By Tom
My class took the WASL last week. Things were going well; I had an ample supply of fresh pencils, a different snack every day, we had completed the practice tests full of retired prompts, the parents were told the benefits of proper nutrition and adequate rest. I had done everything I was supposed to have done to prepare my students. Or so I thought.
The trouble came on the last day. It was the second math test, the one where they don't get to use protractors, rulers or calculators. Just their minds. And their pencils. As I was cruising the room, telling my students as nicely as possible that I couldn't really help them, I noticed that most of them were stuck on the same problem.
Now, I should mention that we as teachers aren't supposed to look at the test. We can't look at it ahead of time, we can't look at it while our kids are taking it, and we can't look at it when they're finished with it.
But after the tenth student asked me for help on the same problem, I would have to be an idiot to not know what it was about. It was about measurement. In fact, the entire problem was predicated on the students knowing how to convert one unit of measurement into another. If they knew it, they were in good shape and could go on to solve the problem and explain their answer. If they didn't, they couldn't; and my kids couldn't.
Some guessed, some skipped it, but eventually we finished. I collected the tests and the pencils and sent them to a "secure location." Then we had a short discussion so they could share their impressions of the test. These are third graders and this was their first taste of High Stakes Testing and I was curious. I should also mention that I worked with these students as second graders, so they were very comfortable with the way I teach.
The first thing they mentioned during our discussion was the measurement problem. In fact, that's all they really wanted to talk about. They were furious. This was unjust. This was Fern finding out what her dad was planning to do with the ax. Cindy summed it up best: "Why did you ask us about something that you didn't teach us yet?"
I first tried to lay the blame on the state, which was reasonable, since they're the ones who wrote the test, but it didn't matter to them. As far as Cindy and her classmates were concerned, this test came from me, and it violated everything they had come to expect about the learning process: I teach them, they learn, then we have an assessment.
So I tried plan B. I had them get out their math books, and we looked up the specific content in the index. Sure enough, there it was in the last chapter of the book; two chapters away from where we were. "See? we're going to learn about it, but we just haven't got there yet. The test is written to cover everything third graders should know, but sometimes there's going to be questions about stuff that comes after the test."
And then Cindy came back with a response that someone needs to hear. Maybe all of us. "That's not fair," she said, "They should wait until after we learn something before they test us on it."
Cindy knows more about measurement than she thinks.
Well…I think we can at least agree on the main idea of my original post: teach, then test.
Going forward, the state is in the process of reworking the assessment system. Which is all about getting valid information about how our kids are doing. We have a set of standards to which everyone in the state is teaching. The WASL is designed to find out how are students are doing in regards to those standards. The rub, as I see it, is timing. My class is doing pretty well in math, including measurement. My class will probably score low in measurement, mostly because there was a high-value problem on the WASL targeting information that we simply hadn’t covered at the time of the test. Therefore, the information isn’t very valid; it looks like the students didn’t meet the standards, when in fact they did. (or will in a few weeks) So then we use this information next year to write our school improvement plans, which may include better training for the teaching of measurement, instead of something we actually need. All because of poor timing.
I don’t know that I have the answer.
Oops! #4 Paragraph 2 should read:
(Elementary school students ranged in ability levels from 198 to 65 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale – with similar Wechsler scores – plus those who qualified for other sped programs, including autism, emotional/ behavior problems with middle class “wealthy” to urban “poor” and ESL demographics, including non-U.S. citizen migrants.)
Congrats, Cindy, for your independent learning and insightful question!
Well, I don’t think I have done anything differently from most teachers. Let’s see if this clarifies or confuses the points you raised.
As a general principle, I tried to make it clear that students have to adjust to lessons and that what they learned depended on their individual efforts.
1. Fairness: I have said directly with a smile, “Who promised fairness? That’s a judgment, not a fact. Life’s not fair, and probably won’t be during our lifetimes/ or life’s a competition, not slumber party/ or something like these.
So, adjust (some soft wording of “grow up;” sometimes I tell them specifically what to do). You can’t depend on others always to take care of you, and school standardized testing is one of those times.
After the test, figure out what you can do differently so you know more next time. Work ahead on your own.”
2. Minimum academic standards: Never mentioned it. That’s teacher talk.
Teachers should address at least all standards as a minimum by testing time. I used a mental checklist of how to pace what students learned. That’s tough, but doable.
I said on the first day of every class, “You should learn what’s in these textbooks/ lesson/ assignment/ syllabus.” We’d then quickly go through the textbook (lesson/ assignment) front to back. No guessing or mysteries about what to expect or do in my classes, even for those without adequate prerequisite skills.
3. Testing: I used a teach, test, teach, test, … sequence throughout the year with elementary students. In other words, everything was tested.
I find the phrase “high stakes tests” a political grand stand irrelevant to schooling. We had pop quizzes, weekly tests, etc., so they knew how to take tests, and standardized tests were just one more part of that routine.
I’d also say something like this – “Do your best. If you have stayed current in class, you should know how to answer all of the items on the test for your age or grade correctly. We’ll cover more in class by the end of the year, so you can answer correctly those you missed this time.”
Before weekly and other quizzes and tests, I’d say something like this, until they learned the litney. “Make sure you read instructions before starting any test. Know the testing rules. For example, some tests take off double points for errors.”
Also, I’d prompt them all school year that tests have more reasons than for students to feel good or bad about how they do.
Tests tell teachers and others what we should do differently next time.
Also, “You should, as you can, work ahead in your textbook/ assignment and correct your work against the teacher’s book/ syllabus with the answers.”
Almost all of my elementary school age classes did the latter in all subjects by the 6th week into the Fall semester, including the sped students and students who camped out in my classes from other classrooms.
3. I don’t remember the standardization procedure for the WSAL. In general, no necessary link exists between a curriculum (a district decision) and state minimum academic performance expectations as measured by any standardized test. Yes, some teachers cry foul. Not necessarily so.
4. Psychosocial and cognitive development: Never discussed any of this with students, parents, or intentionally very little with other educators. Smiles, not angst in classes. We focused on “Here’s what to do.”
In classes, I told students what we were going to do, we did it (seldom together) and then reviewed what we did. Students helped each other through lessons; yes, these classrooms were usually noisy. We had fun working hard and targeted. (Elementary school students ranged in ability levels from 98th to 65th+ percentile on Stanford-Binet to qualified for developmental disabilities classes, including autism, to emotional/ behavior problems, middle class “wealthy” to urban “poor” ESL.)
5. Teachers and trainers: Teachers range from parents to certified K12 school instructors to on-the-job mentors, …. Trainers generally are considered a subset of teachers; think direct instructors, drill sargents, real estate test preppers, et al. Teachers also do what trainers do, but trainers don’t usually do what teachers do. There’s also an emerging group of independent education software developers who have worked as hybrids of teachers and trainers, some offering more powerful learning tools than many human instructors. Some take advantage of the content principles developed over the past decades by DI staff at UOR-Eugene. They reduce trial-and-error patterns before learners meet learning criteria.
Does this help clarify? I offer more details elsewhere as NESI conversations.
Great conversation guys; I love it! Here are some of my thoughts:
1. I would like to think that I “promised fairness” to my class implicitly by the way I teach. Since last September, when these kids were in second grade, I assessed their learning after I taught them something. There have never been surprises. The WASL question about measurement was a surprise. And it was made worse when they found out that it wouldn’t have been a surprise if the test had come at the end of the year.
2. I’m confused, Bob, about something in your first comment that seems contradictory. If the WASL measures “intended minumum academic performance” then there shouldn’t be anything on there that goes beyond those minumum performance levels, right? Thus, and plese correct me if I’m mistaken, every WASL question should be something covered in the curriculum. And by the way, that is exactly the message that the OSPI has conveyed to those of us in the classroom.
3. I think there’s a difference between the knowledge and skills measured by the reading and writing tests and those measured by the math WASL. Literacy skills, by nature, tend to be cummulative. Math skills are more discreet. It’s one thing for a young reader to read at home and develop more sophisticated decoding and comprehension skills outside of the classroom; (Cindy, by the way, has done just that) it’s something else altogether to expect a young student to learn specific math skills on their own. I certanly wouldn’t know about decimal points, for example, without direct instruction from a teacher.
4. I’m glad Mark gave you the opportunity to tell about your background. You have become a regular around here, and it’s nice to know where you’re coming from.
5. I’m now curious about the distinction you make, Bob, between teachers and trainers. Would you mind elaborating on that?
I think it is relevant to Tom’s post. How did you explain to your fifth graders, in your context, about measurement of intended minimum academic performance? How did you adapt your message, as you imply Tom needs to, to adjust to fit the psychosocial and cognitive capacity of your 5th graders with high needs?
I take issue with the comment that in order for Tom to have his kids meet the “minimum academic performance” he should have had them work ahead, with or without teachers. It is not a matter of “working ahead.” If Tom had “covered” conversions and measurement, it would have supplanted some other skill and standard in our finite time and space with our learners and the kids’ questions would have been about some other skill than measurement conversions.
So Bob, tell me how Tom should have responded to Cindy, in language and concepts appropriate for her developmental stage?
I don’t want to take Tom’s post off track.
Briefly, Mark, I taught self-contained 5th grade (never less than 35 students per class, including sped students) and self-contained special ed classes, including students with bilingual and developmental disabilities (some misdiagnosed) starting in multiethnic Southern CA neighborhood schools. While we had gangs, most of their violence was off-campus.
I also taught, supervised and evaluated teachers and non-school trainers elsewhere, mostly in urban settings while a professor and scientist, and administered statewide human service programs.
I told and showed people what they were to learn, how to learn it, and what it would take to do so. No discussions about softer issues and other distractions from that learning. We had fun with the process in and out of classes.
Most students and trainers exceeded expected minimums. Too many teachers didn’t.
Does that address your curiosity, Mark?
Now, back to Tom’s post.
I think it is entirely reasonable for a third grader to feel entitled to fairness. I think it is likely well beyond most third graders what “intended minimum academic performance” and its measurement means. The first week of school my ninth graders find it a revelation when they discover that I actually plan the lesson myself, with a goal in mind and a clear learning target…despite what I might pretend, that lesson was not just some magical happenstance they had the serendipity to experience (this realization is quite the “ah-ha” for them).
I think Tom’s post is deeper than a call to educate third graders on the complexity of federal- and state-mandated assessment and the pedagogical underpinnings of such. Older kids can wrap (perhaps) their minds around the what the state assessment is “all about,” and that it is not always just about what you’ve been taught. To third graders, such an attempt to explain might just be cruel and unusual punishment.
Bob, I am curious about what your experience with this topic has been in your classroom. What grade level or content do you teach, and how do you communicate the broader implications of mandated assessment to your kids for their developmental ability? I think the approach must certainly be different in each developmental context. How do you (or did you, if perhaps you are retired, admin, etc) approach this topic in your teaching context, and what did you find your students needed in terms of explanation based on their psychosocial and cognitive development at your grade level?
Another good post, Tom. It brought these thoughts to mind.
Who promised Cindy fairness? It’s interesting how students for decades have come up with the “it’s not fair” canard to redirect responsibility away from themselves.
Do you think anyone has reviewed with Cindy that WASL measures intended minimum academic performance?
That means, some students, with and without teachers, work ahead of class assignments and thus perform above these minimums.
Yes?