A variety of assessments given to students throughout the year serve to inform teachers on how their students are progressing. The typical pre-test post-test cycle is an important measure of learning. Formative assessments, informally gathered during the course of a lesson or unit help direct instruction. Teachers and students would be a little lost without this feedback loop.
Administrators also gain insight into the success of their program(s) through the careful examination of student data. Results may be used to allocate resources or identify areas that fall outside the norms – pointing towards highly effective instruction or areas that need improvement.
I don’t think that anyone can argue against the value of assessment generally. That being said, there are many people who wonder about the effective utilization of standardized, system-level assessment in schools today. Are we getting an appropriate return on the investment of time and energy (on the part of students, teachers, and administrators)? How much should districts and states spend to gather data on student achievement? How can we minimize any negative impacts that come with high-stress, high-stakes tests?
The NEA recently published a list of awards called apples and onions. Apples are for great players in public education and onions are for not so great players. They gave an onion to “High-Stakes Testing Zealots.” While Arne Duncan says that these tests are “sucking the oxygen out of the room” and NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia says “all the evidence that can be gathered shows that it is corrupting what it means to teach and what it means to learn,” still the battle rages on (NEA Today).
I’ve been wondering about the impact the Smarter Balanced tests will have on my students since I took a pilot test last spring. My sense was that it would be extremely rigorous and time consuming for my students. The Oregonian recently published an article projecting that about 60% of Oregon students will not pass these tests this spring. What will this data tell us? How will we use it to improve instruction?
It is a worthy goal to give students rigorous tests that evaluate their ability to demonstrate conceptual understanding and strategic thinking, analyze information, and make compelling arguments. But do we want to give this type of test to every student every year?
The costs are high in all regards to this type of census-based testing. When I read that Finland uses a sample-based no-stakes national test as a means of informing policy makers I was struck by its simplicity (This article summarizes the point, but the book Finnish Lessons is a fantastic read.). Why test everyone everywhere when a sample population will provide rich feedback to policy makers and administrators? Why make the tests high stakes – for students, teachers, administrators, schools, districts, and states? Yes – we’re actually doing this. Do we really need to gather such a massive amount of data to make informed decisions? How do I justify that need to my students?
The fear that drives this kind of accountability contrasts the notion that schools, districts, and states already take responsibility for the quality of education in our schools. In any event, the use of these kinds of tests to prove otherwise is an abuse of their purpose. These tests are designed to assess student performance – not the performance of the system at large.
Everything in moderation. Especially tests.
There are delegations that go over to Finland, but many look like edu-tourism opportunities. Pasi Sahlberg (author of Finnish Lessons) does a great presentation on the problem with the U.S. and the Global Education Reform Movement, or GERM for short. He then contrasts that with what is happening in Finland. Briefly, he summarizes the GERM movement as characterized by competition, accountability (control), standardization, and fear. He characterizes the Finnish model by cooperation/collaboration, responsibility (trust), personalization, and well being.
Definitely check out the book. There is so much out of the box thinking that comes to light when we question some of the basic premises of how an education system can look/operate.
I agree. And I would love to take a long look at what Finland is doing right. Apparently their original goal was simply to be “better than Sweden.” And now they have one of the best education systems in the world. Why aren’t we flying teams to Finland to do observations and report back? Why aren’t we bringing consultants from Finland to Washington to help guide us? Just as a small example, has anyone tried translating the K-12 Finnish math curriculum into English? How is it different from what we have?
You raise some excellent questions, Spencer. Absolutely, assessment is critical to effective teaching and learning, and the most valuable assessments are the formative ones that enable us as teachers to take action as a result. That’s why I always struggle a little with assessments whose only “actionable” move is punitive to systems or evaluatory of teachers. As a high school teacher, I am not opposed to “exit exams” or other requirements that, for real intents and purposes, communicate whether a student has the skills necessary for being awarded a diploma. When assessments began to be tightly connected to consequences (loss of funding, etc.) rather than for formative use or to signal readiness to “exit,” the validity of assessments immediately began to come into question.