Southwest Washington Education (K-12)

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." - George Orwell

You are here: Home / Testing / Students are drowning in tests…for no reason other than adult vanity

By Leave a Comment

Students are drowning in tests…for no reason other than adult vanity

I recently had discussions with people in the local K-12 education community about students being tested to death. Yes…to death! The question that came up? Are you saying we shouldn’t test and if not what’s the alternative?

I sat down and put my thoughts together and share them here. If you take the time to read the blog article consider sharing it with others but do something even more important…contact your local school and district and tell them to back off and do what’s helpful and not what’s for ego or childish adult vanity reasons.

Summary Thoughts

We do need to test. The question is what types of tests, the frequency and how the results are used. When we use curriculum specifically to improve performance on specific tests that’s wrong. Testing to verify understanding, retention and ability to use the knowledge is reasonable. We need to examine the intention of testing and determine whether it’s to help the student or to provide data for administrators and legislators to use to discuss their many challenges and needs. Let’s put everything on the table and explore options for reducing testing and thus reduce wasted education time, costs and student angst. Classroom based summative and formative testing used by the teacher should be the focus. We can use the extra time for teaching and the money for classrooms. Simple isn’t wrong. We must stand up and retake control.

I would like to explore this in sections:

  1. Why are we testing?

  2. Testing approaches

  3. Metrics

  4. Curriculum

Why are we testing?

We need to differentiate between the types of tests on curriculum and “high stakes testing” like SBAc and PARCC or even iReady. I think classroom (teacher administered and used) summative and formative testing makes sense. Testing to get a gauge of change over time (without using testing as a hammer) is reasonable. Unfortunately, high-stakes testing is punitive and of no value.

a) We test because elected officials and administrators want some sort of measure to show that results/improvement is/are occurring and why they need more money (or deny it)

b) We test to hold teachers, districts and states accountable for student gains or slippage

c) We test to measure student growth and make adjustments to instruction to meet student academic needs (students can click any mix of answers on the computer because it means nothing to them)

Testing Approaches & Value

What are the main types of testing and vehicles (in Washington State)?

  • Summative (assessment of learning) and Formative (assessment for learning)

  • Standardized

What do these tests bring to the table?

  • Summative/Formative – These may be provided by the curriculum supplier or created by teachers or grade level teams. Use classroom testing by subject to determine where each student is at. Use results in grading and planning. These assessments were historically used to drive instruction. They are the most relevant valuable.

  • Standardized – The attempt is to provide a basis for comparison of students in any given grade level across schools, districts and states.

    • The iReady is often used to predict student performance on the SBAc but is a local (school district) platform. The iReady does little to nothing other than add to the testing burden. I recently learned that the Van SD is starting to use iReady in kindergarten (on computers). They are also going to use iReady testing monthly in an effort to improve the SBAc test scores. Districts are swimming in data and are overwhelmed trying to figure out how to use it and integrate it into teaching. There is no evidence iReady was bench-marked or tested to prove validity. Teachers report that students just click on answers since it has no meaning to them. (Note: Kindergartners require someone to stand by them and tell them what to click)

    • SBAc – Does nothing to help student directly. It’s a high pressure test that was never vetted nor or tested to show validity. It can’t be compared to any other test. It’s an “adaptive” test so it gets harder or easier depending on student performance. Teachers report that students just click on answers because it has no meaning to them. It was intended to be used nationally but failed to be accepted. As of late 2017 only eight (8) States (including Washington) of the original 23 still use the SBAc. It has been considered a monumental failure, waste of time and resources. The demise has been due to parental pressure.

    • The Washington specific Science and IEP tests: The Science test does what that classroom based testing doesn’t do? In reality it adds little. If the IEP testing is truly student focused then it should bring value in establishing needs and directing curriculum.

Metrics – Should we set learning objectives? Yes. Should we measure learning? Yes. The question is what those measurements (metrics) should be. To answer we need to ask some questions:

  1. Are the historical/tradition ways of teaching still relevant?

  2. Is technology the solution to improving outcomes? To what degree? Is there any evidence that technology has improved learning? (Answer – None. A body of work says that, used incorrectly, technology harms more than it helps)

  3. Given societal issues will we ever be able to move much beyond some level of achievement? For instance, to get from 90% high school graduation to 91% may take such in increase in resources that it’s simply not affordable nor achievable. (Not that we shouldn’t try but the law of diminishing returns is real)

  4. What should schools teach and how should that teaching occur?

  5. Do we trust teachers to provide quality instruction based on their student needs? Or do we force feed curriculum and lesson plans and instruction methods that are so rigid only robots could conform?

  6. Why are we really using all this testing? Is it for the students or adults? (For instance OSPI has their “distinguished schools” program that is only awarded if the SBAc participation rate is 95% or more. Fall short and that exemplary school is no longer recognized. Is that a perversion of the testing?)

  7. Should test results be used to pay and discipline teachers? Can we hold teachers responsible for factors outside their control?

Curriculum

Should the curriculum be the slave of standardized testing or should testing be a way to help improve instruction?

Locally, the Battle Ground SD is proposing to spend ~$2mm over the next 1-2 years to buy curriculum that is aligned to the standardized testing. Not because the curriculum is necessarily the best for students but because administration hopes it will do a better job of prepping students for the SBAc testing (and increase scores). That’s a perversion of the education process and make students the cannon fodder for the adult’s running the war room.

Curriculum should be used by those closest to the students…the teachers…to do the best possible job helping improving the student. What if we stepped back and went to the classrooms and engaged the teachers in defining what can reasonably be done and what tools are needed? Why not work with teachers to allow flexibility to deal with the ever-changing class mix? Why not establish a set of “core” metrics that are applicable to the real world?

Following are some links to materials that address the topics in more detail:

  • One final article: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/11/when-testing-takes-over The author does a solid job of explaining how testing can help but is currently hurting instruction and education. We can and should set standards and expectations. We should measure performance. We can do it simpler, cheaper and better. We just need to put everything on the table and take local control of education.

 

Dick Rylander    January 2019

Leave a Reply