The big problem with No Child Left Behind, W. James Popham asserted during the opening keynote of the 2005 ASCD Conference on Teaching and Learning, is that it uses the wrong kinds of tests to judge the caliber of student learning and teacher instruction. Popham advocates for instructionally sensitive tests, which he claims possess
- Clear descriptions of assessment targets;
- A manageable number of assessment targets; and
- Instructionally informative results.
On a post to our conference blog we asked: What do you think about using instructionally sensitive tests to measure student achievement? You talked back about testing:
Blogger #1
It seems to me that we miss the boat when we continue to speak of instructionally or curriculum-sensitive tests. The main focus must be on instructional strategies that engage the students actively in their own learning, like having a say in developing the learning targets in an authentic learning experience, assessing themselves regularly according to the rubrics they have helped develop, and getting supportive comments from peers and the teacher.
We should be concentrating on helping students become their own teachers instead of teaching, drilling, and taking their temperature via summative tests. With the formative assessing situation described above, at any point in time, both students and teacher know where the students are in relation to achieving the targets. A student-teacher conference at the end of the learning project would provide both an excellent summative learning experience as well as the translation of the students' work into a (meaningless!) letter grade. The real learning would have taken place before this point, and careful documentation of the students' work would produce a valid assessment of the students' abilities.
This would be a complete departure from education as usual, and, in my view, it's about time! Such a process would help the student develop the thinking skills and discriminative abilities that are tools students can use throughout life. When we hear that many students aren't able to take their place in the adult world—our continuing to teach, drill, and test, instead of actively engaging the students' thinking skills in the service of their own learning, may well be the cause!
This could be ramped up from the individual classroom to broader populations. Presently student essays are judged by panels that have been carefully schooled to a common level of judgment. Music contests are judged by music educators that have taken part in adjudication workshops. Since this is the way judgments are made in the real world of the workplace and the arts, it would make sense to use this process in our preparation of students for the real world! The work to bring all teachers up to speed in this way would be a massive undertaking and take a number of years. However, it would result in a major improvement in the teaching corps and would be a better use of resources than the obscene amount of money with which we are presently enriching the money-changers in the temple of education—a.k.a., the testing companies.
Blogger #2
‘Standards’ influence standardized test revision. The question becomes, "Whose standards are considered when constructing testing instruments?" If instruction is differentiated, why not include instruments and assessments that reflect that differentiation? A number of highly used, mass-market test instruments provide only a snapshot of a student's performance or abilities. Why not allow part of the assessment to reflect the overall criteria for growth and success by including a rating and anecdotal system for student portfolios as part of the final picture? Some states include alternative assessments for students as a part of quality teacher indicators as well as assessment-driven instruction. Why not for the benefit of the student? An example of holistic and ongoing assessment across the board was reflected in the KERA Act. There is a bigger picture beyond the SAT, DIBELS, and the CRCT. Standardized testing is still producing instruments based on the "deficit" model—racially, culturally, and economically. Are we, as educators and policymakers, just using alternative assessment and portfolios for show and tell? That is a scary thought when children who are nonwhite, speak multiple languages, and are working class are being left behind!
Bloggers Talk Back About Testing
“Just because something works doesn't mean it's all you do.”
—Eric Jensen on test prep
Blogger #3
I am sad to see how the high-stakes testing environment in our state has taken the creativity and fun out of teaching and learning for both children and teachers. I am most disturbed by the type of environments I see in schools that have high test scores. They don't necessarily mimic effective teaching; they reflect effective test preparation—a continuous process of teaching test-taking skills. I think that the real challenge is helping teachers see how teaching their students so that they learn in meaningful ways will enhance test scores because students will become more reflective and active learners.
The fear of failure has paralyzed many teachers to the point that they are terrified to move beyond the texts they are provided. I agree that teachers should be using a variety of information that helps them provide more specific instruction based on students' individual needs. I agree that it is obscene what is happening to our educational system. Standards are a good thing, but how they are used is not an effective use of money or time spent in school.
What type of education is our nation really promoting? We most certainly are not promoting a democratic education. A democratic education would give students a voice, choice, and an education that is relevant to their own lives—not one that is mandated as equal for all students. The nation is made up of a diverse population that has varied needs; it is ridiculous to assume that a one-size-fits-all education will best serve all Americans.
Blogger #4
A friend of mine who teaches a dual credit Environmental Science class has been getting an increasing number of students who basically say, "Tell me what I need to memorize to get a good grade in this course." Because environmental issues often have more than one valid side, she has many frustrated students. Her course requires research, analysis, moral judgments, and critical thinking.
Why do students arrive in her upper level course thinking that they can successfully memorize their way through any class? As a just-retired teacher of an upper-level class (Chemistry) that is tested by the state, I can propose a possible answer to that question. I had so many topics to cover in a very limited amount of time that, against my judgment, I found myself "delivering the necessary information" in an abbreviated, very explicit format. If I tried to incorporate critical thinking and exploratory activities, I found myself falling far behind the "suggested time line" needed to cover the required material.
My personal opinion is that, in the USA, rigor is equal to covering a lot of material, not to covering material in depth. I don't know the answer to this situation. I do suggest that if we are going to compare our students to international student achievement, we need to look at the amount of content their students are expected to master in a school year.
Differentiation Myths and Realities
According to DI guru Carol Ann Tomlinson, a lot of confusion exists about what differentiated instruction is and isn't. One myth that plagues differentiation is that it is in conflict with standards-based education. Tomlinson offered two major reasons why this is not so.
First, standards guide what to teach, and differentiation guides how to teach. No matter what you're teaching, it will be learned better if taught in a way that's responsive to a learner's needs.
Next, differentiation is about providing a variety of means and supports for mastering a standard, not changing the content of standards. A richer framework of meaning helps students more effectively learn, recall, relate to, retain, and retrieve content. Tomlinson concluded that differentiation is a means of achieving standards by making them accessible to a wider array of learning styles and student interests.
