My concern is that a high stakes exam that focuses only on biology narrows the curriculum to the detriment of chemistry, physics, and earth science. The problem?
When schools feel pressure to have all their students meet one goal in science, and that goal is biology, other science disciplines fall by the wayside and receive less in resources and attention. One of my most successful lessons from last year involved students extracting muscle proteins from salmon from a local creek and then using electrophoresis to figure out how closely related the fish were. This project involved elements of biology, chemistry, and technology—comprehensive science, not just a single discipline!
Another teacher at my school has a great new science class: Materials Science. Students investigate questions like why airplanes are now made of carbon fiber composites instead of the traditional aluminum. Students design and build incredible items, combining a variety of materials in unique ways. What does Materials Science not cover? The state biology standards! We have limited resources and room in the schedule for science classes. When students do not pass the biology end of course exam, and then quite likely will have to take some sort of remedial biology class in order to prepare to retake the exam, will there still be enough staffing and students for courses like Materials Science?
District level disruption of comprehensive science programs in order to accommodate the state biology exam has already started. One district had a new science course last year: not biotechnology, not materials science, not water quality: no, their new science course was "Biology EOC Test Prep." In another district, the science teachers worked hard to develop an innovative integrated science program. With the onset of this new graduation requirement, however, they had to abandon the integrated science program in tenth grade in order to focus on biology. There is a national requirement to administer a science exam, but it is a state decision to require it for graduation.
The argument in favor of the graduation requirement condition of the biology exam has been accountability: that students, teachers, and schools need to be held to high standards. But accountability at what cost? Accountability in the form of a biology end of course exam that, as an unintended consequence, narrows the state science curriculum is not the type of accountability that we need!
The irony is that in the past two years, as our state has moved from a comprehensive science assessment to one focused solely on biology, there has been a concurrent state and national movement towards integrated STEM education: science, technology, engineering, and math. Our state’s high stakes biology assessment runs contrary to that STEM path.
In the next few years, we will likely have comprehensive assessments based on the Next Generation Science Standards. One possible solution until the Next Generation assessments? Let’s keep administering the biology end of course exam, but not require it for graduation. Teachers and schools could still use the exam results to inform instruction, but we wouldn’t have the high stakes nature of a biology graduation test distorting comprehensive science education in our state. I and the teachers around me want to prepare students to integrate science in innovative ways into their jobs and lives, and not just focus on biology!
Hi Mark,
Here’s the deal: there are no plans to develop EOCs in any science disciplines other than biology. The biology EOC was developed first because biology happened to be the most commonly taken science class by tenth graders. Exam development is expensive, the recession hit, and then there was no money available to develop any other state science exams.
Furthermore, Washington is now a lead state in reviewing and quite likely adopting the national Next Generation Science Standards. We will likely have exams based on these national standards in the next few years. It makes no sense to develop new exams based on our state science standards when we know we would only be using those new exams for a year or two.
There is a federal requirement to administer a science exam, and because the biology EOC is the only high school science exam Washington has, that is what we administer. There is, however, no federal mandate that the state science exam be a graduation requirement. That is why I am suggesting that we keep administering the biology EOC, but not require it for graduation. The high stakes graduation requirement of biology is what is distorting science education.
This past year, all tenth graders were required to take the biology end-of-course exam, whether or not they had actually taken a course in biology. Many, many sophomores in our state last spring took the biology EOC yet were not in biology.
Can a student take biology their sophomore year, and then focus on other sciences other years? Sure. However, when biology is the only graduation requirement, it puts an over-emphasis on biology in planning school schedules and resources. When students have to keep taking the biology EOC until they pass it, they do not have room in their schedules for other sciences.
Is there anything that says the biology EOC has to be taken during one specific year of a students’ high school experience? I get the idea of being compelled to teach-to-what-is-tested… but why couldn’t a student partake in biology as well as STEM sciences? (In the same year or not.) What is the timeline for developing/piloting other EOCs? Is there perhaps a potential future grad requirement that a student must pass (for example) any three EOCs from a menu of options? (For example, a kid could pass the physical sci, bio, and mat-sci EOCs and skip the anatomy, enviro-sci and engineering systems EOCs…just thinking about potential $olutions here).
Hi Jason–I think that Washington’s biology end of course exam is a good test for what it is designed to do. It measures student performance on the state science standards, and I think it does that pretty well. It also faces the same limits that all pencil and paper large scale tests do. It is not a performance or lab based assessment, but that is not what it was designed to be. Should we have performance or lab based assessments at the state level? Interesting question.
The main issue? The high stakes graduation requirement of this biology test is emphasizing biology education in schools to the detriment of chemistry, physics, and earth science.
I grew up in NY with three science regents required. I also took 4 AP science classes. I graduated from an Ivy League school with a degree in chemistry.
Although I can’t speak to the specific tests, I can say that you can write a good science test.
Real science isn’t all writing research papers, doing “projects”, etc. Lab work is ultimately routine, repeated procedures you could train anyone to do safely and accurately with enough time. Understanding and working through problems and making good hypotheses and designing experiments is real science. To do that, you need to know a lot of content.
There are better kinds of science items, but science can be tested.
As for narrowing to just biology, that’s a shame especially because of the recession being the cause. All of high school science should be required to graduate with equal importance. Discarding the physical sciences is a big mistake.
Ooops – forgot to add, “but I’m not now.” to that second sentence.
Great point. I’ve actually, at times, been okay with the idea of granting credit based on assessments.
I think graduation assessments should be given at the end of 11th grade, myself. Having them in 10th grade is just traumatic for any ELL student.
I’m not sure any large scale standardized test can assess science inquiry and process skills in the way that classroom projects and labs can. That’s one of the reasons I am opposed to the high stakes graduation requirement condition of the test–it drives teachers to teach only what is tested. In a separate issue, the inability of the biology EOC to assess these science process skills in the way classroom labs and projects can is one of the reasons I am leery of granting course credit to students based on passing the EOC, as has been tentatively discussed in several districts. (I’m hesitant about this at least in the case of lab and project based classes, not so much in other types of classes.)
You’re right. I know teachers have been heavily involved in the science and math EOCs. I think what I mean by “they’re not good tests” is that they don’t do what they’re supposed to do, which is tell us whether or not a child is ready to graduate.
The reading and writing tests are pretty good tests, but as a measurement of whether or not a child is ready to graduate, should they be given in 10th grade? Are they an accurate capture of a child’s literacy skills? I don’t think so. They might be good diagnostic tools, but they are not acceptable, for me, as concluding assessments.
For one thing, they’re given before the end of the year. For another, the possible answers are way too heavily in the “pick the best answer, even though there are three pretty good answers – answers you could justify in a conversation.”
I’m not a science teacher, but it seems my daughters and students at my school are spending more time in labs and projects, verbalizing the scientific process, gathering evidence, engaging in inquiry, and solving problems.
Do you think the biology EOC is a good assessment for what’s happening in 10th grade biology classes? If teachers teach to this test, will they be creating capable scientists? Because if I teach to the MSP or HSPE reading and writing test, I am certainly NOT creating agile and independent readers and writers.
Hi Kristin,
I think the issue at this point may be more a legislative one than an OSPI one, although clearly OSPI can be very influential. As far as your comment that “the tests are not good tests,” I would have to both agree and disagree. Yes, I truly believe that performance based assessments like you mention would be better. Perhaps some sort of classroom based assessments would work. Large scale written standardized assessments clearly have severe limitations–I am in full agreement on that. However, as far as that type of written assessment goes, I think the Washington state biology EOC is a pretty good one. OSPI has received a mandate from the legislature to create that type of assessment, and in doing so for the biology EOC, they have involved Washington teachers at virtually every step along the way, and many of the scenarios relate to ecosystems found in Washington state. I think this local flavor and involvement of local teachers is a strength.
Those advocating for test-focused graduation requirements may be doing so with good intentions, but it is currently (and unintentionally, I am sure) undermining the efforts of those advocating for STEM education. Ironically, some of the same people are advocating for both a science graduation requirement based on the biology EOC and an integrated STEM education. When our current system is set up for assessment to drive instruction, the high stakes biology assessment moves resources away from STEM education.
Maren, welcome to the frustrations of teaching a tested subject. My entire career has been spent dealing with this.
You’re right – does the biology EOC need to be a part of graduation? I would say, “no.”
Those who push for these test-focused graduation requirements are doing it with good intentions, because in many cases a diploma is no guarantee that a child has learned anything.
But fixing that disease by adding testing requirements is like fixing diabetes with insulin when you could fix it better with weight loss and diet change.
First, our tests aren’t good tests. Second, while test-taking is a valuable skill (one I put to good use with the SAT and GRE to get where I am now), it’s not necessarily a measure of learning.
What we need to do is speak up and get OSPI to start looking at other, more accurate measurements, maybe (gasp) measurements that are tailored to the child. Portfolio work, project-based assessments, performances, publishing, or student-driven research are all assessments that would accurately measure a child’s mastery of content. And it would also allow a child to show mastery of science in rocket-club, physics, biology, materials science, or whatever their passion was.
We are going down the wrong road by limiting choice, pretending one content is more important than others, and denying students access to courses that will prepare them to be independent and happy adults.
Tom, similar issues face social studies, the arts, PE in high school as well. What strikes me as slightly different about the biology EOC is that the graduation condition is a brand new requirement. It is a state, not a federal, decision, not like the AYP issues affecting social studies, art, PE. Also, it runs so counter to the current trend towards integrated STEM education.
Todd, a few years ago a survey was conducted to see what science class most sophomores in Washington took. Biology was the most commonly taken course by sophomores, so the biology EOC was developed first. Then the recession hit, and there was no money to develop exams in other areas of science. I agree that we have no money to develop other science exams, but that is no reason that the biology EOC needs to be a graduation requirement–the high stakes nature of the test just exacerbates the problem of too much focus on biology!
Great post. I have to wonder who in the world thinks this stuff up. I hear endless concerns that the U.S. is not producing enough home grown scientists and engineers and that we have to pull out all the stops to get our kids interested in science. Then we have bone headed policies like this. Nothing will kill a kids interest in anything than being told they can’t learn about this because you have to learn that. Of course biology is important but not all kids are particularly interested in it, and by forcing the focus to be on it you can be sure to make them less interested. GRRRRRR.
Great post, Maren. You’ve laid out one of the strongest arguments against high-stakes testing. We see it at the elementary level in subjects like social studies, art, music and P.E.
If it’s tested, it’s important. If it’s not…