pulled from reports of the recent controversy at Garfield High School. But it's not.

In fact, the quote is almost ten years old. It was extracted from a 2004 report entitled, "Listening to Teachers: Classroom Realities and No Child Left Behind" released by The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

I discovered this report when cleaning out files from my graduate school days (circa 2003-2005). My pre-teaching years were filled with such readings—warnings of "teaching to the test," discussions of the underlying inequities within schools, and calls to action for real, systemic change.

As an early career teacher during these inaugural days of the standardized testing movement, I was confident that the tide would shift and reform was just a matter of time. I had faith in the title of that report; surely policymakers would soon "listen to teachers" and change would begin.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case. While the acronyms and rhetoric may have changed, there has not been a shift where it matters most, at the classroom level.

And teachers have had a first row seat for this cyclical stalemate.

We are now at the point where teachers can no longer wait to be "listened to" and need to demand to be heard.

In their letter explaining the boycott of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test, the Garfield teachers collectively spoke out against administering assessments that do not support student growth and achievement. Their decision to advocate for students has provided an opportunity to depart from the status quo and begin an honest dialogue about measuring student growth.

To transform the current system and climate around testing and assessment, we must begin to have more conversations like those being led by teachers at Garfield High.

What do you believe about testing that needs to be heard?

Sarah Henchey is a teacher-in-residence at the Center for Teaching Quality, spending this year leading and supporting Common Core implementation. A National Board-certified teacher, she has taught middle school for seven years in North Carolina's Orange County school district.

Posted by Sarah Henchey at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Rebecca Schmidt

As a teacher in my sixth year in Washington, D.C., and therefore someone who has administered hundreds of days of tests, I can empathize with the Seattle teachers who decided to boycott MAP testing. Testing is generally miserable for everyone—kids are forced to sit silently for hours; teachers are not allowed to support their students. Do you remember how miserable you were taking the SAT, the GRE, the MCAT, or the LSAT? Imagine doing that for two weeks straight, as my students do each Spring. And then, in some cases, not finding out your result for months.

My 4th graders recently took the NAEP test, and while this was not a high-stakes test (as I understand it, we won't even get the results), the stress level in our classroom was palpable. As a psychology major in college, I helped run studies on college students about the effect of stress on tasks involving abilities like short-term memory. Before the students completed memory tasks, we artificially raised their anxiety level by administering a 15-minute standardized assessment. Following the assessment, our subjects were more vulnerable, displayed higher stress levels—and performed more poorly at their memory tasks. This is sadly similar to what we do to our students, many days a year.

I've written before on my reservations about standardized testing, and the way we use the results (especially in teacher evaluation). And I question whether these tests are truly an accurate way to measure students' knowledge and skills (and, consequently, teacher effectiveness). I appreciate that the Seattle teachers had the courage and organization to stand up and bring the inadequacies of testing to a national conversation. We absolutely need to reform how and why we test our children. But the response shouldn't be limited to just the tests.

In fact, I'll acknowledge that we NEED standardized assessments for students in some form, both so we can measure student learning and to gauge the effectiveness of reform initiatives. But I wonder why policymakers don't seem to place a similar emphasis on other, probably more important factors in education.

Education writer Sam Chaltain recently posed an insightful question on his blog: What if we reframed the testing debate, and focused more on what happens before the test? We have already standardized the assessments our students take, and most states have adopted the Common Core State Standards, which help standardize the learning objectives the assessments will test. Yet there still remains a significant achievement gap. But what would happen if we started earlier and were more holistic about uniformity in education? For example, what if we standardized teacher-prep programs and funding for our schools, across the country? What if every student had a highly qualified teacher, and every school had equitable funding, regardless of zip code or district?

My inclination is that we are approaching reform completely backwards. If we standardize school funding and teacher training, those test results might just take care of themselves. We could teach more and test less often.

I applaud teachers who stand up for what is right for their students. I just hope this is the beginning of a larger discussion about school improvement.

Rebecca Schmidt teaches at a public charter school in Washington, D.C.

Posted by Rebecca Schmidt at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend