Tests and Measurements

Matthew Lynch published in Tests and Measurements

Should Teachers Opt Their Own Children Out of Testing?

Introduction

The educational landscape has undergone significant changes in recent years, with testing and assessment becoming increasingly prominent. Standardized tests hold significant stakes for students, teachers, and schools. Consequently, the debate about whether teachers should opt their own children out of testing is a highly relevant and emotionally charged issue.

The Pros

1. Informed Decisions: Teachers are often well informed about the demands and expectations of standardized tests. If they feel that their child may not perform adequately in such a high-pressure situation or that the test will not accurately gauge their child’s abilities, opting out can be a reasonable response.

2. Supporting Evidence-Based Alternatives: Many educators argue that standardized tests don’t provide an accurate or complete picture of student learning. By opting their own children out of testing, teachers can signal their support for alternative methods of evaluation.

3. Reducing Stress and Anxiety: High-stakes testing can create significant stress for both students and their families. By opting out, teachers can shield their children from undue pressure and anxiety associated with these assessments.

The Cons

1. Public Perception: If teachers opt their children out of testing, it may foster a perception that they don’t believe in the system they are helping implement. This could have repercussions for their professional standing or undermine confidence in public education more broadly.

2. Missed Opportunities: Standardized test data can be useful to identify areas where students need support or resources need allocation within schools—if some students do not participate, this may lead to incomplete data that hampers decision-making.

3. Eroding Educational Equity: Opting out could send a message that certain demographics have more control over educational decisions, thereby undermining egalitarian goals and potentially disadvantaging students whose parents lack the resources to advocate for them.

Conclusion

Ultimately, whether teachers should opt their own children out of testing is a complex issue without a one-size-fits-all answer. In the context of an educator’s understanding of their child’s needs and the potential consequences, making a decision will depend on assessing whether doing so would best serve their child, their values, and the broader community. As education stakeholders continue to evaluate and adjust testing policies, finding the right balance between assessment, accountability, and student well-being remains a critical challenge.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Assessment, Tests and Measurements

The Bell Curve: Everything You Need to Know

This is a measurement that is used to determine how frequently a phenomenon occurs. A specific statistical distribution is expected where most scores will be distributed in the center, and the high and low ranges will be close. The bell curve gets its name because when the data is plotted on the graph, the line created generally forms the shape of a bell. In a normal distribution, the majority of the data will be near the mean, or the middle, with very few figures on the bell’s outside, known as outliers.

Teachers utilize the bell curve to analyze their tests. They assume that a bell curve will be noticeable if the test is good. For example, if a teacher looks at the class score and sees that the average (mean) grade of the midterm was approximately a C, and slightly fewer pupils earned B grades and D grades and even fewer pupils earned A grades and F grades, then the teacher can infer that the test was a good design. On the other hand, if the teacher plots the test scores and sees that the mean grade was a 60%, and no student scored above an 80%, then she can conclude that the test may have been very difficult. At that point, the teacher may use the curve to adjust the scoring so that there’s a normal distribution, including A grades.

Here’re a few of the most common ways teachers use to grade on a curve.

Add points: A teacher increases every student’s grade with the same number of points. While every student gets a better grade, students fail to learn from the question unless the teacher provides a revision.

Bump a grade to 100%: A teacher moves a particular student’s score to 100% and adds an equal number of points used to get that pupil to 100 to all other students’ scores. While everyone gets a better score, the student with the lowest grades benefits the least.

Use the square root: A teacher takes the test percentage’s square root and makes it the new grade. Every student gets a better score, but not every student’s grade is adjusted equally.

Students in a class often accuse one individual of throwing off the curve. The theory is that a very bright student aces a test that everyone else has difficulties with will “throw off the curve.” For instance, if most students earned 70% and only one pupil in the entire class earned 98%, then when the teacher tries to adjust the grades, the outlier can make it more difficult for other students to score higher.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Assessment, Tests and Measurements

No Zero Grading Policy: Everything You Need to Know

This refers to a grading system where teachers are not allowed to grade their students below 50%. This means that as long as the pupil completes the task, they deserve at least 50% for that effort alone. Some parents and educators believe that teachers shouldn’t be allowed to give zero to a pupil. Even if the students fail to turn in their assignments, they receive whatever the lowest grade is. Many institutions have adopted similar strategies, and they believe that this motivates all the students and provides them a fighting chance to do better in academics. Others feel that the no-zero grading policy allows pupils to slack off. They invest the least amount of effort and still pass. It can also be discouraging to students who work really hard for their scores.

Giving a zero for students not turning in the assignment doesn’t evaluate their understanding of the concept they were supposed to learn. Assignments exist to help students get a clear idea of their growth, and giving out zeroes negates this purpose. It can also drastically impact a student’s grade. Students who scored very well on earlier assignments might get a poor final grade when they fail to complete one task. Students come from different backgrounds. There’s no predicting the situation that may have prevented them from completing the task. Rather than giving zeroes for missing a deadline, the no-zero grading policy may offer them guidance and support to help them complete the task. Students who frequently miss assignment deadlines or don’t perform well can be challenging for teachers to handle. However, it’s these students who need support from the teacher the most. A little motivation and empathy from the teacher could go a long way in improving a student’s relationship with academics.

If students have nothing to show for their assignment, they should be given nothing, thus giving zeroes. However, if they put in some effort on a task, their score reflects that. If they didn’t complete the task, their score should also reflect that. Teachers follow up with pupils who miss deadlines, and making adjustments for some students puts lots of additional stress on them. Also, enforcing stringent deadlines force the pupils to complete the assignments on time. They get habituated to being held accountable for their manner of work and their results. Some educators also believe that getting zeroes on their report cards communicates to the pupils and their parents that they need to put in more effort.

  • no reactions
0
Share