Millennial Debate Standardized Testing Debate
A2: Kids Spend Too Much Time on Testing
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Most students only spend close to 1% of time on standardize tests, only a few are a bit over 2%
- A2: Unfair Way to Assess Teachers
- A2: Doesn’t Benefit Specific Kids
- Teachers can only help students improve when data is available
- Even if education hasn’t improved, we should still conduct tests
- Evidence that testing improves learning
- Presence of the test increases the motivation of students, teachers, and administrators
A2: Kids Spend Too Much Time on TestingOnly 1% of student time is devoted to testingTamara Hiller & Stephanie Johnson, May 5, 2015, Third Way, John Oliver is Wrong About Standardized Testing,, http://www.thirdway.org/third-way-take/john-oliver-is-wrong-on-standardized-testing DOA: 10-25-15 Oliver argued that there are too many standardized tests and that tests are so high pressure that students are literally throwing up on them. It’s important to put some of these claims into perspective. Oliver is right that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) increased the number of federal tests from six to 17. However, he failed to disclose that those 17 tests are spread out throughout a child’s entire K-12 career. In fact, according to recent studies, the average child in the U.S. spends 1.6% to 1.7% of instructional time in standardized testing each year—not exactly a significant amount of time, by any stretch of the imagination. Most students only spend close to 1% of time on standardize tests, only a few are a bit over 2%Kevin Huffman is a fellow with New America and served as commissioner of education in Tennessee from 2011 to 2015, October 30, 2015, Washington Post, We Don’t Test Students as Much as People Think We Do, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-dont-test-students-as-much-as-people-think-we-do-and-the-stakes-arent-really-that-high/2015/10/30/3d66de1c-7e79-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html DOA: 10-31-15 Contrary to the exaggerations, though, most states already are under the 2 percent testing cap. A Center for American Progress analysis of 14 districts in seven states found that testing consumed an average of 1.6 percent of instructional time. In Tennessee, where I served as education commissioner, state-mandated standardized tests — covering reading, math, social studies and science — averaged between seven and 10 hours per student each year, well under 1 percent of the school year. Other states run longer, but only at the margins. The half-the-year claims? Creative math, at best. A2: Unfair Way to Assess TeachersVery few districts assess teachers through standardized testsTamara Hiller & Stephanie Johnson, May 5, 2015, Third Way, John Oliver is Wrong About Standardized Testing,, http://www.thirdway.org/third-way-take/john-oliver-is-wrong-on-standardized-testing DOA: 10-25-15 Only 3.5% of school districts across the U.S. even attempt to use a merit pay system, as the National Center on Performance Incentives found, so the idea that test scores and pay are linked is not true for the vast majority of teachers. A2: Doesn’t Benefit Specific KidsMany specific student improvementsTamara Hiller & Stephanie Johnson, May 5, 2015, Third Way, John Oliver is Wrong About Standardized Testing,, http://www.thirdway.org/third-way-take/john-oliver-is-wrong-on-standardized-testing DOA: 10-25-15 Lastly, John Oliver uses international test scores to make the claim that standardized testing has had no benefit whatsoever for any student population since the passage of NCLB. The data say otherwise. Under NCLB, students writ large have made crucial gains in reading and math over the last decade, as NAEP data show. The country’s 9-year-olds gained on average 9 points in reading and 12 points in math, a significant improvement from the glacial gains seen in the decades prior. More importantly, however, the introduction of standardized testing—and the accountability that came along with it—helped students of color and high-needs populations fare significantly better than in the decades leading up to NCLB. For example, African American 9-year-olds made twice as much improvement in reading than their white counterparts, the gap between white and Hispanic 9-year-olds in math narrowed by 8 points, and more students with disabilities scored in the “proficient” or higher level in both math and reading than in decades leading up to NCLB. While we still have work to do on this score, particularly to close achievement gaps, it is completely inaccurate to say that no gains been made under NCLB. Teachers can only help students improve when data is availableCheryl Warner & Todd Wessels, April 24, 2015, Why standardized tests have value, http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2015/04/24/standardized-tests-value/26275317/ DOA: 10-25-15 As a first grade teacher at Holy Family Catholic Schools in Dubuque, Mrs. Rambousek did not immediately see the value of the standardized tests used in her classroom, where 56 percent of her students were falling below grade level in reading at the start of the school year. At the end of the semester, Mrs. Rambousek received her students' reading scores from the Iowa State Assessment; more than 50 percent remained below proficient. Determined to make improvements to her students' learning, she was disheartened to see so many still falling behind despite her hard work. Fortunately, at the beginning of the same school year Holy Family added Measures of Academic Progress Assessment (MAP) into their comprehensive assessment system. When Mrs. Rambousek was able to overlay the results from her students' MAP scores — which tracks growth over time — with Iowa State Assessment results, a light bulb went off. She saw that although many of her students were still reading below grade level on the state assessment, 92.3 percent of her kids' reading scores increased by 163 percent on the MAP test. The information revealed her students were indeed making progress. What's more, she understood the value she provided as an educator. Her students were reading at higher levels than ever before. It's not just students below-grade level and their teachers who experience the benefits of a comprehensive assessment system; gifted students and their families also benefit. The parents of one student at Dubuque Community Schools saw their son wrestle with his more advanced math courses as he transitioned into a new school. His parents were concerned he wasn't making progress, but by comparing his benchmark scores to his growth scores over time, his family was given an entirely new perspective of his achievement. As many teachers, school leaders, students and parents will tell you, a comprehensive assessment system is critical for providing the information needed to improve classroom instruction and support learning. Even if education hasn’t improved, we should still conduct testsGregory Cizek, professor of educational measurement and evaluation, 2005, Gregory J. Cizek teaches courses in applied psychometrics, statistics, program evaluation and research methods. Prior to joining the faculty, he managed national licensure and certification testing programs for American College Testing, served as a test development specialist for a statewide assessment program, and taught elementary school for five years in Michigan. Before coming to UNC, he was a professor of educational research and measurement at the University of Toledo and, from 1997-99, he was elected to and served as vice-president of a local board of education in Ohio, Defending Standardized Testing, Kindle edition, page number at end of card The first and most serious [error] is its underlying assumption, that state tests aren't working if student performance isn't improving. That's a bit like saying that we ought not measure commute times because, since we started monitoring freeway traffic, commutes haven't gotten any shorter and in some cases it is actually taking people longer to get to work. If anybody suggested such a thing in transportation policy, they would be laughed out of the room. Here the study commits one of the most common errors in statistical analysis. It concludes that because one thing happened before another thing, the first probably caused the second. But that is a very dangerous conclusion. (Weintraub, 2003) (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Locations 1054-1058). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. Evidence that testing improves learningGregory Cizek, professor of educational measurement and evaluation, 2005, Gregory J. Cizek teaches courses in applied psychometrics, statistics, program evaluation and research methods. Prior to joining the faculty, he managed national licensure and certification testing programs for American College Testing, served as a test development specialist for a statewide assessment program, and taught elementary school for five years in Michigan. Before coming to UNC, he was a professor of educational research and measurement at the University of Toledo and, from 1997-99, he was elected to and served as vice-president of a local board of education in Ohio, Defending Standardized Testing, Kindle edition, page number at end of card Through the fog of negative assertions from education insiders, though, some astute observers have been able to see the effects of testing clearly. A recent article in the Virginian-Pilot reported on an evaluation of Virginia's rigorous accountability testing system [called the "Standards of Learning" (SOL)] over the period since the SOL program was instituted in 1998. The evaluation revealed that: • 4th- and 6th-grade Virginia students' scores on the norm-referenced Stanford Achievement Tests in reading, language, and mathematics had increased over the time frame studied (scores for ninth grade students remained stable); • statewide average SAT-Verbal and SAT-Mathematics scores rose; and • "more students have taken Advanced Placement tests and enrolled in rigorous International Baccalaureate programs since the SOL program began" (Study Shows, 2003, p. 1). Another recent example reports on increasing student achievement in Massachusetts. USA Today cites a review of that state's standards-based reforms by Achieve, "the state using the nation's highest regarded test is reaping some of the most impressive gains." The article concluded that "testing can improve student performance, especially when states serve up high-quality education standards backed by relevant, high-quality tests" (Schools sharpen testing, 2001, p. A-14). The news from Massachusetts is particularly enlightening, as that state has a relatively long track record with high-stakes testing. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) is also one of the most transparent and scrutinized programs of its kind. Recent news reports indicate that students are learning more of what that state hopes for students to achieve as measured by its high school examinations. In 2002, 1 year after pass rates on the MCAS exam rose significantly—a gain that was viewed skeptically by opponents of that high-stakes testing program— • overall achievement increased again. In spring 2002, 86 percent of sophomores passed the MCAS English exam (up from 82% in 2001), whereas 75% passed the math exam (the same as in spring 2001) and 69% of sophomores passed both sections (Hayward, 2002a); • achievement gaps narrowed. On the 2002 tests, the percentage of African-American students passing the English section increased by 7% (although the pass rate for that group on the math exam slipped by 3 points). "The pass rate for Hispanics high-schoolers on the (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing English exam jumped from 52 percent to 61 percent" (Hayward, 2002a); and • dropout rates remained stable. According to the Boston Herald newspaper, "The state's high school dropout rate remained stable at 3.5% during the 2000–2001 school year, countering theories that the MCAS tests would lead to an exodus" (Hayward, 2002b). The 3.5% rate was the same as for the 1999–2000 school year, and 1% less than for the 1998–1999 school year. These rosy outcomes related to student learning and related concerns are corroborated by testimony from students themselves. For example, in a recent study (Mass Insight Education, 2002) interviews were conducted with 140 randomly selected urban high school students regarding their perceptions about the MCAS. The results revealed that: • 67% of students who failed the MCAS the first time they took it said that, as a result, they are working harder in school; 65% said that they pay more attention in class since failing the MCAS; • 74% of students interviewed said that missing too much school is a "big reason" why students don't pass MCAS; 64% said that not working hard enough in school and on homework is a big reason; • 74% reported that they consider themselves to be more able in math, reading or writing because they have to pass the MCAS in order to graduate; and • 53% said that they get more help and attention from teachers since getting their MCAS results. Taken together, these results are not dispositive, of course, with respect to questions about the consequences of high-stakes testing in general, or with respect to effects on student learning in particular. However, the results are reasonably positive—and markedly more positive than most opponents of high-stakes testing seem willing to admit. (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Locations 1396-1397). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. Presence of the test increases the motivation of students, teachers, and administratorsRichard Phelps, Third Education Group, 2005, ). Defending Standardized Testing, page number at end of card Third, there remain those benefits that accrue from the changes in behavior induced by the presence of a test, usually a standardized test with stakes. Those behavior changes typically include increases in motivation (on the part of students, teachers, administrators, or others), the incorporation of feedback information from tests, an associated narrowing of focus on the task at hand, and increases in organizational efficiency, clarity, or the alignment of standards, curriculum, and instruction.2 Most any parent or taxpayer likely would consider increases in any of these behaviors to be positive, to clearly be benefits. Many education researchers, however, consider them to be represent wishful thinking. Moreover, as one does not normally look for that which one does not wish to find, mainstream education research lacks anything other than fairly superficial literature reviews of the topic. Ergo, this effort here. There are, however, other, more respectable reasons for not knowing the research literature on standardized testing's achievement benefits. First among them, of course, is the simple fact that so many researchers have declared that the literature does not exist. Why would one spend time looking for something that does not exist? (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Locations 1708-1713). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 1.17 Mb. Share with your friends:
|