Most of what you’ve heard (or will hear tonight) about testing, or “Quality Core” assessments and the amount of time being consumed by it is completely and demonstrably wrong. In fact, testing has replaced nearly all instruction at the elementary levels, including even one of Dr. Wardynski’s favorite activities: Physical Education.

At the beginning of April, Dr. McNeal offered the following report on the amount of time that would be spent at the end of the year on testing. Her claim that evening was that all the assessments that the district would be engaged in over the coming month and a half would amount to absolutely no more than 8% of a student’s time.

If you’d like to watch her presentation, you may view it below:

If you’d prefer the transcription, you may read their discussion below:

Dr. McNeal: Evening. Uh, we’ve talked about this last board meeting about the assessment cycle because we’re beginning to enter it. And many questions have been asked about how, of all these tests, these tests we’re giving, how, how much time does it take each student at a different level of the instructional time that we have during the spring.

So, if you look, we’re already testing right now. We’re doing the ACCESS, and the alternative assessment will start April the 15th. Then we move on to ACT Quality Core. We’re giving 12 of those. Uh, we’re participating in the ACT Aspire in grades 3-10. That is a pilot. It is going to be, it’s going to be recommended to the state board our new ARMT test. We are part of the pilot, so all of our students in grades 3 through 10 will be participating. In, by the way, ACT end of course and Aspire are online. So they will be taking it with their individual computer.

We have AP exams going on. And then we have our STAR test. And then finally, at the very end, in grades 3 through 8, we have the Alabama Reading Math test, which is the plus version now. And this will be its very last year.

Dr. Wardynski: Cathy if I could just chime in here for a minute? So the ACT Quality Core Course Assessments are new this year. Um, the state is bringing those on over a few years. We’ve brought them all on at once. The reason we’re doing that is for a variety of reasons, most important is we will now have formative information throughout the year of how our students are doing in key subject matter areas in secondary education. The STAR assessments have been very helpful to us in primary education with regard to reading and math. Um, but when you get into Biology, Chemistry, History, there really is nothing there that is aligned with what the country’s doing, what our kids need to be prepared to do. And it gives us insight well ahead of that final test. With the quality core, we have formative assessments we can give to know if we’re on track for the children to be successful so we can make course corrections. Uh, the quality core assessments are aligned with where our country’s headed, which is college and career ready [AKA: Common Core].

Um, we have a waiver from our state that allows our students, if they pass these assessments, they will get a high school diploma, even if uh, and they don’t have to take the high school graduation exam other than for the simple purpose of No Child Left Behind, um, meeting those requirements.

So our kids now have two ways to get a high school diploma. They can take the high school graduation exam and pass, or they can take the ACT Quality Core exam and pass. [Ed. Note: His use of the word “or” implies that students can choose. They cannot. The district is requiring that students take both exams this year.] And, um, with the Quality Core exam we get a lot more insight on how prepared they are for college, and how well we’re doing as educators to get them ready. [Again, note the dual justification. The second one is actually the main one.] And so that’s a new battery of assessments. Um, our teachers have been going through the training all year long for this. Um, a lot of work going on there.

Dr. McNeal: Um, the Aspire test is a pilot, but we will be getting individual student responses back similar to the end of course that we can use for next year. So, we’re not paying one penny for that pilot, yet we will be getting data on each end of the, sort of like each end of course for grades 3 through 10. That will provide us additional data per student. It’s quite valuable data for us as instructional leaders. [Ed. Note: She doesn’t explain or offer evidence supporting this claim.]

Dr. Wardynski: If I could just add one comment there: If you’ll notice three letters sort of dominate: A. C. T. And ACT is sort of the benchmark for getting into a college. College’s use that to understand if a child is going to be prepared to be successful in their first year of college education. Our goal is for our students to leave here ready to go to college, if that’s their choice, and not need remediation the first year. It’s a state goal as well. And so, lining things up with ACT is that sort of alignment we’re after. So, ACT test to get into college. ACT Quality Core Curriculum in secondary education will line up with that to prepare our kids. ACT Aspire program to replace Alabama Reading Math Test to prepare our kids in those early years for the quality core, and for the ACT assessment. So, things are really starting to line up. And this is critical because there are still discussions in some quarters of our state about the common core, about things that originate outside Alabama. Uh, and if we make any move away from this, we’re going to be making a move away from preparing our kids to enter college and succeed that first year. Everything is now lining up. Uh, education across our country is lining up with a target, and we don’t want to deviate from that.

Dr. McNeal: Well, in looking at how much time we’re taking for these assessments, I looked at grades 3 through 8. We have 24 days between April 22 and May 23 so that’s actually 168 learning opportunities or classes. So if I take a typical 3rd grader through 7th grader, they take the ARMT test, which is really a four-day test, so that’s taking 8 periods. They take the ASPIRE which is a one day test lasts two and a half hours, which is three periods. Then they’ll take the STAR reading and math formative assessment at the end. And they, at the most, take 45 minutes, from the average for us it takes 20. So we’ll say 2 periods. So, basically of those 168 learning opportunities, assessment only has taken 7.7% of that time. So all the other times we’re still having learning opportunities toward May 23rd. Because actually this year is the first time where the ARMT assessment will be right up to the very end.

Dr. Wardynski: Of worth noting is, of that 7.7% of that time available for student education, the majority of it is taken up by something that’s going away called ARMT.

Dr. McNeal: Yes.

Dr. Wardynski: The new assessments take much less time.

Dr. McNeal: Um, an 8th grader is a little bit different because some of our 8th grade students this year will be taking ARMT. If they’re taking algebra or geometry, we have quite a few taking algebra I, they will also be taking the end of course for the ACT this year. So we will have end of course testing for 8th grade. So that takes about another 1% of their time, so if you’re an 8th grader and taking algebra I, basically about 8.8% of your time will be spent in assessment between those 168 learning opportunities.

And when we look at high school, high school, the last week of school is their exams this year. And uh, so we high school really leaves the learning opportunities May 17th and they go to exam periods. So when I look at a 9th to 10th grader who is taking the ACT, taking two end of course tests, they’re going to take the pilot, the Aspire pilot, if you’re in 9th or 10th grade because our 9th to 10th graders will also be taking the pilot. They’ll take the STAR test, and basically that’s 7% of the 9th and 10th graders’ time. And most likely, about two, an English and a math course test is what they would take in 9th or 10th grade.

Now when you move on to the 11th or 12th graders, they might have for example, they’ll take the ACT end of course, in this case I showed an example of someone taking the end of course for history and English, but taking an AP math test. Just one math. So that’s a math, history and an English, so that’s about still 7%. But if they’re taking two APs and two end of courses, that’s only 8% of their time. So you can see when we’re looking at the end of course, it takes roughly one day, two 45 minute periods and it will be online, and they’ll take 45 minutes, 10 minute break, take the next 45 minutes. It’s over with, so it takes roughly 3 periods only to take the end of course. And if you’re taking, 3 times 2 would only take up to, uh, 6 of the hours for a 2 day period.

So you can see that we’re not, the most we’re taking is 8.8 times for a . . . The one that is taking the, the 8th graders who is taking algebra I will probably be the one student taking the, spending the most time in assessment. And there are, so in high school, if you’re taking in 3 AP courses you’re not going to be taking an end of course test. This year, you’re not taking both. This year if you’re taking AP English, you won’t be taking the end of course test because you’ll be taking the AP English.

So you see, the idea that our students are spending a solid month to even six weeks testing is just wrong, according to the district.

Only 8% of the instructional time is dedicated to testing.

Except that it’s actually far, far more than that.

This Ain’t a Perfect Testing World

All of those estimates are based on the best possible scenario. When, even once this year, has the best possible scenario taken place when computers were involved?

Exactly.

This 8% doesn’t take into account students not being able to get online because the network just can’t handle the load.

This 8% doesn’t take into account students who aren’t even testing being ordered to turn off their computers to free up bandwidth for those who are testing.

This 8% doesn’t come close to a real world experience.

Ask your kids: What, other than test, have you done for the past three or four weeks?

There’s your actual estimate. Other than perhaps lunch, no one in this district has done anything other than test (or specifically cram for the test) for the past four weeks.

Six and a Half Months of School

Instead of 8%, of the remained of the school year, that number is far closer to 100%. If you want to look at the entire school year, then you come to the number that excluding the STAR test (which some of our students are taking weekly), the vast majority of our students are spending close to 12% of the year taking standardized tests.

Combine this number with the at three weeks of instructional time lost to computer issues, and the STAR taking up to 30 minutes a day (or again nearly three weeks) for some students test and suddenly a 9 month school year is far closer to 6 and a half months.

And that, again, is the best possible scenario.

ACT Failures

Remember when Wardynski was singing the praises of A.C.T.? He said:

If you’ll notice three letters sort of dominate: A. C. T. And ACT is sort of the benchmark for getting into a college.

Well it seems that ACT has been having a horrible month all over the nation. In Kentucky, Indiana, Minnesota and Oklahoma, “computer glitches” have caused a derailment of testing.

Guess what? Those same issues caused problems here in Alabama as well.

The Alabama State Board of Education voted on April 11th to adopt the ACT Aspire test as a replacement for the ARMT+ testing claiming that ACT Aspire was “fully aligned” with the common core. (It seems that they’ve forgotten the plus sign at the end of ARMT+. That plus sign was supposed to indicate that ARMT was also now “fully aligned” with the common core as well. If there’s one thing you should take away from this is that common core has certainly introduced a proclivity to change our assessments at the drop of a pencil.)

Despite Wardynski’s and McNeal’s claims that the ACT Aspire would dramatically reduce testing time, the exact opposite has taken place.

Over the past few weeks, schools all over the district were scheduled to take the ACT Aspire as a trial run for when it will become the standard next year. McNeal claimed that this test was a “one day test lasting two and a half hours.”

I do not know of a single classroom that was able to complete the Aspire test in this amount of time. When students first began taking this test two weeks ago in fact, entire classes would sit in either computer labs (because the 3rd grade netbooks are garbage), or in their classrooms taking turns attempting to log-on and take the assessment.

At the end of the day, on average, about half of a class might have been successful in taking the exam.

Wardynski talked about this a bit during the May 2nd board meeting:

And I heard some, I think we got some twitter stuff. Some stuff on Facebook about, we heard, you know testing is taking longer than expected.

So, the way Dr. Wardynski hears about testing abnormalities is via Twitter and Facebook? I guess his plan to keep all negative news from reaching his ears has worked fairly well, huh. Not one director, principal or teacher picked up a phone to let him know that it was taking twice and three times as long? Not one director, principal or teacher called him to let him know that entire grades were not able to actually take the test at all?

It’s a good thing the board decided to leave the communication goal out of his evaluation last year, isn’t it?

But since he’s at least hearing it on the internets, let’s see what his response to it taking longer than expected was.

So what does the testing look like?

Wait, what? I don’t think that was the actual question, Dr. Wardynski.

Well the students do it one their laptop. Uh, there’s a piece of software that’s deployed to the laptop by ACT corporation called VanGuard.

That’s right, ACT has access to your child’s school laptop.

VanGuard is designed to lock down the environment so we’re not doing scree shots. And we’re not emailing them to our buddies. We’re not texting answers around, any of that. The dom, the environment’s locked down for testing. And um, VanGuard is controlled by ACT. Well we have very bright students. And some students figured out how to penetrate through VanGuard.

He said this with a big, proud grin on his face.

And we alerted ACT, and that led to some delays and some people gathering on airplanes to come down here and stuff like that. Uh, and uh, that’s all part of the teething pains. ACT’s teething pains. Uh, on our end our students take about 45 minutes to take the first component. They get a ten minute break. Take another 45 minutes. If they have a computer glitch, they get a re, they get an adjustment, and um if they have a total problem, they get a chance to make up. Now this year, we’re doing this ahead of the state. Um, so that gave us the option of doing it the way we wanted to do it. So for students taking these exams, if they have a complete disaster for some reason, they have a bad day, whatever, um, there’s no negative consequence.

Remember, Dr. Wardynski thought that there were “no negative consequences” from

1. Students wasting educational time due to ACT’s failure to create a secure testing environment.
2. Students hacking into the a secure testing environment.
3. Students as young as 3rd grade sitting in a computer lab all day while teachers run around, under threat of their certification being revoked, attempting to fix computer issues while making sure that the students are primed to take a test.

This is what he means by “gave us the option of doing it the way we wanted to do it,” I suppose.

This is what he had to say about ACT Aspire testing on Thursday, May 2, 2013.

My daughter, after a long week of ARMT+ testing from Monday, May 6th through Thursday, May 9th, was for some insane reason, scheduled to re-take the ACT Aspire test on Friday, May 10th.

Hopefully all of the testing issues with our world class student hackers had been resolved a week after Dr. Wardynski claimed that they were fixed on Thursday, May 2nd.

Except that test that’s supposed to just take, according to Dr. McNeal, “two and a half hours” actually took six.

That’s right, a week after Wardynski had fixed everything the half a day test still took an entire day.

We really should just start doubling and tripling every cost estimate that Wardynski offers us.

Negative Consequences for Student Learning

What are the negative consequences for students? For starters, there’s significantly less time for a teacher, in a class of 27 third graders, to actually teach. As a result, subjects like science, social studies, history, art, music, and even physical education are shoved aside so that the subjects being tested most often are stressed most often in class.

During the week of testing from May 6th to the 10th, no third grader in my daughter’s school even had time for PE.

Yep, even in Alabama, where sports are God, we cancel PE in service to the test.

It’s time to bring this insanity to an end.

It’s time to opt out and return teaching to our schools.

The post Canceling PE In Favor of Testing appeared first on Geek Palaver.

For the past month, I’ve been discussing opting out of the final STAR Enterprise assessment of the year with both my daughter’s principal and later with Dr. Cathy McNeal, whose title is Director of Research and Development but who is really is the new director of testing in the district. It hasn’t been a fun, or even a particularly polite (on the part of Dr. McNeal) discussion, but it has been eye-opening to see the level of disdain that our district has for parents who dare to ask questions about district practices.

It isn’t just the superintendent who refuses to have discussions with parents; he’s passed this practice on down to his district staff as well. In the end, thanks to a principal caring more about the students than a “policy,” we were able to get things resolved.

Here’s the story so far.

On March 30th, I wrote a post about the cheating scandals in Atlanta and pointed out how we’re ripe for just a scandal here.

WAFF contacted me on Tuesday of that week wanting to do a story about potential cheating here in Huntsville. I was told that the district was refusing to discuss the possibility, and that they wanted to run a story about it anyway.

I agreed to be interviewed about the possibility of cheating, and the end result of the interview was that the district made Lee Simmons a “curriculum specialist” with ties to Westlawn and the “phenomenal” growth there available to be interviewed. She claimed that cheating on the STAR test was “virtually impossible,” as there would be 30 different screens with 30 different questions all at the same time.

Except, of course, that doesn’t make cheating “virtually impossible” at all. All a teacher needs to do to improve STAR test scores in her classroom is assist the weakest student with the test, or, as has been documented, give the student the same test, every week, until they begin to improve.

Ms. Simmons seems to be a dedicated teacher, but she’s incorrect when she claims that cheating or modifying scores is “virtually impossible.” There are dozens of ways it could be done.

This is one of the reasons why I decided it was time for my child to opt out.

Opt Out: Start With The Principal

I like and appreciate Dr. Summerville. Overall, I believe that she has done a good job in an impossible situation, and it would seem that the Alabama PTA agrees as she was just named Principal of the Year.

As I know that teachers have absolutely no input or control on what assessments occur in their rooms any more (and this is just the beginning of the issue, isn’t it?), I went to Dr. Summerville to discuss my daughter opting out of the fourth time she’s taken the STAR Enterprise tests this year. That’s right, my girl, just like every other child in this district, has taken the STAR test three times already. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15% of the students in the district take the STAR test every single week until they begin to show improvement on the test.

And that’s another issue that I have with this test. Rather than spending more time reading and working harder on understanding mathematical concepts, the district’s solution to a student who doesn’t show enough “growth” on the STAR test is to give that student the STAR test again.

And again.

And again.

We’ve been in school for about 28 weeks so far. Some of our students, the students who need the most help and assistance with the reading and math, have taken at least part of the STAR test each week during those 28 weeks.

We test until the results are where the superintendent wants them to be because that’s his understanding of what education is all about.

I’m sorry, but how, exactly, does this benefit the child who is struggling? How does it benefit the child who isn’t struggling when the teacher’s attention is entirely focused on administering a test to a group of students for the 15th time?

And so I asked that my daughter be allowed to opt out of the final STAR Enterprise assessment of the year because it is not improving her educational experience.

I was informed by Dr. Summerville, in a generous and caring way I might add, that she had been informed that this was not a possibility.

As our principals now have nearly as little influence on the direction of their schools as our teachers do on the direction of their classrooms, I thanked Dr. Summerville for her time and took my case to the person who said no: Dr. Cathy McNeal.

Opt Out: The District “Responds”

After informing Dr. Summerville that I would pursue this discussion with the district, I emailed Dr. McNeal to ask her to allow my daughter to opt out of the final STAR Enterprise test.

On April 9th, I wrote Dr. McNeal expressing my concerns with my daughter taking the STAR Enterprise test:

Dr. McNeal,

I’m Russell Winn. As I suspect you are aware, I have recently met with Dr. Summerville, my daughter’s principal at Mt. Gap, to request that she be allowed to opt out of the final STAR Enterprises test of the year. I have been told that this is not possible, but I have not received any justification for this position which disregards parental concerns over the education of a child.

I am requesting that my daughter be allowed to opt out for the following reasons:

As far as I have been able to determine, there is zero educational benefit to [my daughter] in taking this test again as she has taken it at least three times already this year (not counting the time that has been spent preparing her for this exam). I still hold this view despite speaking with Dr. Summerville for over an hour on Monday about this. In fact, I am now even more convinced that my daughter is not benefiting educationally from taking this test.

Thus, I am again asking that my daughter not waste her time taking the STAR Enterprise test any further this year, and I am requesting an explanation of your decision to exclude parental wishes from the educational process.

I would appreciate receiving this information in writing from you, but I am also willing to meet with you if you so desire.

My daughter is currently scheduled to take the STAR test during the week of April 29 – May 3 [The test has been moved up to April 24-25 due to a test scheduling issue. Yes, we test so often at the end of the school year that we have difficulty scheduling everything]. I would appreciate reaching some resolution on this matter before that time.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Russell Winn
256-457-2887

On April 10th, which was a fairly rapid response for someone working in the central office, Dr. McNeal responded:

The Alabama State Department of Education prescribed that a formative assessment be administered in all schools and school districts during the 2012-13 school year. The formative assessment is relevant in assessing students and preparing them for Alabama’s College- and Career-Ready Standards in Kindergarten through Grade 12. The STAR Enterprise formative assessment platform is a valid measurement of the curriculum and provides a pacing guide for each individual student’s learning progression. Opting out of the mandated curriculum is not a choice.

Cathy C. McNeal, Ed.D.
Director, Research and Development
Huntsville City Schools
256 428 6966
mary.mcneal@hsv-k12.org

Notice, the district’s first response to my request for my daughter to opt out was to blame the Alabama State Department of Education, and to imply that ALSDE required that students take the STAR test as the formative assessment that the teacher and district uses to determine where a student is as the school year progresses.

Formative/Summative Assessment

There are two basic types of assessment that teachers use. Both are useful and important to determining a student’s mastery of the material. The kind that most of us are familiar with is known as Summative Assessment. This is the test that is given once instruction has ended to determine mastery of the material. Formative Assessments are given before instruction on the material has ended to see if the student is mastering the material.

Think of the two like this:

Summative assessment is the spelling test that is given on the spelling words at the end of the week. The teacher gives out words at the beginning of the week for the student to learn to spell. The test on Friday where the teacher calls out a word, and the student writes the word (spelling it correctly) on a sheet a paper is a summative assessment. If the student spells the word correctly, they pass.

Formative assessment in this scenario would be the homework that a teacher gives to the student to assist learning the words before the summative assessment on Friday. Let’s say that the teacher assigns the students sentences to write with the spelling words for homework. When the student turns in that homework the next day, the teacher can assess formatively how well the student understands the word and whether or not the student is learning to spell the word correctly. The homework may, or may not, be graded. The purpose of a formative assessment is to inform the teacher how well the student is mastering the material. If a student is struggling on a formative assessment, ideally, the teacher will notice and adjust her or his instruction to assist that child in mastering the material before the summative assessment is given on Friday.

I say ideally for one reason: in a classroom with 27 third graders, one teacher has a difficult time individualizing instruction to keep both the student who is mastering the words and the student who is not engaged.

Nothing can be individualized 27 times.

And a standardized test, like the STAR Enterprise test, is the exact opposite of individualized instruction.

Sure it shows that the student is reading on a 9th grade or 2nd grade level, but when one teacher has a class of 27 students all reading at different levels as varied as seven separate grades, where is most of the attention going to go?

It’s going to go to the student reading below grade level because that’s how the teacher is being evaluated: by the weakest student in the class.

And will the teacher be allowed to use her training and expertise to help that struggling student? No. There just isn’t time because the student has to take the STAR test again at the end of the week.

Passing the Buck

You’re starting to notice a pattern here, aren’t you? No one wants to take responsibility for telling a parent, especially a parent who is such a trouble-maker like me, no. So, let’s blame the other guy.

Dr. McNeal, following Dr. Wardynski’s lead on April 4th decided to call the STAR Enterprise test a “state mandated test.” She, like Dr. Wardynski before her, has absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

Here’ s what the superintendent had to say about me and the STAR test on the 4th:

First, there’s what I would call idol debate. Um, there’s a “watchdog” apparently who thinks we shouldn’t do STAR testing. We don’t have a choice. Formative testing is part of the state now. You’re either going to do GlobalScholar or some other formative assessment. And we do STAR. We like it best. But if we weren’t doing STAR, we’d be doing GlobalScholar or something else. A debate about formative assessment’s not even a debate.

You may watch his comments below:

The superintendent likes to make claims that sound good, but for which he offers no evidence, and which, as it turns out, simply aren’t true.

Yes, the state does what districts to perform formative assessment. That’s completely true. Guess what, that’s been completely true since long before the superintendent even knew that he wanted to be a superintendent.

As I explained above, formative assessment can be as specific as a homework assignment.

What the state does not require, despite Wardynski’s claims to the contrary, is standardized formative testing. Neither does the state require the use of STAR Enterprise’s tests.

The state might require this at some point in the future, but it is not required now. Either our superintendent doesn’t know what he’s talking about (which is highly possible), or he was exaggerating what is currently required by the state.

Here’s a copy of a memo that was posted to the ALSDE site in September 10, 2010 that lists the requirements that a local district (LEA) should follow if, and only if the local districts chooses to administer formative testing like the STAR Enterprise test. At the writing of this memo, the state does not require formative testing such as the STAR test.

Since much changes in two and a half years, is there anything more current than this on the ALSDE site? Why yes, there is. On July 31, 2012, Dr. Sherill Parris issued another memo about formative, interim, and benchmark assessment. It is, in fact, the only official mention of formative, interim and benchmark assessment on the site that is in a directive format. The memo is entitled: Statewide Formative Assessment, and the opening paragraph reads:

Most, if not all, of you have heard that the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) will be providing a statewide option for formative, interim, and benchmark assessments beginning August 2012. Through a rigorous, competitive application process, GlobalScholar, Inc, was determined to best fit the needs of what our state is attempting to accomplish.

You’ll note the use of the word “option” in this paragraph. And you’ll notice the complete absence of any indication that formative assessment is now a state requirement. Guess what, if you bother to read the totality of the memo, not once will you find any indication that the state currently requires local districts to perform formative assessments.

(Oh, and this is a thought for another time, but can someone explain to me why we’re paying nearly half a million dollars a year to Resnaissance Learning for something that the state would give us for free?)

Finally, if you read your 2012-2013 Student-Parent Handbook, you’ll find on page 21 that the STAR test is listed as a “District mandated” test. It is specifically not listed as a “State mandated” test. The handbook also states:

The HCS Mandated Assessment Program for the school year 2012-13 will include:

Grades: 1-12 STAR Enterprise Math and Reading (3 to 4 benchmarks during the school year) STAR Enterprise Math and Reading Growth percentile will be included as a percentage of the student’s grade each 9 weeks for those students who show growth.

The handbook claims that this is a district mandated test that will be required “3 to 4 benchmarks during the school year.”

The state doesn’t currently require local districts to do formative assessment via a standardized tool such as the STAR Enterprise test. The superintendent and Dr. McNeal are mistaken if and when they claim that the state requires this type of formative assessment.

It’s Time To Opt Out

After all this round about, this “idol debate” as the superintendent likes to claim, I finally  arrived at a few conclusions:

1. The District is not using the STAR Enterprise test to actually perform formative assessment on my daughter. My daughter has show growth in all three of the assessments she took this year, and yet despite the district’s claims in the 2012-2013 Student-Parent Handbook quoted above that the growth percentile “will be included as a percentage of the student’s grade each 9 weeks for those students who show growth,” my daughter’s “growth” has not be included as a percentage of her 9 weeks grade. (In fact, when I asked about this, no one in the district seemed to know this was included in the handbook. Perhaps we should make the district sign the handbook showing that they’ve read it next year.) In other words, there is no evidence that the STAR test is impacting my daughter’s grades.
2. The STAR Enterprise test has not been used to modify my daughter’s education this year. My daughter is in a classroom with 27 other third graders and one teacher. This class was specifically designed to include both higher and lower performing students in the same room so that neither (yep, there are only two 3rd grade classrooms at Mt. Gap despite there having been three 2nd grade classrooms a year ago) third grade teacher has a class of just higher or lower performing students. Even if the district were pushing teachers to actually use the data found in this assessment in any way other than to cut and paste the information onto another report they’re required to fill out, (yes, that is exactly what happens with the report showing what your child “knows”), there would be no physical way a single teacher could individualize instruction for 27 3rd graders in a single class. It is not possible.
3. The STAR Enterprise test’s only purpose is to evaluate teachers, principals, and schools. The test doesn’t exist to help your child. It exists to abuse your child’s teacher. That’s all.

As such, I decided, after talking with my daughter and wife, that our girl should choose to opt out of the fourth and hopefully final STAR Enterprise test of the year.

The District Has Rights Because We Say So

When I informed Dr. McNeal of my decision she wrote (on April 11, 2013) the following:

The Huntsville City School System through its superintendent has the right to mandate tests.

That’s right, Dr. McNeal was convinced that despite my telling her that I do not want my daughter to waste her time taking another test that offers her zero educational benefit, that she would assert the rights of the district and the superintendent to overrule my wishes as my daughter’s parent.

In response to this assertion of district rights, I wrote the following:

I find it interesting that you choose to close by asserting the rights of the district and the superintendent, Dr. McNeal. You may be correct when you claim that “The Huntsville City School System through its superintendent has the right to mandate tests.” You haven’t actually provided any evidence of this, but you may be correct.

However, the rights of the parent to be an active participant or “partner” (as the student-parent handbook calls us), in my child’s educational process, are not subsumed to the rights of the superintendent or the district.

Parental rights take precedence over the superintendent’s rights when it comes to the education of my daughter. He does not have the right to force my daughter do to something that I will not allow her to do, including testing.

Dr. McNeal, I have attempted to address this in a respectful way that acknowledges that you (as a representative of the district) and I are partners in my daughter’s education. I have asked that my daughter be allowed to opt-out of the final STAR benchmark of the year. I have provided with you my reasons and justifications for requesting this. I have followed up by asking for evidence that supports your claims that this is a state mandated test.

You have responded by asserting that the rights of the district outweigh my rights as a parent when it comes to my child’s education.

Are you certain that you do not wish to reconsider this position?

I remain interested in discussing this with you further. If you can offer me a convincing justification that my daughter’s education will benefit from taking this assessment, I will reconsider my position. So far your response has amounted to “because we say so,” and frankly, that response is inadequate.

At the present time, my daughter, XXXXXXXX, does not have permission to participate in the STAR Enterprise reading and math benchmark assessments for the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Russell

Russell Winn
256-457-2887

As I would imagine it is needless to say, Dr. McNeal offered no convincing justification that my daughter’s education would benefit. She would once again simply offer the reasoning that we could not opt-out of the test simply because the district “says so.”

Cutting and Pasting Responses

A week later, I wrote Dr. McNeal back again to see if there had been any change in her opinion concerning my request that my daughter be allowed to opt out of the STAR test that she’s already taken three times.

Rather than engage me in an honest discussion, Dr. McNeal chose to basically cut and paste her response to me from an earlier email assuming, I suppose, that I had not responded to this email once already. So much for being partners with our schools in education.

She wrote, for a second time:

As stated in the original April 10, 2013 e-mail response to this request:

The Alabama State Department of Education prescribed  that a formative assessment be administered in all schools and school districts during the 2012-13 school year.  The formative assessment is relevant in assessing students and preparing them for Alabama’s College- and Career-Ready Standards in Kindergarten through Grade 12.  The STAR Enterprise formative assessment platform is a valid measurement of  the curriculum and provides a pacing guide for each individual student’s learning progression.   Opting out of the mandated curriculum is not a choice.

As stated in the Huntsville City Schools Student Handbook 2012-13 pg. 21 and referred to in your e-mail dated April 11, 2103:

STATE MANDATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2012-2013

The State Mandated Assessment Program for the school year 2012-2013 will include:

Grade(s) Assessment

• 3-8 Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test + (ARMT+)
• 5 & 7 Alabama Science Assessment Grade 5 and Grade 7
• 3-8 & 11 Alabama Alternate Assessment
• 3-12 ACCESS for Limited English Proficient (LEP)
• 8 EXPLORE
• 10 PLAN
• 9-12 Alabama High School Graduation Exam (Fall, Mid Year, Spring, Summer)
  • *No student takes all the tests listed above, nor is all day devoted to testing on the specified number of days.

 The possession of a digital device (including but not limited to cell phones, MP3 players, cameras, or

• other telecommunication devices capable of capturing or relaying information) is strictly prohibited during

the administration of a secure test. If a student is observed in possession of a digital device during the

administration of a secure test, the device will be confiscated.

 If a student is observed using a digital device during the administration of a secure test, testing for the

student will cease, the device will be confiscated and is subject to search, the student will be dismissed

from testing, and the student’s test will be invalidated.

HCS MANDATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2012-13

The HCS Mandated Assessment Program for the school year 2012-13 will include:

Grade(s) Assessment

• 1 – 12 STAR Enterprise Math and Reading (3 to 4 benchmarks during the school year)
  • STAR Enterprise Math and Reading Growth percentile will be included as a percentage of the student’s

grade each 9 weeks for those students that show growth.

• P – 1 STAR Early Literacy (4 benchmarks during the school year)
• 9 – 12 ACT QualityCore End-of-Course Assessment for the following classes:
  • English 9 English 10 English 11 English 12
  • Algebra I Algebra II Geometry PreCalculus
  • Biology Chemistry Physics U.S. History.
  • The QualityCore grade will be included as a percentage of the student’s final grade for the course for

those students that show growth

Cathy C. McNeal, Ed.D.

Director, Research and Development

Huntsville City Schools

256 428 6966

mary.mcneal@hsv-k12.org

Honestly, why would someone even bother cutting a pasting a previous response that had already been debated? But since she did, I wrote her and my daughter’s principal on final time asking them to allow my daughter to opt out of the fourth and hopefully final STAR Enterprise test of the year.

The district is nothing if not repetitive.

It seemed that the question would be decided on the day of testing, which had been scheduled for the week of April 29th.

The School Changes Its Mind About Trumping Parental Rights

When my daughter told me on Friday, April 19th that the school had moved the STAR Enterprise test dates up a week, and that they would happen tomorrow and Thursday rather than next week, I again wrote to my daughter’s principal to confirm.

She chose to respond by calling me back that evening. During our brief and friendly conversation, Dr. Summerville told me that my daughter would be allowed to opt out of the final STAR Enterprise test this year. She didn’t want to “make a big deal about this” and that she didn’t want me to check my girl out of school.

It is decisions like this one that help to explain why she is the PTA Principal of the Year this year. It’s a shame that we don’t have more educators like or (or more educators in general) at the district level. They could learn a lot from watching Dr. Summerville.

So after a month of passing the buck, after a month of the district leadership–including Dr. Wardynski as you saw above–claiming that they don’t have any control over what tests our kids are forced to take by the state, after a month of the district claiming that their rights supersede a parent’s rights to determine what is best for their own child, the school decided to do the right thing.

For this I am grateful. I only wish it hadn’t take so long.

The first STAR test is scheduled to be administered tomorrow with the second to follow on Thursday. I am hopeful that the school will keep its word and not attempt to test my daughter.

The TakeAway

So what does all of this mean for you and your student?

First: I am not suggesting that you opt your child out of any test based solely on my experiences. If you believe that your child is benefitting from taking a test multiple times, then you shouldn’t do a thing. Allow the district to administer the test to your child.

I am not attempting to tell you what is right for your child. I am simply relaying to you the processes that I have followed with this district.

Second: Should you decide that your child should opt out, you cannot take “no” for an answer. They will tell you no. They will tell you that if you keep your child home on testing day, that the test will simply be administered upon their return. They will tell you that the state mandates the test. They will tell you that the district mandates the test. They will tell you that the district’s rights to test your child out weigh your rights and responsibilities as the child’s parent.

Simply put, unless you have been ruled unfit to be the legal guardian of a child, no one has the right to force your child to do anything that you do not wish for your child to do.

Please remember, I am a teacher. I am not a lawyer. If you want or need legal advice, please hire a lawyer. All I am relaying here are what I believe to be true. Now, I am, of course, convinced I’m right on this matter, and I believe that the school has finally agreed to not test my daughter supports that idea. But you should make up your on mind on the matter.

Tomorrow will mark our first step to taking back our schools. The superintendent, the board of education and the district leadership like to believe that this is their school system. Every time Dr. Wardynski makes an executive decision, as he is doing with the rezoning issue, he demonstrates once again that the public doesn’t matter in public schools in his mind.

This is our district, not his. And opting out of this abusive, waste of time test, is a good way to show him this.

The post Parents May Opt Out of Testing appeared first on Geek Palaver.

Picture this. You’re a fly on the wall on Friday morning, and you’re in one of any of our Huntsville City Elementary Schools. As all elementary students (and I hope parents) are aware, Friday tends to be the default testing day in school. It’s the day when students are tested on all the things they learned during the week.

The weekend presents a natural break to the typical elementary schedule. On Mondays and Tuesdays, they learn new stuff. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, they master new stuff. On Friday, they demonstrate that mastery by taking tests. It’s just the way the world works. And so Friday is testing day. It might cover spelling, reading, math, science, grammar, or social studies, and it makes for a busy day on even the best of days.

Plus, it’s Friday. Like the whole rest of the world, our kids are tired and can’t wait for the weekend.

Earlier, in Huntsville City Schools, when a teacher gave a reading test, the class would take out their books, open them, read a passage, and then answer a series of questions about that passage on a piece of paper so the teacher could evaluate their reading comprehension. Perhaps a student or two might need to sharpen their pencils, but otherwise getting ready for the test takes a minimal amount of time. If the test had 20 questions, the total time, start to finish, to administer the test might take 20-25 minutes.

It was a tried and true system that had been honed to a pencil point’s sharpness. It worked.

Fast forward to the present and the wonders of computer-based testing. It’s Friday, and the teacher is getting ready to take that same reading test.

First, all the students have to get their netbooks out, turned on, and booted up. If they followed the suggestions of the district and shut their computers down at least once every night, getting the computers ready for use probably takes about 2-3 minutes. (The beauty of a textbook is that it doesn’t need to be booted to be useful.) While waiting for all 26 of the computers to boot and be ready to use, one student raises her hand. She says, “Ms. Doe? I left my computer at home.” As Ms. Doe moves to help her get set up at the old desktop left in the room, across the room, two more of students raise their hands to say that their batteries only have about 4% remaining on them. Either they forgot to charge them, or the batteries that are now about a year and half old are starting to lose their ability to hold a charge.

Being the master of multitasking (as all teachers are), Ms. Doe asks them to move to the carpet under the smart board and plug in to the outlet there.

Once everyone has a booted computer, Ms. Doe asks them to find the Pearson Reading site. As it’s April, this doesn’t take that long anymore, but at the beginning of the year, it was rather difficult.

You see there isn’t just one single unified Pearson curriculum that you click into on the computers. There’s a site for reading. There’s a site for math. Then there’s a site called Socrative that’s also used for computer-based testing.

Once everyone gets to the proper site, then Ms. Doe has to log-on herself and authorize the test. Usually this is a fairly simple and quick process, but when the entire school is trying to test using Pearson’s site, there are problems. Either the Pearson site cannot handle the load, or the school’s brand new and constantly monitored wireless network can’t.

So the class waits, as patiently as a group of 26 nine and ten year olds can manage, while Ms. Doe attempts to understand if the issue is on the school’s end or on Pearson’s end. Either one is certainly possible.

After about ten minutes, the site begins to work, and now the students have to connect to the test. This involves refreshing their Internet Explorer browser. (For some reason the district has decided that Microsoft’s browser, you know, Gates’ browser, is the only one that students should be allowed to use. It doesn’t matter that the Pearson site opens quicker in Firefox or Chrome, it doesn’t matter that many of the sites that teachers need to use really don’t open in Internet Explorer, that is the only browser allowed to be use on the district’s computers anymore under threat of suspension or even explosion.

Once everyone has a browser that has refreshed showing the available test, the class can finally begin to take the test.

And so, the class who’s patience has already been tested waiting for the system to work, finally begins testing about 25 minutes after they thought they were starting the brief, twenty-question test.

On a good day, that would be the end of the story. The class would complete the test and move on to something else. Perhaps one of the other tests scheduled for the end of the week.

But this wasn’t a good day.

First, one student raises his hand. He’s completed question 14, but for some reason, there’s no button on his screen to click next as there was for the previous 13 questions, and he has no idea how to continue with the test. While she’s working with him, one by one, Ms. Doe begins to be approached by students carrying their netbooks up to her. It seems that the rest of the class is having a similar issue.

Since this happens, oh, nearly every single Friday, Ms. Doe announces that those who are having issues moving forward in the test need to click the save button, close Internet Explorer, and restart the browser.

It seems the new WiFi network that was installed over the summer and that the superintendent has claimed has been “tweaked” ever since has brought all of the testing, on a simple 20 question reading quiz, to a screeching halt.

Literally. When a class of 26 are all stuck during a test, the collective sound is quite similar to a set of faulty brakes on an 18-wheeler, trying to stop at the bottom of Airport Road as it heads to the parkway.

It isn’t pretty.

After everyone in the class has closed their browser, restarted it, connected again to the Pearson site (assuming that the WiFi has stopped hiccuping), they can now get back to the quiz.

Luckily the Pearson people are used to this happening, so most of the class is able to start right back where they left off.

One girl raises her hand to let Ms. Doe know that she can’t go back to the question she was on. She can only go to the question before. So again, Ms. Doe has to work one to one with the student to help her calm down and start over.

When a student believes she’s lost her work, there often follows a fairly panicky few moments for her.

Luckily, there’s a caring human being in the room who can help calm her down so she can continue a quiz that everyone should have finished 15 or 20 minutes earlier.

When the class is able to settle down and continue the test, most of the students restart the test by re-reading the story, after all what was supposed to be a fair quick test is now taking them right up to lunchtime.

They re-start the test, and hopefully this time, they’re able to complete the quiz and see how they did. What should have taken about 20-25 minutes has now taken close to 90 minutes of class time to complete.

I’m sure it’s been a while since many of my readers have taken a test, so let me ask you this: when you really need to concentrate on a project at work, is it helpful or harmful to the quality of that work when the Internet crashes, your computer needs to be restarted, and 25 other nine or ten year-olds are jumping around in your office?

Do you, as an adult, find such an environment helpful?

I didn’t think so.

That’s what placing computers in our classrooms (at a cost of nearly $30 million) has brought us.

That’s what Pearson, HP, and Microsoft have introduced into the classroom.

I’ve asked around, and while this assessment isn’t scientific, the consensus seems to be that it isn’t unusual for a teacher to spend about 30 minutes a day addressing technical issues that our students are facing with the computers.

At 180 days in a school year, 30 minutes a day adds up to a loss of nearly 14 days. That’s almost three weeks of instructional time lost to having our teachers play computer technician.

So that’s what we’ve lost: concentration, money, and time.

What exactly have we gained from the 1:1 digital initiative?

Beginning on April 15th, all of our elementary schools will begin the end of year testing. Every one of them will be taking far more involved tests than a short reading quiz.

And every time the board has asked the superintendent for reassurances that our network will be up to the task of keeping everyone online, his response has been, shall we say, less that reassuring.

It has basically been, “we’ll take care of any issues that we face.”

Hmm, like the district has taken care of network issues that have been on-going since August?

It’s April and we still can’t rely on the computers to take even a simple quiz without interruption.

It’s time to turn them in, not purchase 2,000 more of them as the district approved on Thursday night.

And to those who at the beginning of the said, “We just need to give them time to work out these issues,” it’s April. If it isn’t fixed by now, it isn’t going to be fixed.

The post What The One to One Digital Initiative Really Looks Like appeared first on Geek Palaver.

 The superintendent was known “as a person who got results . . .  and had a strong relationship with the business elite.”

The focus on test scores made the superintendent “a favorite of the national education reform movement.”

“Principals and teachers were frequently told by [the superintendent] and subordinates that excuses for not meeting [testing] targets would not be tolerated.”

“She said teachers were under constant pressure from principals who feared they would be fired if they did not meet the testing targets set by the superintendent.”

“[The superintendent] was known to rule by fear.”

During the superintendent’s tenure, “90 percent of the principals” were replaced.

“Teachers and principals whose students had high test scores received tenure and thousands of dollars in performance bonuses. Otherwise, as one teacher explained, it was ‘low score out the door.’”

One teacher explained a reason she had kept silent so long was that,  ”she could not afford to lose her job.”

The superintendent “was a fearsome presence who would accept no excuses . . . rewarding principals and teachers from schools with high test scores by seating them up front . . . while low scorers were shunted aside to the bleachers.”

The superintendent was also known as someone who was “aloof from parents, teachers and principals. The district spent $100,000 a year for a securitydetail.”

“At public meetings, questions had to be submitted beforehand for screening.”

What made the superintendent “untouchable” were “strong ties to local business leaders.”

A teacher said, “I can’t eat, I can’t sleep, my kids want to talk to me, I ignore them. . . . I don’t have the mental energy.”

All of these quotes were taken from the New York Times article “Ex-Schools Chief in Atlanta Is Indicted in Testing Scandal” published yesterday concerning the indictment of Dr. Beverly L. Hall, superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools during the testing scandal that erupted in September of 2011. According to the article, she was charged on March 29, 2013 with “racketeering, theft, influencing witnesses, conspiracy and making false statements.” She could face 45 years in prison for her actions.

As horrible as the scandal in Atlanta was and still is (the effects on the students who’s scores were adjusted will be felt for the rest of their educational career, at least), enough has been written about that terrible situation. But not enough has been written about the actions of our Superintendent Dr. Casey Wardynski, superintendent of Huntsville City Schools.

As you can see from the links above, nearly everything that was written yesterday about Dr. Hall in Atlanta could also be written about Dr. Wardynski here in Huntsville. About the only thing missing is the amount of time Dr. Hall was in charge of APS and the sheer size of that district as compared to Huntsville.

A Cautionary Tale

Dr. Hall created a culture in Atlanta where principals and teachers were under constant pressure to demonstrate the growth of their students as measured by a standardized test (in their case it was the “Criterion-Referenced Competency Test,” which appears to be similar to the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test–ARMT.) Dr. Wardynski uses the STAR Enterprise test as his primary vehicle to evaluate teachers and their performance.

Dr. Hall created a culture of fear in Atlanta. From nearly the month of his tenure, Dr. Wardynski has striven to create this same culture of fear.

Dr. Hall developed a system that rewarded teachers financially if their students scored well on the CRCT. Dr. Wardynski has developed a system that rewards teachers financially if their students score well on the STAR. At Westlawn alone, Wardynski has budgeted $355,392.00 this year alone in incentives for good test results.

Dr. Hall punished, threatened, and fired teachers who’s students did not meet her expectations. Dr. Wardynski has punished, threatened, fired teachers, and closed entire schools that did not meet his expectations.

Dr. Hall stood aloof from parents and spent ridiculous amounts on security for herself. Dr. Wardynski stands aloof from parents, refuses to answer questions, increases his own personal security while ignoring the safety of our students.

In short, the environment that led to one of the worst cheating scandals in public school history, is exactly the same environment that Dr. Wardynski has created here in Huntsville.

The culture and environment of Huntsville City Schools is just as ripe for a cheating scandal as Atlanta.

Cheating Is Easy

As has been documented by FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, cheating on standardized tests is both widespread and easy.

There have been documented cases of cheating in 37 states as well as the District of Columbia, including Alabama. This number does not include incidents of “suspicious test scores” that have been documented by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This report doesn’t include the amazing turn-around that Dr. Cathy McNeil exclaimed over last month by saying, “I’ve never seen growth like this. It’s phenomenal.”

As I point out last month, when test scores are too good to be true, they quite simply aren’t.

In addition FairTest documents 52 ways that teachers, principals and superintendents have cheated on standardized testing in the past. The list covers pre-test, during the test, and post-test cheating. In short, it is ridiculously easy to cheat on a test if a teacher, administrator, or superintendent is sufficiently motivated to do so.

And we have created an environment where at least two of those three groups are sufficiently motivated.

Teachers and principals are financially rewarded for good test scores. They are punished for bad test scores, including termination. In a city that is living in constant fear of layoffs from sequestration, losing even a $37,000 a year position can be devastating to a family’s finances.

This is what Dr. Wardynski and our inept board of education has brought to our city. While we’ll never be the news story that Atlanta has become, what happened there, I assure you, has already happened here or will soon. (The amazing turn around, and the fudging of the numbers at the district level at Westlawn would be the best place to start looking, but it clearly isn’t the only place where cheating is possible or likely.)

Opt-Out of the STAR Test

So what can we do?

It’s simple: Opt-out of the STAR Test.

The STAR test is not a state mandated test. It is not a federally mandated test. Your child’s scores on that test will not help them get into a better college. And frankly, colleges are beginning to discount testing performance more and more anyway. As a teacher at the post-secondary level, I can tell you first hand that having a student who can perform well on the ACT or the COMPASS test (an entrance exam produced by ACT) does not ensure that a student will perform well in college. My department, for just one example, has found that the students who did well enough on the COMPASS test to place directly into college-level courses like English Composition I were less likely to do well in ENG101 than students who didn’t pass the COMPASS and took ENG093 Developmental English before taking ENG101.

It seems that other colleges are seeing similar results as nearly 850 of them are beginning to discount test scores during the admissions process.

But even if your child is considering attending a college that does require ACT/SAT test scores as a part of the admissions process, there is still no reason for them to be taking the STAR test. Performing well on the STAR test has no impact whatsoever on your child’s grades or on your child’s scores on the ACT/SAT.

In short, there is no reason whatsoever for your child to be taking this test.

It might make you feel good to know that your 3rd grader is reading on a 6th grade level, you should know that statement is totally misleading. Understanding some of the vocabulary that an 6th grader understands does not mean that your 3rd grader has the ability to comprehend at the same level as a 6th grader.

There is no educational benefit to your child to spend up to a day a week, every week preparing to take the STAR test.

That time would be much better spent reading, writing, examining mathematical theorems, or researching the latest advances in rocket science that our neighbors at NASA are developing to take us to Mars.

The STAR test means absolutely nothing to your child. The only reason it is being administered three, four, five, or how many ever times Dr. Wardynski is going to require it to be administered this year is to rank and punish your child’s teacher.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for your child to have spent that time, oh I don’t know, learning something?

If you agree, tell your child’s teacher and principal that you opt-out, and that you instead want your child to spend more time learning rather than testing.

Heck, we might even manage to keep Dr. Wardynski out of jail as a result.

See, I don’t hate the man.

The post Avoid Cheating Scandals: Opt-Out of the STAR Test appeared first on Geek Palaver.

On Thursday, February 2, 2012, Dr. Wardynski, in his monologue, had this to say about my comments when I mentioned in passing that teachers weren’t simply teaching to the test:

Uh, those who claim that testing, we teach to the test, that testing is not a valuable resource simply do not know what they are talking about. There is no way to test, to take, to teach to the STAR test. It’s a computive, computer-adaptive test in which every child will face a different question. And the questions aren’t the kind you can teach to. If you don’t know algebra, you can’t teach to answering an algebra question. If you don’t know how to factor an equation, you can’t teach to answering a question like that. If you can’t read, we can’t teach you what the paragraph said, cause you haven’t seen the paragraph. And so we’re after the business of literacy and numeracy. Uh, we’re taking a very strategic approach to raising the proficiency of our children, and our excellent teachers are responding.

Wow, where to begin.

It’s important to note that I didn’t claim in my statement that the district was teaching to the test. What I actually said was:

It’s [a love for education] what motivates Mrs. Dodson to take on extra work of evaluating additional assignments like poetry writing projects to encourage advanced students to continue to grow beyond merely the requirements of the test.

Perhaps he was reacting to others’ comments that claim that when testing is the single method of evaluation offered for both students and teachers, then our classrooms set education aside in deference to teaching to the test. While I didn’t say this on Thursday night, it is a problem that I recognize. If the score on the test is the only metric by which we evaluate student and teacher performance, then the test takes the highest priority in the classroom.

It becomes more important than critical thought.

It becomes more important than critical analysis of ideas.

It becomes more important than guided social development.

It becomes more important than intellectual curiosity.

In short, teaching to the test leaves a whole world of education in the dark. You can read more about what standardized tests do and do not cover in The Myths of Standardized Tests: Why They Don’t Tell You What You Think They Do.

But with his decades of experience in education, Dr. Wardynski wants you to know that “those who claim we teach to the test, that testing is not a valuable resource simply do not know what they are talking about.”

That’s right. Dr. Wardynski thinks I don’t know what I’m talking about. Thank you sir, that’s high praise coming from you.

So let’s look at his argument to see if Dr. Wardynski is right or not.

The Straw Man Fallacy

It’s always useful, when you enter into a debate with someone, to have an opponent who says something that’s easy to rip apart. Sadly, sometimes we enter into debates with people who aren’t stupid. When this happens, one common method of attack is to set up a straw man that’s easy to knock down. This is a useful technique as typically if you can show that your opponent is wrong on one point, then those listening to the debate will assume that your opponent is wrong on all points. But when your opponent doesn’t give you an easy target, well then you can just create your own.

This is the straw man fallacy. Claim that your opponent has claimed something that is false, even when he or she hasn’t.

Despite Dr. Wardynski’s claims, no reasonable person is claiming that “testing is not a valuable resource.” Every educator knows that testing does have value. But every educator also knows that no matter how fantastic the test is, the test is but one of many methods needed to evaluate education. You’re claiming that your opponents are speaking in absolutes when it is in fact you who are elevating the test to the level of absolute in student performance, in teacher performance, and in school performance.

I am not claiming that the test has no value. I am simply claiming that the test does not have absolute value.

Knowing What You’re Talking About

Dr. Wardynski then goes own to offer an impassioned defense of how it would be impossible to teach to the STAR test. He says:

There is no way to test, to take, to teach to the STAR test. It’s a computive, computer-adaptive test in which every child will face a different question. And the questions aren’t the kind you can teach to. If you don’t know algebra, you can’t teach to answering an algebra question. If you don’t know how to factor an equation, you can’t teach to answering a question like that. If you can’t read, we can’t teach you what the paragraph said, cause you haven’t seen the paragraph.

His argument seems to be that since no one sees the actual questions ahead of time, that it would be impossible to teach to the test. He’s arguing for the security of the STAR test and in doing so, he shows that he doesn’t understand teaching, testing or teaching to the test at all.

I do so love situational irony.

Let’s see if we can help him out here a little. If a teacher knows, as he claimed in his “we’re not teaching to the test speech” that her students are going to be tested on algebra, then a teacher knows that spending time talking about geometry is a waste of time, even if the students raise questions that are geometry questions. If a teacher knows that the test questions are based on the ability to remember details from a paragraph, then a teacher knows that spending time talking about the meaning of a paragraph is less important than talking about the content of the paragraph.

Teaching to the test doesn’t require knowing exactly what questions will be asked on a test. That’s cheating, not teaching to the test.

Teaching to the test means that a teacher knows that the test will cover 10 mathematical concepts, and so the entire focus of the class is then directed toward mathematical concepts ignoring the other questions or pathways that might arise from classroom discussion, questions, or as I mentioned above, intellectual curiosity.

In short, Dr. Wardynski has once again demonstrated his failure to understand the educational process.

Education is More than Testing

Let me see if I can finish with an example of what I am talking about here.

I teach, among other things, a Survey of the New Testament class. In this class, we review the historical underpinnings and development of the New Testament. One of the final assignments in the class is to write an argumentative research essay on what the New Testament has to say about a controversial subject such as abortion, homosexuality, poverty, whatever the student wishes to study.

This is the test that the students must complete. It tests their ability to use resources they’ve been exposed to in the class. It tests their ability to use various methods of Biblical criticism that we’ve discussed in the class. It tests their ability to discuss Scripture intelligently and reasonably.

One semester, I had a student who just couldn’t get her mind around the assignment. She had been struggling all semester, her writing was, to be frank, terrible, and I was to the point of suggesting to her that perhaps trying the class again at a time when her personal life wasn’t interfering with her education might make the class and the assignments easier. You see, her child was dying, and the idea of debating Scripture just wasn’t connecting with her.

But while talking to each other, I discovered that she did have an extensive interest in Mary, Jesus’ mother. She felt connected to her and her loss of her son, especially at that moment in her life. So since I had been the one to design the test, and since I have the freedom to find a student’s interest and run with it, I was able to redesign the assignment into a research essay on Mary.

This student, who had had difficulty even stringing together three sentences in a coherent way, wrote the best essay of the class, and in fact, one of the best essays I have received since. She was getting the learning objectives of the class, and once the test was modified to the student, she was able demonstrate that to me.

Education must be a personal, direct experience between the teacher and the student. When a district determines the test, the curriculum, and what’s important for a student to accomplish, they are taking education out of the hands of the teachers and students, and putting it into the hands of politicians and private companies who sell the test.

We should, we must teach to the student not to the test.

This is why Dr. Wardynski is unconcerned about the quality of the teachers he hires or the experienced ones he runs off. Teachers don’t matter in this brave new world.

A hyper-emphasis on testing results in an educational system where neither the teacher nor the student actually matter.

The post Teaching to the Test appeared first on Geek Palaver.