A short item in last Sunday's New
York Times caught my interest. It seems that in the state of New
York, students are awaiting, in short order, the administration of
the state-wide assessment testing. This is a yearly event. That
state's testing is based on the recently developed Common Core
standards. These are standards developed not by New York, but by the
federal Department of Education. The effort is to provide standards
that are not based on rote memory requirements, but on more analytic
and problem solving skills. At the national level, the concern seems
to be prompted by the perceived need for our students to fare more
competitively with students of other nations. A better standing
among our students today promises a more competitive work force
tomorrow. The article indicates that there is a group of parents in
New York City who are opting to have their sons and daughters not
take part in the state testing. The total number of students
affected by these parental decisions amounts to 270 students – not
many given the total numbers being tested. These parents are not
against testing or assessment per se. They say that they are
in favor of the accountability that testing aims to provide. In the
past, these yearly tests in the several states have been used to not
only indicate how well students are doing – determining, for
example, which ones should be allowed to advance to higher grades or
graduate from high school – but also to see how well schools are
doing. Florida's testing determines what grade a school deserves, A
through F. There has even been some talk of using the tests to
“grade” teachers that could then be further instrumental in
determining which teachers should be retained, promoted, if their
students do well, or penalized in some form if their students do not
perform well. These results have earned this type of assessment the
title of “high stakes testing.” These rebelling parents claim
they're all in favor of this type of accountability. Their beef is
that the existing assessment instruments – even the newer versions
spurred by Common Core standards – are too limited.
This sentiment is a bit ironic in
that the Common Core standards were developed to meet some of the
criticism. The newer testing is not based on rote memory skills, but
the parents still think that the testing is short on evaluating a
variety of student products and short on testing critical thinking
based activities. The following captures the concern:
As Rosa Perez-Rivera, a mother in
the Bronx who is opting out, explained it, her daughter was thrilled
by school last year, when work around oceans sparked a love of
science. This year, in third grade, as the focus has moved to test
preparation … her confidence and enthusiasm have lagged.1
The often reported effect of
state-wide testing is that is takes over a school's curriculum and
students find themselves almost exclusively involved in lessons and
activities dedicated toward preparing them to do well on the test to
the exclusion of other worthwhile endeavors. Social studies and
civics seem to be one of those other worthwhile areas that are being
“cheated.” According to the Common Core website, reading
standards call for the use of history materials, such as foundational
documents, in the design of the test questions. But is this enough?
I have concerns about any single
testing system for evaluating students. Space here does not allow me
to go over all my concerns and what I think should be done with
assessment. But I can say that evaluating students, evaluating
schools, and evaluating teachers are three different challenges and
each needs its own system of evaluation. The strategy for each
should be very different. For example, one test regimen cannot be
used to see how well teachers are doing when the range of student
preparation and level of support students get, such as at home, is so
varied. And with modern technology, different strategies can be
developed and implemented for a relatively inexpensive investment
that could address the varying assessment challenges that educators
face. For example, the installation of video cameras in classrooms
can be used to randomly review teacher performances. These
recordings could then be used to not only judge teacher techniques,
but also to improve them. Of course, any new evaluation strategies
should include teachers in their development.
As for the specific complaint of
these parents, assessment should be more open-ended and test for more
creative and critical thinking skills. This is not easy, but I
believe it can be done and should be done.
1Bellafante,
G. (2014). Refusing to submit to testing and the burdens it
imposes. The New York Times,
March 30, p. 22 (front page section).
No comments:
Post a Comment