by Guest Blogger Maren
I am a high school biology and chemistry teacher, deeply concerned about changes to the Washington graduation requirements and state science testing.
The biology end-of-course exam is going to be introduced next school year. Not only is it going to be introduced for the first time, it is going to be introduced in a very high stakes fashion—this year’s freshmen must pass it to graduate. This is a new test, the first to focus on biology, and will be the first tenth grade exam covering new science standards. To adequately prepare for such a new exam takes time at the school level—curriculum must be examined and potentially modified; alignment must be checked between new standards, class work and laboratory investigations; classroom formative and summative assessments need to be researched or created.
One might think that this is all work that could be started now in preparation for next year’s big changes. However, this year, we have an equally new, equally high stakes, yet completely different exam to prepare for: the science HSPE, which current sophomores must pass to graduate. Then, after only one year as a graduation requirement, the science HSPE is going to be abandoned and replaced by the biology EOC.
From 2011 to 2012, one year to the next, we are changing: (1) from 2005 to 2009 standards, (2) from comprehensive HSPE to more focused EOC, and (3) subject matter from broad area science to biology. Not only are these three major changes being implemented within one year, they are also being changed within an extremely high stakes environment—students must pass them to graduate. I am not opposed to change—in particular, I welcome the change from the 2005 to the 2009 standards. However, I believe that to impose these three major changes within such a short time frame can only have a negative impact on science education in Washington.
In my district, the science teachers as a vertical team have worked very hard to improve our instruction through analysis of our classroom videos and student work; collaborative planning and reflection; ongoing high quality professional development from our E.S.D.; and integration of department work with school district initiatives. No matter what direction the state goes, I am confident that our district science teachers will continue to focus on positively impacting student learning. We have many goals beyond just preparing students for a test; however, a high quality assessment aligned with high quality standards would likely work well with what we do.
Teachers and schools cannot adequately gear up to prepare students for one test required for graduation one year, only to have to discard much of the work to prepare students for a different test, also required for graduation, covering different subject matter the next year. I am asking the legislature to remove the graduation requirement of passing the science HSPE for this year’s sophomores, the class of 2013. I believe that an injustice is being done to these students through the proposed system for dealing with those who do not pass the HSPE this spring.
Students who do not meet standard in the April of 2011 are being given one more chance to pass the science HSPE in August of 2011. If they still do not pass, they must take and pass the biology EOC the following year. This means that within their high school career, many students in Washington state will be required to be responsible for two sets of standards and two different tests. This change in requirements between their freshmen and senior year seems unjust, and it results from the juxtaposition of two sets of standards in two years in a high stakes environment. Postponing the graduation requirement just one year would alleviate this issue. Instead of spending time and energy on the science HSPE, a onetime high stakes test covering old standards, teachers and schools need to be focusing on quality instruction and student learning.
Maren is a National Board Certified Teacher who teaches high school biology and chemistry on the Olympic Peninsula.
Postponing a state wide science test instead of immediate implementation does bring up other problems—our state overall does lag severely in time spent on elementary science. If the science test is not a graduation requirement, does that make it easier for schools to keep minimizing time and resources allotted to elementary science?
I do, however, still think that it is better to postpone the requirement at least one more year rather than implement a high stakes test based on old standards, then abandon that and implement a new high stakes test the following year. Students should not be held responsible for two different sets of standards.
Mark—I like your analogy with the reading and writing exams—changing from the science HSPE to the biology EOC is like changing from a reading and writing skills test to a literary content test.
Kristin—I definitely agree with your statement, “the state needs to acknowledge the time required to plan curriculum.”
What a mess. It reminds me of Brian’s earlier post on end-of-course math examinations.
On the one hand, we can’t spend ten years developing assessments, because everything in education lags and nothing ever actually happens.
On the other hand, throwing these do-or-die situations at teachers and kids makes no sense, especially if they keep changing.
If teachers are going to be required to align instruction with state standards and state assessments, then the state needs to acknowledge the time required to plan curriculum.
Maybe all policy makers should be required to rotate back through the classroom every three years. Wouldn’t that cause an improvement in policy-implementation?
This quote from above sums up the backwardness of it all:
“Teachers and schools cannot adequately gear up to prepare students for one test required for graduation one year, only to have to discard much of the work to prepare students for a different test, also required for graduation, covering different subject matter the next year.”
Teachers have been put into the position where our entire focus has been placed (forced to be placed) on test preparation. While I don’t think assessments are inherently evil, there is a proper way to implement change. For some reason in our country we have forgotten that in order for change to stick, it takes time! These kids, the teachers need time to adjust if all the system really cares about are test scores.
I teach high school English, and right now our state test is essentially a reading and writing skills test (skills which might actually have been developed in a history, science, or other class than English). What the reading and writing HSPE are not is an English Language Arts content test. I cannot imagine what would happen if next year the assessment were changed from skills test to a content test (names of authors, literary movements, rhetorical styles, even grammar). It would flip us on our heads, and the same kids excelling on the current incarnation of the test would bomb.
I agree… this hasty implementation is a bad move.