Teachers love telling stories.
These stories fit into three categories.
1) the “checkout-how-AHMAZING-my students-are-because-they-did/said/produced-this.”
See this incredible comic of the Great Depression? But did you READ this analysis of Hamlet by one of my IEP students?
2) the “listen-to-this-incredible-issue/idea- [insert name of awesome colleague]-and-I-had to-address-the-problem-with _____ [insert problem that keeps you awake at night].”
So I tried that strategy you suggested and increased my homework turn in rate from 75% to 95%!
3) the “OMG-you-won’t-believe-what-this-student/parent/admin said/did!”
I woke up to this email…
Assessment data loves to tell stories too. The stories are a meaningful way to bring numbers and facts to life. Generally, there are three stories the data communicates. First, it tells us how students are meeting established standards. Second, it tells us how students are growing. Third, it tells us where instruction needs to be changed or modified.
In our current educational climate, the primary storytellers are politicians, ed reform groups, or other “experts” who want fixate on the first kind of story. They want to focus on high stakes summative, standardized assessments like End of Course Assessments and the Smarter Balanced Assessment. They want the data to tell us how students are meeting established standards. This story is what many stakeholders are using to drive federal and state policy, particularly changes in teacher evaluations. This is the second consecutive legislative term where significant effort has been made to include standardized test scores in teacher evaluations through legislation (SB 5748). While that bill is dead, the idea of using testing data as a part of teacher evals was a recently added to a professional learning bill being reviewed (HB 1345). It seems WA legislators are determined to include summative assessment data in the teacher quality discussion.
I believe that this fixation on just one type of data story (particularly spinning it to say “gotcha”) is why many teachers are up in arms. This is the concern that my fellow blogger, Spencer, addressed in his piece “How to Take An Arrow to Your Head”. Spencer captured this well by voicing how many teachers, myself included, recoil at the thought of using student test scores in their evals because it appears we are getting punished for factors beyond our control, such as systemic poverty, chronic absenteeism, and a host of other societal ills that negatively impact student achievement. Many teachers are fearful because the voices that dominate the discussion on assessments and “accountability” seem to have a myopic view that testing will remove bad teachers from classroom and focus the discussion on student achievement rather than student growth. In fact, last year I compared The Department of Education to the pigs in Animal Farm when I wrote about why teachers in this state could not accept the inclusion of test scores in their evals in order to save our NCLB waiver.
Another year of learning, reading, and thinking changed the way the legislature and some of my colleagues think and talk about assessment data. Examining the language of HB 1345’s amendment reveals this change. First, the idea of statewide assessments as being one of multiple measures. This means that there is more than one story being told and heard. From multiple viewpoints, we can truly get an accurate picture of how our students are growing in the classroom under the guidance of an effective teacher. The next important detail in the amendment is that “assessments must meet standards for being a valid and reliable tool for measuring student growth”. Standardized assessment have long been critiqued as invalid and unreliable. However, with the new CCSS assessment there is promise of rigorous testing that asks students to perform at a level necessary to be career and college ready. My friend Joe refers to it as the first “high-quality standardized tests” he has witnessed as far back as when he was in high school piloting the WASL. His hope, like mine, is that the current SBA assessment suite, although not by any means perfect, can provide one source (out of many) of data that can be used in meaningful conversations about teacher effectiveness, classroom instruction, and student growth.
I’m in support of many measures of growth rather than achievement. In my mind, appropriate measures of achievement already exists in forms like awards and diplomas.
You raise a great point about student voice. I continually ask my students about all assessments they take. I’ve heard things like: It’s stressful. They like the challenge. They want to find out how they compare. They want to know if they can get scholarships with their scores. They like seeing their “rank”. They don’t like being braindead. They don’t like sitting and writing on demand. They don’t like that it is a graduation requirement. That’s just a few I’ve heard.
I’m not sure I understand you final thought.
Teacher anxieties aren’t over students learning and growth. That’s what teaching is all about.
Did I misunderstand?
This post brings up a very important issue in education today. These tests, which create unfair markers of success in school, additionally change school structures and curriculums and affect the views that students and teachers have of themselves. However, if statewide assessments were one of measures of achievement, what would others be? How can we measure student’s success and should we? This post only discusses the teachers’ concerns about standardized tests, which are valid and understandable, but what about the students’ views on the tests?
Perhaps the anxieties that teachers have over these tests are causing them to potential overlook the bigger issue, allowing students to grow and develop through learning.
I appreciate that. I complete agree we have to use our assessment results which is why we need assessments with a quick turn around. I can’t get a straight answer from anyone on how fast SBA results will come to schools. With half of it administered on a computer, it seems the turn around should be quite fast.
I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from teachers and district personnel about the impact of the NCLB waiver loss but I haven’t seen any numbers.
I agree with much of what you say here… I am staunchly opposed to evaluation being based on test scores…just too slippery a slope. However, I also see some real potential with the interim assessments in the SBA suite and I do think that assessment results should be a PART of multiple measures, taken in context and examined as part of the larger story. I just wish assessment could be used for assessing students (no strings attached, no threats and no sanctions…fear is a lousy motivator in reality), and as Tom pointed out many moons ago, that teachers be evaluated not only on assessment results, but how we use assessment results to make good instructional choices for kids.
I am still curious about the set-asides from back when we lost our NCLB waiver over the last testscoresandteachereval kerfuffle. I would really like to hear whether the impact was what some had feared.