I am fine with testing as long as it's testing improvement during the semester/year, not total achievement. I don't think testing is error-proof but I think it's more error proof than any other way to measure student performance.
Agreed. If I want to know if Bill can spell his 10 words of the week, then the most efficient method is to give him a spelling test. I do have real problems with 'timed' tests such as the ISTEP. Is the ISTEP assessing mastery of knowledge or speed of recall? Working under strict time limits occasionally throws some kids into panic.
If we start to measure teachers by test results, I have two concerns. One is that there already is cheating and this would make it more high stakes and encourage even more cheating. Second, perhaps teachers would be reluctant to take on the at risk students or unmotivated students for fear that it would lower that rating as a teacher.
I think a well planned peer review could work. As teachers, we know who is pulling their weight and who is coasting or cheating our students.
As a teacher, I would welcome peer review, but I wouldn't want it to be the totality of my assessment as a teacher. Obviously student achievement has to be some part of it, but I also think student, parents, teachers, and principal input would contribute to the overall picture. And if I'm judged on improvement and not final results, I actually get more afraid of the top students then the bottom. It's much easier to bring a student from 2 years behind to 1 year behind then to get a child who is already 2 years ahead to 3 years ahead!! It's much easier to find remedial age-appropriate material than it is to find age-appropriate advanced curriculum. (At least in my opinion.)
I definitely think testing is the best (not perfect) way to measure student performance. What I'm unsure about is whether student performance is the best way to measure teacher quality. But I am intrigued by the idea of testing improvement. That certainly sounds fair on the face of it. Has anyone here ever experienced this? How was it? Pros and cons?
Standardized testing is only one way of "thin slicing" student performance. It's a bit like the Pepsi Challenge of old; do you want a sip, or the whole can? Pepsi was winner hands down if all you had was a sip, but Coke was the dominant drink when you were going to enjoy more beverage. To truly get a good understanding of student achievement, course corrections, and ongoing feedback, we need a more comprehensive approach; alas, this can not be done quick and dirty, but takes consistency and dedication to a long term plan(something we don't do at IPS except in technology), persons in command of the district who have a better grasp of their pedigogical roots rather than the wind direction (for an excellent example, look at the snake oil program "Springboard"; what a joke! a student will read 2 novels in all four years of high school); the idea of scrimmages and benchmarks is great... if they can just get the scrimmages and benchmarks to match up with the mandatory pacing guide... the poor reading teachers are being told to run in so many directions I think they are ready to mutiny. I would like to see some of our supervisors at the district level try to teach what is being demanded in the classroom. It will be difficult to assess student performance without a cohesive, intelligent, streamlined, workable, user-friendly system that is implemented by a staff that has real buy in from the ground up. We spend lots of money on consultants, when we have some very talented people right here on staff that just need a little guidance from proven educational organizers. Come on out and talk to us, we'll tell you what works, what doesn't, and what needs to be improved.
I am fine with testing as long as it's testing improvement during the semester/year, not total achievement. I don't think testing is error-proof but I think it's more error proof than any other way to measure student performance.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. If I want to know if Bill can spell his 10 words of the week, then the most efficient method is to give him a spelling test. I do have real problems with 'timed' tests such as the ISTEP. Is the ISTEP assessing mastery of knowledge or speed of recall? Working under strict time limits occasionally throws some kids into panic.
ReplyDeleteIf we start to measure teachers by test results, I have two concerns. One is that there already is cheating and this would make it more high stakes and encourage even more cheating. Second, perhaps teachers would be reluctant to take on the at risk students or unmotivated students for fear that it would lower that rating as a teacher.
ReplyDeleteI think a well planned peer review could work. As teachers, we know who is pulling their weight and who is coasting or cheating our students.
As a teacher, I would welcome peer review, but I wouldn't want it to be the totality of my assessment as a teacher. Obviously student achievement has to be some part of it, but I also think student, parents, teachers, and principal input would contribute to the overall picture. And if I'm judged on improvement and not final results, I actually get more afraid of the top students then the bottom. It's much easier to bring a student from 2 years behind to 1 year behind then to get a child who is already 2 years ahead to 3 years ahead!! It's much easier to find remedial age-appropriate material than it is to find age-appropriate advanced curriculum. (At least in my opinion.)
ReplyDeleteI definitely think testing is the best (not perfect) way to measure student performance. What I'm unsure about is whether student performance is the best way to measure teacher quality. But I am intrigued by the idea of testing improvement. That certainly sounds fair on the face of it. Has anyone here ever experienced this? How was it? Pros and cons?
ReplyDeleteStandardized testing is only one way of "thin slicing" student performance. It's a bit like the Pepsi Challenge of old; do you want a sip, or the whole can? Pepsi was winner hands down if all you had was a sip, but Coke was the dominant drink when you were going to enjoy more beverage. To truly get a good understanding of student achievement, course corrections, and ongoing feedback, we need a more comprehensive approach; alas, this can not be done quick and dirty, but takes consistency and dedication to a long term plan(something we don't do at IPS except in technology), persons in command of the district who have a better grasp of their pedigogical roots rather than the wind direction (for an excellent example, look at the snake oil program "Springboard"; what a joke! a student will read 2 novels in all four years of high school); the idea of scrimmages and benchmarks is great... if they can just get the scrimmages and benchmarks to match up with the mandatory pacing guide... the poor reading teachers are being told to run in so many directions I think they are ready to mutiny. I would like to see some of our supervisors at the district level try to teach what is being demanded in the classroom. It will be difficult to assess student performance without a cohesive, intelligent, streamlined, workable, user-friendly system that is implemented by a staff that has real buy in from the ground up. We spend lots of money on consultants, when we have some very talented people right here on staff that just need a little guidance from proven educational organizers. Come on out and talk to us, we'll tell you what works, what doesn't, and what needs to be improved.
ReplyDeleteHow will you evaluate pe teachers, music teachers, art teachers, counselors, social workers, speech therapists, media specialists. psychologists, etc?
ReplyDelete