By Tom
In years past, February marks the beginning of “Test-Prep Season” in my classroom. It isn’t all we do, of course, but I try to weave activities and practice assessments into my plans, gradually increasing the intensity throughout the late winter and early spring until mid-April, when it’s basically an all-out siege.
But not this year.
This year I’m not doing of that. This year I’m teaching, and my students are learning, all year long; including the second half of April.
And here’s why: this year our school board decided that each school in our district (Edmonds) could decide how they wanted to transition from the MSP to the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Option one was to take both. Option two was to take only the MSP. Option three was to field test the SBA and not take the MSP. We chose option three, in the most lopsided vote we’ve ever had, even though the results of the SBA would not be released.
I voted with the majority on this one; in fact I was a leading voice in the discussion that preceded the vote. Option one, taking both tests, seemed ridiculous. Our faculty is trying to become familiar with the CCSS, and that takes time. Getting the students ramped up for another round of MSPs also takes time, and time is the scarcest resource we have. It also takes time for students to become familiar with the new standards, which is what they’re doing this year. Taking two tests on two different sets of standards seemed like a bad idea.
Option two, taking only the MSP, was another non-starter. In order for our students and staff to get a handle on the new standards, it seemed imperative that we get a chance to see the new assessment this year. Besides that, the new tests are all on-line, and piloting the tests will give us a chance to see if our technology can handle the demand. Furthermore, we wanted to have our students’ scores become part of the pilot pool. We have a relatively high-need population; when it comes time to set the benchmarks, it’s good to have a broad student base.
But the most important reason for me was the simplest one. I love to teach and I love to watch my students learn. Test-prep is not teaching and taking practice tests is not really learning. And when you’re in a classroom and you’re not teaching or you’re not learning, you’re wasting your time.
I hate wasting time.
Thanks so much, Julie, for pointing that out! Yes, I did mean that the SBA results won’t be released. (I went in and edited out the mistake.)
I don’t think any SBA results will be published in the papers. My understanding is that they’ll look at all the student work and use it to decide on the “cut scores” for each level; which is why it’s so important that students from all over the state and up and down the socio-economic ladder are involved in this field test.
Thanks again!
In your introduction of option 3, you state that MSP results would not be released. “We chose option three, in the most lopsided vote we’ve ever had, even though the results of the MSP would not be released.” Do you mean SBA?
As one of many veteran teachers and veteran proctors of the MSP, we know that MSP results WILL be released. Our staff was told that SBA results, this being a pilot year, would not be released to teachers or parents. (No clue whether the local newspaper will get their paws on the data, though.) Therefore, since parents are one of the most important stakeholders and levy passers in our district, we chose to continue only with the MSP. Yes, it is sad that we spend so much time practicing for tests and taking tests. MSP alone would not be a problem. It is the added RBA/MBA cycles (three rounds) and Reading/Math MAP cycles (three rounds) that become wearisome. Good luck with any testing you do this spring.
Thanks for the comment, Amethyst-
I’m not sure what the policy in AZ is, but WA has let local districts decide how they make the transition to the new tests. Fortunately my district went with the model I’ve described. Others, like Seattle, have decided that the students should take both tests this year, so as to prevent an apparent lack of accountability.
That’s too bad.
Oh, my gosh, I am so with you on that one. Honestly, this is the first year I am allowing “test prep” to at all drive my teaching. Why? Well, I am in a new position, with a non-renewable contract, and my department chair and a coteacher who is in my classroom once per day put pressure on me to do it. This is, of course, test prep for our AIMS test, which will be gone after next year, when Arizona will begin to use the PARCC test as a graduation requirement, if all heck doesn’t break loose first.
I teach reading– the kids who have reading levels of about 7th grade or lower– to tenth graders. Our school performance goals (by which we get paid the state performance pay) are at least partially based on the performance of the lowest quartile of students. Guess who those are? Mine.
I struggled last quarter to develop a unit that would be rich in creativity and multimedia products, but would still help directly prepare them for the test. Though not a complete failure, it became a bit of a mish-mash, and this quarter I’ve caved a bit. It definitely changes the types of writing products we create.
I didn’t mean to write a blog-length resonse, but you got me going. Sandy Merz and I just co-wrote a blog entry about CCSS implementation and assessment. (http://www.storiesfromschoolaz.org/2014/01/taming-godzilla-preemptively.html) I keep wondering if AZ could get so lucky as to have a moratorium on standardized tests while we all transition to the new standards.