Tag: Assessment

Posted on

Promoting Student Achievement through Accountability and Assessment

Educators, parents, politicians, and concerned citizens agree that the American educational system is in poor shape, and that far reaching changes are needed for improvement. One illustration: in today’s junior high schools, more than 80 percent of Black and Latino students say they intend to go to college. For those who get to college, up to 60 percent require remedial work to prepare them for college courses. Furthermore, 25-50 percent of these students drop out of college after only one year.

Accountability in education refers to holding school districts, school administrators, educators and students responsible for demonstrating specific academic performance results. Accountability has become a word describing a whole host of educational activity, and is held up as a banner by some and feared by others. Throughout the country, policy makers are moving toward systems designed to reward educators for achievement and punish them for lack of improvement.

Historically, school system reform was guided by “inputs” into the system. Schools were given more resources, more funding, more staffing, and in some cases had added more days to the school year, in an attempt to improve learning outcomes. The focus on inputs did not necessarily lead to noticeable improvements in student achievement.

A paradox remains where low-performing schools are having the most difficult time making significant improvements. As a result, these schools risk losing funding and support they so desperately need to advance. Of course, many people are worried about making such huge funding and support decisions based on a single high-stakes test. Clearly, there are no easy answers to fixing our education system, but accountability and assessment are the current avenues we are taking. When discussing how to improve our educational system, it is important to understand the language and the relevant issues.

School reform can no longer rely mostly on giving schools more resources and more support. Time has shown that inputs have no real impact on student performance. Federal edicts, such as NCLB have enforced protocols based on standards, testing, and accountability. These standards emphasize performance objectives and require high levels of accountability from educators.

The required reforms, particularly those which impose sanctions similar to those imposed by NCLB, often create much stress and anxiety. Many educators ask whether it is fair to hold schools accountable for student achievement. And, even if it is “fair,” how are we to measure such achievement? What testing and evaluation formulas will be used? The answers to questions like this are not easy. Obviously, achievement can only be guaranteed if we assess it in some way. However, current assessment models are flawed.

Research suggests that standards and accountability may improve learning for some disadvantaged students, particularly those with disabilities. When some schools implement accountability guidelines, they promote an environment of increased collaboration among educators and create an environment where teachers expect all students to perform well academically, which in turn encourages better learning outcomes.

Some countries have been able to show effective and useful outcomes based on their use of certain accountability policies. However, American policy-makers and researchers still do not have any real evidence that these latest accountability reforms are working to improve outcomes for the vast majority of students.

Conversations around school accountability have been polarized. Politicians and parents often want to hold schools and teachers completely responsible for student achievement. Teachers point to disinterested students and uninvolved parents, saying that there is only so much they can do. But studies have shown that if teachers and students work together, and schools hold themselves accountable, great strides can be made. Open discussions of accountability and standards bring us to a place where schools are performing better and our children are learning. This is what the American education system should focus its attention and resources on. Then and only then can we make substantial progress in our quest to close the achievement gap.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Posted on

The Real Purpose of Assessments in Education

Assessment is a key part of today’s educational system. Assessment serves as an individual evaluation system, and as a way to compare performance across a spectrum and across populations. However, with so many different kinds of assessments for so many different organizations available (and often required) these days, it can sometimes be hard to keep the real purpose of assessing in view. So, what’s really at the heart of all these assessments?

The purpose of assessment is to gather relevant information about student performance or progress, or to determine student interests to make judgments about their learning process. After receiving this information, teachers can reflect on each student’s level of achievement, as well as on specific inclinations of the group, to customize their teaching plans.

Continuous assessment provides day-to-day feedback about the learning and teaching process. Assessment can reinforce the efficacy of teaching and learning. It also encourages the understanding of teaching as a formative process that evolves over time with feedback and input from students. This creates good classroom rapport. Student assessments are necessary because:

  • Throughout a lesson or unit, the teacher might want to check for understanding by using a formative assessment.
  • Students who are experiencing difficulties in learning may benefit from the administration of a diagnostic test, which will be able to detect learning issues such as reading comprehension problems, an inability to remember written or spoken words, hearing or speech difficulties, and problems with hand–eye coordination.
  • Students generally complete a summative assessment after completing the study of a topic. The teacher can determine their level of achievement and provide them with feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. For students who didn’t master the topic or skill, teachers can use data from the assessment to create a plan for remediation.
  • Teachers may also want to use informal assessment techniques. Using self-assessment, students express what they think about their learning process and what they should work on. Using peer assessment, students get information from their classmates about what areas they should revise and what areas they’re good at.

Some standardized assessment procedures are designed to compare the academic achievement of students from different schools, states, nationwide or worldwide. For example:

  • The Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was administered to random samples of fourth graders in 36 countries and eighth graders in 48 countries.
  • The Program for International Student Achievement (PISA) was last administered in 2012. It tests functional skills in reading, math, and science on a 3-year cycle. American students scored below the international average on the last test.
  • Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) focuses on reading comprehension on a 5-year cycle. It was last administered in 2011.
    Before you administer an assessment, be sure you understand what its purpose is. What is it testing? Who is it testing? What entity will the results be reported to? Understanding the makeup of each assessment you give will help you better prepare your students to match up to it.
Posted on

Important Ways Assessment in the Classroom Impacts Testing and Curriculum

Assessment has become a central part of education. While lifelong learning should always be the main focus of a classroom, the pervasive knowledge that at some point, there will be testing, from the local scale to the national, has also become a backdrop in curriculum development.

Standardized testing has long been part of the K–12 scene, but since the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, student results have been used by the federal and state governments to determine the level of funding schools receive. The salaries and job security of teachers and administrators are also determined, at least in part, by the results of student achievement on standardized tests. As a result, a “teaching to the test” mentality has emerged in public schools throughout the country. The benefit to curriculum and lesson plans that focus heavily on anticipated test material is that a core standard for all students is established. The particular skills that are deemed most important are targeted, providing a blueprint for what students throughout the country should be learning.

The Center for Public Education, however, notes that the pitfalls of basing curriculum and in-class lessons on standardized testing are wide-ranging. When a narrow scope is applied to what is taught in K–12 classrooms, other valuable lessons are excluded. There is also the issue of spending too much time prepping for the test itself and learning test-taking skills during time that could be devoted to broadening an actual knowledge base.

In a best-case scenario, individual schools would base curriculum and instruction decisions on the performance of their particular student body on standardized testing. This does not mean excluding information that is relevant but may not appear in a multiple-choice format; it means taking a look at the broader areas where a student population suffers and finding ways to strengthen them. If a school or district sees lower math scores than average, it should consider that a sign that stronger math initiatives need to take place across the board. As such, standardized testing should be seen as an aid in curriculum development and modification, but not the entire teaching plan.

Figuring out how to make assessment and curriculum work synergistically is still a work in progress. As an educator, it will be a responsibility of yours to be a part of the effort. Talk to the other teachers in your district to see what’s working and what’s not. Put ideas to the test, and keep honing in on what yields the best results for your students.

Posted on

Should we grade teachers on student performance?

Should teachers be judged on student performance? Is it a fair assessment of their skills as educators?

A recent study published in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis is the latest in a number of forms of research that cast doubt on whether it is feasible for states to evaluate teachers based partially on student test scores.  Research shows us that little to no correlation between high quality teaching and the appraisals these teachers are given.

We have seen a sharp rise in the number of states that have turned to teacher-evaluation systems based on student test scores. The rapid implementation has been fueled by the Obama administration making the teacher-evaluation system mandatory for states who want to receive the Race to the Top grant money or receive a waiver from the 2002 federal education act, No Child Left Behind.  Already the District of Columbia and thirty-five states have placed student achievement as a significant portion in teacher evaluations.  Only 10 states don’t necessitate student test scores to be factored into teacher evaluations.

Many states also use VAMs, or value-added models, which are algorithms to uncover how much teachers contribute to student learning while keeping constant factors such as demographics in mind.

These teacher-evaluation systems have drummed up controversy and even legal challenges in states like Texas, Tennessee and Florida when educators were assessed using test scores of students they never taught.

Just last month, the American Statistical Association urged states and school districts against VAM systems to make personnel decisions.  Recent studies have found that teachers are responsible for up to 14 percent of a student’s test score, in combination with other factors.

In my opinion, we need to make sure students are exposed to high quality teachers. But is it fair to subject teachers to tough standards based on how students test? I do not believe so, especially in underprivileged areas.  If we continue to scrutinize teachers with these types of stressful evaluations, it will only discourage teachers from taking jobs in urban and minority schools – perhaps where they are needed the very most.

Posted on

The Future of K-12 Assessment

Many educators view standardized testing as a necessary evil of the improvement process. More cynical educators view it as a completely useless process that is never a true indicator of what students actually know. Proponents of K-12 assessments say that without them, there is no adequate way to enforce educator accountability.

Love it or hate it, K-12 standardized testing is not going away. It is just changing.

The No Child Left Behind Act uses standardized testing results to determine progress and outline areas for improvement in K-12 schools. This standards-based approach to education reform has often been attacked for its disconnection with what kids should really know and what they are simply required to regurgitate for the sake of a test.

The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education released a report in March that outlined steps needed to make K-12 assessments vehicles “providing timely and valuable information” to both students and educators. Among the recommendations made by the 30-member commission was a permanent council to evaluate standardized testing be created. The report also calls for a 10-year research study intended to strengthen “the capacity of the U.S. assessment enterprise.” The Gordon Commission Report admits that the assessments of the future are not yet in existence but that their creation needs to begin now.

Commission chairman Dr. Edmund W. Gordon said:

“Technologies have empowered individuals in multiple ways — enabling them to express themselves, gather information easily, make informed choices, and organize themselves into networks for a variety of purposes. New assessments — both external and internal to classroom use — must fit into this landscape of the future.”

Based on the report, and what we know as educators, what do future standardized tests need to include to be successful in an increasingly digital classroom?

  • More assessment of HOW to obtain knowledge. Dr. Gordon touched on this point when he mentioned access to information and networking. There is more information available than can ever possibly be processed, so the way that this and future generations of students make informed decisions matters more than ever. Assessments of the future will need to ask more questions about the how of knowledge and not just focus on the what.
  • Higher levels of digital access. All facets of education are being impacted by the rapid evolution of technology and assessments are not immune. Not only should educators be able to tap into digital resources for assessment preparation, but students should be able to take assessments using the technology that makes them most comfortable. Filling in bubbles with number two pencils needs to become an assessment relic, replaced by convenient, streamlined technology options.
  • More critical thinking options. This goes hand-in-hand with how to obtain knowledge, but takes it a step further. Everyone can agree that applied knowledge is crucial to the learning process so standardized tests need to do better when measuring it. Every child needs to be able to articulate what he or she knows, not just repeat it.

Assessments in K-12 learning are sure to change in the next five years, and beyond, in order to adapt to changing classrooms. There will never be a perfect formula for assessment, but educators should never tire trying to make standardized testing as applicable and helpful as possible.

What changes would you like to see in K-12 assessments?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

Posted on

Eliminating tests through continual assessment

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Leslie Tyler

“Common Core was such a good idea,” remarked a middle school administrator I recently spoke with. “But then the testing ruined it.”

Educators have been working on the transition to the new Common Core State Standards over the past 4-5 years. But last year’s final implementation step – administering the standardized tests meant to ascertain whether students met the more rigorous standards – has caused enough controversy to undo that work, overturning the standards themselves in some states. To date, at least 10 states have abandoned Common Core or have announced intentions to do so. President Obama concurred with the test critics, saying, “Learning is about so much more than just filling in the right bubble. So we’re going to… make sure that we’re not obsessing about testing.’’

So what went wrong? Besides the wholesale change in the test content and delivery, the primary mistake was placing such a large bet on the outcomes. Results could affect federal funding. Teachers and administrators could be fired and “failing” schools taken over or closed. With these types of penalties, testing changed completely from a vital part of teaching and learning into a ruler to rap knuckles.

The Upside of Tests

Good teachers have been giving tests for centuries to understand what students know and what they still need to learn. Such so-called “formative” tests vary widely in method and definition – from students’ reflecting on their work to a quiz on last night’s reading – but they nevertheless provide essential information to teachers and students about what to cover next. In fact, recent research shows that formative assessment actually helps students retain what they learn.

While it’s a bit Pollyannaish to propose replacing standardized tests with formative ones, we could eliminate the most negative effects by doing more formative assessment. Following are some of the biggest testing pain points and ways to alleviate them through low-stakes, continual assessment:

  1. Too much time away from teaching

In a survey of the Edulastic community last summer, we found that educators’ top concern with the new tests was the time required of students: 70% were somewhat or very concerned about it. Unlike formative assessments, which provide immediate data on understanding so that teachers can adjust instruction, educators do not get results from standardized tests until it’s too late to do anything about them. A recent study on testing released by the Council of the Great City Schools found that 39% of school districts had to wait 2-4 months to get test results, often not arriving until after school was out for the year.

  1. Increased anxiety for students and teachers

Having just one chance to show what you know, with stiff penalties for failure, increases anxiety for teachers and students. In contrast, formative techniques like pre-tests and post-tests help students focus on and practice the most important concepts. Continual assessment reduces anxiety because it’s designed to reveal what a student has learned and has yet to learn, as opposed to whether the student has succeeded or failed.

  1. Lack of reliable data on mastery or progress

Perhaps the most discouraging thing about our current standardized testing scheme is the scarcity of data it produces on student learning. Continual formative assessment produces thousands of time-series data points, allowing educators to say with confidence that a student has mastered a standard or skill. To get this level of confidence from a single, comprehensive test, students would need to answer dozens of questions for each standard, requiring hours of testing (see pain point #1).

Clearing Roadblocks to Change

Historically, standardized tests aimed to easily compare student performance (and by proxy teacher competency). Unfortunately, they are simply inadequate for this task. But how might we answer vital questions like, “How are our schools doing?” and “What do we need to adjust?”

To answer these questions at all levels – from individual students to whole states – we need more formative assessment practice and better data collection systems. Many teachers and schools already make formative and common assessments part of their curriculum. Grade level teachers review results together to figure out what’s working and what needs to be revised or redone. We need more support for this type of professional development, including training on how to assess well and interpret results, time for peer learning in PLCs (professional learning communities), and promotion of best practices in assessment and data analysis.

Second, we need better, more standardized data collection systems. Providing teachers banks of high-quality assessment items to include in their continual assessment mix will yield comparative data on student performance while promoting learning. Aligning teacher-created formative assessments with standards allows for standardized data collection – instead of standardized tests – to exponentially expand the number of data points available on student proficiency.

We’re at an inflection point with our approach to testing and measurement. Educators have better research, technology and data tools available to create a new, more efficient system of comprehensive assessment. If we can’t eliminate standardized tests, we can at least reduce their downside. And spend the time and money saved on assessment practices that promote learning and get us closer to the answer to “How are we doing?”

Leslie Tyler is a Vice President of Marketing at Edulastic, a platform for personalized formative assessment for K-12 students and school districts.