This one statement sums up why we must be so careful of relying on tests. With so many companies holding a monetary stake in testing, it become hard to argue that the goal of testing is purely educational. Clearly, a company such as McGraw-Hill is not going to make business decisions based on what is best for students. To do so would be bad business. But if we're talking about education, our number one concern should be exactly that: what is best for students. I have no doubt that lobbyists for testing companies support legislation like No Child Left Behind simply because it means business for them. But decisions on education in this country can't be based on profit.
"If you were to review the actual items in a typical standardized achievement test, you'd find many items whose correct answer depends heavily on the socio-economic status of a child's family. There are also many items that measure the verbal, quantitative, or spatial aptitudes that children inherit at birth. Such items are better suited to intelligence tests. Clearly items dependent either on the affluence of a student's family or on a child's genetic inheritance are not suitable for evaluating schools." - W. James Popham (Spring 184)
This quote touches upon what we discussed in our presentation: genetic inheritance of intelligence and the role of environment. What Popham seems to be getting at is that tests do not measure actual learning, merely base knowledge. The ability to retain facts could be a genetic component of intelligence, but that does not necessarily account for all learning by the individual. Similarly, placing value on certain pieces of knowledge can vary along cultural or socio-economic lines. As I see it, placing value on something is a purely opinion-based decision. I used to hate multiple choice questions that asked "What is the best.." or "What is the most likely..." because these are highly opinionated. Even at an early age, I found myself trying to think, "What is the intent of the test takers with this question?" Such questions place more emphasis on the reasoning and logical thought process. Therefore, the "right answer" isn't really important if the child can demonstrate use of logic and reasoning.
"'Accountability, as written into federal law, was not raising standards but dumbing down the schools,' she [Diane Ravitch] writes. 'The effort to upend American public education and replace it with something that was market-based began to feel too radical for me.'" (Dillon 2002)
It says a lot about the current system when one of its designers turns against it. Still, I can't help but harbor some resentment toward this woman for the system she designed. She refers to replacing education with a market-based system as too radical. Honestly, what did she think would come of emphasizing testing? As a prominant figure in education, I'd hope she has some basic understanding of sociology. Even with my limited coursework in sociology, it's not surprising that emphasizing accountability resulted in a system where educators focus solely on the scores from assessments. After all, it's their jobs that are on the line. And while it's nice to assume that educators are all benevolent and would focus on what is best for the children, that's not really how humans work. The current emphasis on accountability has only resulted in the majority of educators feeling like they need to do what they can to protect themselves and their jobs. Part of me is glad Diane Ravitch realizes NCLB is flawed, but I just can't help but feel upset as I read this article and learn about her reasoning for implementing it in the first place. It just seems so flawed.
Testing is definitly a business, think about the sheets, the texts, the scoring, everything is big business. There are some tests which are important, like the PRAXIS exams for us, but I like Finland's approach where the testing is minimal and more of an exit strategy for schools. Obviously there is something very wrong with American education because there is such a high drop out rate and maybe teaching to the tests is not enough to really make kids learn- and WANT to learn.
ReplyDeleteI also would like to comment on your observations about multiple choice exams and what the intent is behind them. I feel that they should never be used as the sole judge of performance or grades. They can be good for small details- like What is the capital of Peru?, this only has 1 right answer. However, it is just for facts and details, not for true understanding. And like you point out, it can be subjective. In social studies, I believe that those kinds of multiple choice questions should be few and far between! What are your thoughts in a science classroom?
I would very rarely use multiple choice questions in a science classroom. As I mentioned, to me the emphasis is on the learning process. Science in particular is very much about creating logical arguments based on data. If I posed a multiple choice question on an exam and a student gets it wrong, I don't necessarily know why they got it wrong. But when the question is short answer, it could be easier to parse out where exactly the student's logic goes awry. Just today in my observation, a student got away with what would have been considered wrong on a multiple choice. The teacher asked the students to list a function of proteins in the body. This student said energy, which is not entirely true, but he explained the process by which the body can break down proteins into smaller components, which in turn create energy. Ultimately, his logic was solid and resulted in an answer the teacher hadn't anticipated, so she gave him full credit.
ReplyDeleteSuch an approach is essential in social studies. History is about movements, consequences and happenings to groups of people that are usually culturally related. It has facts and dates, but it is more important to have general ideas about whats going on rather than to pinpoint facts without real knowledge and understanding. History does not happen in a vacum and a fact in one place has direct links to a host of people, policy, and events in another place. Science is about creative and inquisitive thought, and I fear that the CMTs and other test leaving these 2 subjects out of the testing loop has told society that they are not important.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty sad that those two subjects are getting no focus in elementary schools. As I mentioned in class, my mother works in a 4th grade classroom, and they hardly ever have time for social studies or science. Then, when the students get to 6th grade, they're beginning with little to no prior knowledge of science and social studies. Even when I went through school, I went in to middle school with a lot of base knowledge already. When students are starting in 6th grade with what I started learning in 1st, that's pretty sad.
ReplyDelete