Entry #33 - May 10, 1999
"If I had my 'magic wand' I would pick a more norm-based test
for 'the system,' and use these more complex, standards-based tests locally,
with feedback given to teachers and schools, as well as to students and
parents, and professional development and district-level initiatives coming
from the results and identified needs."
Next week will be given over to our province-wide examinations for Grade
3 and Grade 6. This is the first time our sixth grade has been included,
and our teachers have been very frazzled about it for months. The tests
are perfomance-based, and evaluated on a rubric scale of 1 to 4 in reading,
writing and mathematics. The idea behind having this kind of test (as opposed
to a standardized, norm-referenced test like the Stanford Achievement Test)
was that it would provide more data that could be used to improve teaching
and learning. Certainly, the results from the Grade 3 tests (which have
been going on for two years) have generated a great deal of discussion and
debate, but information to improve teaching and learning? That I haven't
seen, at least, not yet.
Our very multicultural twinned elementary school hardly led the pack, but
we didn't do too badly. We had few children in the top category (Level 4),
but not many in the bottom category, either. The vast majority of ours were
in Level 2 -- below the standard, but "approaching" the standard.
Considering that almost all these children are second-language speakers,
from disadvantaged backgrounds, this is not too bad. We are looking at ways
to ensure more skill mastery in the early grades, and support for struggling
readers -- not easy, in a time of reduced resources and ever-greater cutbacks.
This is the first year our sixth grade will participate, though. The level
of written expression expected is very high -- and well beyond the reach
of our Special Education children, recent arrivals with little or no spoken
English, and even some children who are doing well, but are not at the level
of their native-born peers. At a parent meeting a few nights ago, I happened
to talk with a woman who is a teacher in another district and who helped
develop these tests. She said, "I've worked SO HARD with my (all immigrant)
students, and they have learned so much -- yet, they will only score at
Level 1 or 2 on this test -- then they will be made to feel like they, and
their school, are 'failures.' "
This is a real problem. Of course, we need testing -- if you don't have
some kind of measurement in place, you tend to set few goals and accomplish
little. But, is a performance-based test the best way to evaluate "the
system" on a broad scale, or are performance-based measures more useful
at the school and district level, where teachers, parents and students can
look at the work, compare it with the rubrics, and develop action plans
and different instructional strategies? I confess, I don't know. But, getting
just a number -- Level 2, or whatever -- tells you nothing at all about
what the student's learning strengths are or where improvement is needed.
Even the old norm-referenced tests were more useful in that regard: they
gave a breakdown, such as arithmetical reasoning, problem solving, computation,
vocabulary, and so on. They were CHEAPER, too!
If I had my "magic wand" I would pick a more norm-based test for
"the system," and use these more complex, standards-based tests
locally, with feedback given to teachers and schools, as well as to students
and parents, and professional development and district-level initiatives
coming from the results and identified needs. That way, we could USE this
information to compile learning profiles of our school populations, maybe
even at the district level (depending on its size and diversity). Parents
and students could view students' work (without names attached -- perhaps
just using a few models) to see what work exemplifying the standards looked
like, so they could understand where a particular student's efforts needed
to be directed. It is this kind of learning from the performance-type tests
that I see as potentially so valuable.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what we do. The tests are written,
sent off, and months from now, the student will receive a number and the
school a ranking -- nothing that will help improve teaching or learning.
In that respect I don't see how this is an improvement over the "old"
standardized tests.
However, the "teaching to the test" phenomenon is certainly taking
over in some places. I've heard from teachers in a number of schools that
virtually the whole curriculum in arts, music, social studies and science
has been tossed aside to make room for "practicing for the tests."
The testing organization sends out a practice unit to work on, and most
teachers allow about a week for this -- but some report spending 5, 8 or
MORE weeks working mainly on "test-preparation" items! Ouch!
At this point, something is certainly backwards. The test is supposed to
measure the curriculum -- it isn't supposed to BE the curriculum! The sad
irony here is, it is often the students who most need the instructional
time in their core subjects who are getting this "extra practice"
for the test -- practice that is of dubious value. As long as we insist
on identifying schools and children as "winners" and "losers"
on the basis of test results, I guess these abuses will inevitably be with
us.
Whatever happened to learning for the intrinsic joy and sense of mastery
it brought? Oh, yeah. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer...
Read next week's entry >>>
<<< Read last week's entry
Post a comment about this
week's diary entry
Find out more about Susan
Back to Middle School Diaries index