Testing

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers, Testing

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.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Testing

Students who repeat a year stoke bad behaviour in class

Clara G. Muschkin, Duke University

Students who are held back a year in school or who are older than average for their grade have long been known to be more likely to misbehave and to be suspended from school. But what’s not been clear until now is whether their presence causes ill-discipline across the school community.

In the US, accountability policies in schools have increased the number of students who are old for their grade, or have had to repeat a school year. Schools are evaluated on the basis of students’ demonstrated proficiency in certain skills, such as maths and literacy, for each grade. These policies have led to less frequent “social promotion” – where children automatically progress to the next grade regardless of their ability. Instead, there has been an increase in the proportions of children retained in grade after they fail standardised academic performance tests.

Additionally, some parents choose to hold back their children from entering kindergarten when they become eligible at age five. This trend, known as the “greying of kindergarten”, is linked to concerns about state and school accountability. There are also perceptions among parents that students who are older than their classmates have an advantage in school.

Debates on the consequences of these policies draw upon studies highlighting the effects of grade retention and older age on school attainment and behaviour of these students. But little attention has been paid to the implication on students who themselves are not at academic risk, but who must share classrooms with older and retained students.

Following the leader

Social science theories of peer influence frame questions of how older and retained peers may affect student behaviour in school. These children are more likely to get into trouble at school, in part because of the strong relationship between academic performance and behaviour.

Older students are more inclined to engage in behaviours that seem more “adult” or fitting with their physical appearance, despite a lack of social skills needed for making decisions regarding appropriate behaviour.

The older ones should know better.
Matthew Cole/Shutterstock

A stronger presence of peers who are more likely to misbehave can influence other students through the daily school climate, as well as through increased opportunities for directly interacting with at-risk students. Middle school students are particularly vulnerable to such peer influences, since early adolescence involves developmental adjustments that result in changing relationships with peers, family, and authority figures.

In a recent study, we looked at 79,314 seventh-graders in 334 North Carolina middle schools, using administrative data provided by the public schools and archived by the North Carolina Education Research Data Center at Duke University.

We compared data across schools and took into account student, school, and district-level factors that influence school behaviour. What we found was that the likelihood of a student committing an infraction, the number of infractions per student, and the likelihood of a student being suspended were all significantly higher among students attending schools with higher proportions of retained and older students.

Lowering the tone

There was increased negative behaviour across all groups of students who have higher levels of peers who have been held back a year. But this effect was stronger for students who were themselves retained. Older students share a similar vulnerability to the influence of their peers. There were stronger effects on ill-discipline on older students in classes with more older peers.

Unexpectedly, we found that students in groups that were least likely to engage in misbehaviour were the most susceptible to the potential negative peer influence of retained and older peers. This suggests that contact with older and retained peers can contribute to delinquent behaviour even if the direct contact is not very close or frequent.

These findings can help feed into longstanding debates regarding the benefits and drawbacks of grade retention and delayed school entry. They shift the focus away from the older and retained students themselves, to consider the implications for the entire school community.

For some individual students, being held back a year or delaying school entry might be the appropriate choice for their ultimate success in school. However, it is important that educators and politicians acknowledge that policies that make students repeat a year, and those that delay children starting schools, can have significant school-wide consequences.

Given consistent research evidence of the strong relationship between academic success and behaviour in school, policies that support students academically and prevent them falling back a year have the potential to benefit students who are at risk of academic failure, and can enhance positive behaviour across the entire school community.

The Conversation

Clara G. Muschkin, Director, North Carolina Education Research Data Center, Associate Director, Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Testing

Education officials to re-examine standardized testing

Education officials will re-examine standardized testing in the U.S. due to growing complaints from the public. The general consensus is that students pre-kindergarten to 12th grade are taking too many exams.

Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools recently said, “Testing is an important part of education, and of life. But it’s time that we step back and see if the tail is wagging the dog.” The Council of Great city schools represents 67 urban school systems.

The Council of Chief State School Officers, which represents education commissioners in every state, has also joined in on the effort.

Teachers have always administered tests; but exams became a federal mandate in 2002 under the No Child Left Behind Act. It requires states to test students annually in math and reading, starting in grades 3 through 8 and ending with high school.

In the past two years, four states have delayed or repealed graduation testing requirements. Four other states, including Texas, where the idea of using these tests began, have reduced the number of exams required or decreased their consequences.

In addition to federally required tests, states have added on more assessments, many that mandate exams such as an exit test to graduate high school.

On average, students in large urban school districts take 113 standardized tests between pre-K and 12th grade.

The number of standardized tests that U.S. students take is too high. While I feel that the idea to use tests to hold schools accountable is a good one, the frequency and redundancy of standardized testing has gone too far. It is essential to measure student achievement, but I hope that further analysis of standardized testing will lead to ways to relieve some of the burden that these tests bring to our students.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Teachers, Testing

Stealth assessment: Reimagining learning and testing for the 21st Century

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish this guest post on stealth assessment as a 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 Dr. Gregory Firn

History is replete with examples of innovation and invention that outpaced the necessary shifts in thinking and ingrained habits delaying the full impact of the “new.” It comes as no surprise that education has lagged behind innovation. However, many of the factors underpinning educational lag are beyond the control of the classroom teacher.

Fueled by the proliferation of technology, we are in the early stages of “reimagining” teaching and learning. We have learned the hard way that devices alone will not result in the much-promised transformation of teaching and learning. The presence of devices in education has revealed limitations, constraints, and liabilities in several ways. Chief among these has been the reluctance or outright resistance to necessary shifts in instructional methodology and practices. This is both natural and expected.

Instructional shifts are complicated by the expectation that classroom teachers have the requisite capacities, competencies, and confidences to navigate technology-rich as well as technology-challenged learning environments. Another challenge is the diversity and variance of technology skill, knowledge, and experience of learners.

Other constraints include budget and time, as well as the very real issue of access to reliable broadband connectivity—not to mention bandwidth and device compatibility, availability, and functionality. All of these limitations place teachers in a perplexing and conflicted position. They may indeed want to shift practice, but can’t.

Arguably, the restrictions and adverse impact of narrowly defined accountability models, including the obsession with assessments, will not necessarily go away with the much-heralded reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (otherwise known as the Every Student Succeeds Act). States must now begin the process of figuring out their assessments and assessment schedules. However, the daunting challenges of reimagining teaching and learning in this digital age remain.

I posit that, against this backdrop, teaching and learning cannot and will not be fully reimagined without the awareness, understanding, and application of assessment and instruction congruency. Instruction and assessment cannot be separated or thought to be two independent components of the teaching and learning process. The true promise and application of technology is in its ability to provide feedback in the form of information and insight during the learning process—not just at the end of a learning activity.

Evidence of certain competencies cannot be monitored and measured through traditional assessment practices. Thus, expanding assessment thinking and design are essential to navigating a reimagined version of teaching and learning.

Stealth assessment in the classroom

One method that is slowly gaining momentum is “stealth” assessment. The key to stealth assessment is its unobtrusive nature, which has roots in gaming. The idea is that a player’s choices and strategies are constantly and consistently informing the player of their progress and success. Applied to education, stealth assessment presents a powerful step in minimizing and eventually closing the teaching and learning immediacy loop.

The immediacy of feedback is critical. For far too long, we have focused on the trailing indicators of learning. Technology now affords us the ability to focus on the leading indicators of both teaching and learning. In fact, we can now at best disrupt or at worst interrupt the failure to learn, rather than continuing to remediate failed learning.

Disrupting the failure to learn does not necessarily mean disrupting the learning process. For example, as more teachers adopt project-based learning, their ability to peek inside the learning process by monitoring the collaboration, construction, contribution, and co-authoring of meaning by each learner is critical. Yet the challenge for the educator to be in all places at once has never been more daunting.

As a Superintendent, I have seen that technology can help address this challenge and make stealth assessment possible. For example, the Flexcat system from Lightspeed Learning is a powerful tool to implement  “stealth” assessment. Flexcat gives teachers the ability to listen to any small group on demand, without students knowing. This allows teachers to monitor and assess authentic interactions and collaboration from anywhere in the room—a giant step towards personalized teaching and learning.

Present and future technologies should cause a fundamental shift in instruction due to the stealth assessment concept, not just a minor adjustment. As I mentioned above the teacher and learner are empowered to monitor, provide and receive immediate feedback as well as participate in the thoughts, insights, and observations of learning as it is occurring. Participatory learning and participatory assessing are fundamental to the “student as worker, teacher as guide” mindset in which learners as key architects of their own learning. They co-author, co-construct, and co-produce knowledge, meaning and application. Moreover, critical thinking; examination; and assessing ideas, concepts, and constructs are essential skills in the 21st century.

Technology is a powerful tool that presents the opportunity and access for each learner to design, construct, collaborate, demonstrate, and assess their learning. To ensure this impact, educators must remain vigilant in their own learning to develop the capacity, competence, and confidence to shift instructional practices leveraged by technology to give each learner the best possible chance at success.

Dr. Gregory Firn has served as a Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and in several other educational leadership roles in Texas, North Carolina, Connecticut, Washington State, Nevada, and overseas. Dr. Firn twice led systemwide digital transformation initiatives, including the design and implementation of robust human capital development programs. Dr. Firn earned his doctorate from Seattle Pacific University, where his research focused on learner-centered education. 

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, OpEducation, Policy & Reform, Testing

Why K-12 Education Still Needs Federal Oversight

Educating American children has always been a responsibility that has fallen heavily on the states. As the public school system matured in the 20th century, however, it became increasingly apparent that states left to their own educational devices meant dangerous consequences for many children—especially students with disabilities and those living in poverty, for example. Historically, the federal government has always been the one to pick up the slack in K-12 education when states have fallen short.

In his piece for The Daily Beast, Jonah Edelman of Stand for Children warns that members of the newly-seated Congress have already voiced intentions to reduce accountability and transparency over states’ educational systems, while providing additional flexibility with federal funding.

Contrary to what some states-rights activists claim, states do not always act in the best interests of their residents, especially when it comes to education. Left to their own devices, states tend to enact discriminatory practices.

My home state of Mississippi is an example of state control gone awry. If its schools were wholly reliant on the state to outline learning benchmarks and divvy up funding (based on a state population with 24 percent in poverty and over 70 percent of its students eligible for free-and-reduced-price lunch), the inequalities would compound exponentially.

And those inequalities are already startling. For example, while 83 percent of high schools in New Hampshire offer calculus, only 41 percent of those in Mississippi do.

Mississippi has never quite been able to recover from its rampant poverty that began after the Civil War. Even when freedom was granted to slaves in the state and nearby, the African-American population was not able to elevate its quality of life due to the barriers erected by segregation and Jim Crow laws. Less-overt inequalities still exist that keep each new generation of African-American students in the state from breaking the cycle of poverty at home and underachievement in the classroom.

Edelman mentions issues like desegregation as wins for the federal government when states refused to do the right thing for all students. Without federal intervention, for instance, we wouldn’t have programs like the DREAM Act, which encourages continued education for students who might otherwise have been eligible for deportation. Instead, because of this federal program, they can contribute positively to their communities and to our country.

For one, federal guidance is needed to measure how much students are learning from one state to the next. Establishing a common high bar for academic performance that includes rigorous college-prep expectations can only be brought forth through federal involvement in schools.

It will be interesting to see what twists and turns the NCLB rewrites take and certainly no group will ever be completely satisfied. But the basic principle that guaranteeing every student in every state equal access to education is one worth fighting for.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Testing

4 Ways Common Core Teaches Life Skills

One of the loudest arguments against Common Core Standards is that they don’t apply to “real-life” situations and that their methods are too far removed from what actually happens in the workplace. It’s unfortunate that this argument is so prominent, because these standards were developed with the opposite intent.

Connecting the material that kids learn with the real world abilities they need to succeed is a foundational element of the internationally benchmarked standards. At the heart of Common Core is a recognition that students must be able to retain what they learn and that is accomplished by using real-life examples and applications.

Here are just a few of the ways that the transition to the standards and new Core-aligned assessments will teach life skills:

  1. Emphasis on the “how” of things. You can find the answer to anything by typing your question into a search engine box. Think about how often you rely on this technology to find answers to your everyday queries compared to the amount of effort you used to expend as a student before the Internet existed. Common Core puts an emphasis on the journey to finding answers, particularly when it comes to the math standards. It eliminates rote memorization and gives students the freedom to decide their own path to finding a correct answer.
  2. Computer-based test taking. When was the last time you did anything in your professional life that was handwritten? Even if you are in a business where you handwrite invoices, receipts or memos, technology likely comes into play with communications, bookkeeping and other day-to-day functions. We ask our high school students to complete assignments online, take college assessment exams online and even apply to college online. It makes sense to shift to a universal computer-based assessment model for our younger students, too. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test aligns with Common Core benchmarks using familiar technology that helps take away some of the test-taking anxiety, allowing students to focus solely on showing what they have learned. These new tests also require more writing and break away from the decades-old “fill in the bubble” multiple-choice format that focused on rote memorization rather than any true critical thinking.
  3. Better feedback. When you are on the job, your superiors do not wait until you’ve been promoted to review your strengths and weaknesses from the previous position. The end goal for tests like PARCC is to return answers to students in the year that the assessment is taken so it can have an impact on what they are learning in the present. Instead of reporting back to students on what they know, PARCC testing informs them about where they still need improvement in a timely way that allows that progress to take place more quickly.
  4. Discipline-specific writing skills. Despite the dominance of digital technology, more than ever, many jobs demand strong writing skills. Common Core standards address this growing need by calling for more rigorous reading, writing and critical thinking across subjects. It is not enough to simply know something—you must be able to communicate that knowledge. Common Core does not supplant or discount language arts instruction, but strengthens it through better connecting the practice of writing with the needs of employers today.

Students, parents and educators are discovering Common Core and hearing a great deal of conflicting information. One truth that should not get lost in the public debate is how the new standards promise to create a generation of K-12 students who are not only prepared for the world stage, but who excel on it.

  • no reactions
0
Share