Comments on: Under pressure to score tests faster, a proposal to scrap writing

By: Michael M.

Michael M. — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:32:55 +0000

Is there a standardized test that measures…
Imagination?
Inquisitiveness?
Creativity?
Problem-solving skills?
Social development?
Interest in school?

Effectiveness of dogma?

By: Lynn

Lynn — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:27:32 +0000

Quite honestly the essays on the English language Regents are the most awkward, stilted essays I’ve ever seen. They are not created to teach students how to write really good essays but considered easier to score. Lousy essay formats like Critical Lens don’t help kids write well, they teach them poorly. It is actually possible to teach kids to write without making them take a standardized test on it.

By: Peter Pappas

Peter Pappas — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:36:06 +0000

In the name of expedience for the testing machine, this proposal takes schools further in the wrong direction.

I find that I rarely get asked to do staff development to “bring the scores up.” Increasingly I’m asked to help teachers create more engaging learning environments for students.

While NCLB began with the admirable goal of narrowing demographic performance gaps and putting an end to sorting kids on the “bell curve,” it may be doing just the opposite. Many of our schools are now compelled to force feed the content required for “adequate progress” as measured by standardized state tests. Does test prep = academic “feed-lot?”

Too little time is left for student-centered, project-based learning that allows students to work at the upper level of Bloom. Innovation requires much trial and error (Bloom’s evaluation). Learning to self-assess your problem solving approach is not a skill fostered in multiple-choice test-prep environment.

NCLB correctly put the focus on student achievement. Our students will need a strong foundation in core concepts. But schools can’t be filled with routine tasks. They need to be fluid environments focused on helping students take responsibility for thinking and problem solving where there sometimes isn’t a right answer.

By: Lynette Guastaferro

Lynette Guastaferro — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:14:21 +0000

It is possible to do it half the cost and half the time by using a computer and a human grader (and if there is a difference a second human grader) instead of two human graders and then if there is a difference a third human grader.
It is how the GMAT is scored. Innovation made possible by technology.. is the way to better assessments. Anyone out there interested in piloting this idea in New York with Teaching Matters. I do not agree that there shouldnt be yearly tests. Assessments need to be tied to teachers.. so we can see who is actually moving kids in reading and writing. The quality of the teacher makes ALL the difference because its the teacher that matters the most.

By: ms. frizzle

ms. frizzle — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:44:12 +0000

This is why yearly testing is a problem… it leads to lower quality tests given more often, because developing and scoring tests that actually include semi-authentic tasks (like written answers, lab components, etc.) is crazy time-consuming and expensive.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:46:03 +0000

I agree, letting go of the writing portion would be a mistake, making the test more prone to random guessing and less about demonstrable skills and knowledge. A bigger mistake would be moving testing earlier in the year. As it is, the ELA test is in January, the middle of the year, making it difficult to know if a student’s performance is attributable to his or her education that year or the year before. If anything, the tests should be moved towards the end of the year and lumped together into one or two testing weeks. The current system distorts the curriculum with schools overemphasizing one subject for months, then switching to another in anticipation of testing dates. Putting the tests at the end of the year would allow them to serve as summative assessments of that year’s overall instruction. Finally, it’s insane to let teachers continue correcting these tests. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that school’s send their least effective staff members to training sessions, and many are not qualified to evaluate student responses. And letting schools score their own Regents exams is ridiculous. How seriously can we take those results. If we’re serious about accountability, a vendor is more likely to provide reliability across the state. Moreover, in this day and age, technology should be easily solving these problems with computer adaptive testing to identify specific skill deficits and essay scoring that is suprisingly robust.

By: miss malarkey

miss malarkey — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:28:56 +0000

The writing part of the ELA is really the only authentic part, as far as assessment goes, in my opinion. I have students who can answer multiple choice questions but the reality of their skills comes out when you see their writing. I am not in favor of all the assessment we do, but I can’t believe they’d consider scrapping the writing. I would definitely focus less on writing, and in fact, I would be expected to do so by the administration, not because I’d want to. Wasn’t the all-MC CTB scrapped in part because there was a need for something more authentic?