Time to Revamp Student Testing

[imnofish]

Howavi,,,,,,I have to give this example and I would like your honest thoughts on this.

You come to me and want me to teach your child a double leg takedown. I have 1 season of wrestling to do this but he is in a group of 30 other kids.

So I work with your child the same as the others on the team for the entire season and at the end of the season you child does not do a double leg that is any better than the first day of practice.

Under your thought the test was to do a double leg and I failed miserably in your eyes because in 1 season your child double leg did NOT get any better. I should be fired then or be put on notice because your child could not achieve the goal you wanted.

OK, for some reason your child really liked wrestling (which is good) and continued to stick it out for 3 more years. At the end of the third year he is doing that double leg that you wanted. Same coach doing it but it took 3 years to achieve your goal for your child.

Where is the coach now?
O ya, your child grew X amount in weight and height
Voice was noticably lower

Now by your thoughts that if you see in 1 year no improvement or a decline then there should be something done. Sure I have no problem with it but give it some time, people learn at different speeds.

Also, you in your position can hire the people you WANT to hire. Your just not given a group of people and are expected to achieve certain goals. You get to hire who you feel can achieve your goals.

Whether it is public, private or charter, your limited in who you can actually put in your school rooms. Sure some have more influence in class dynamics but if your asked to make ALL 10 year olds or probably any school age children to learn at the same level your maybe not on the same page as many people in education are. Great you have goals but while your children are achieving, maybe your childs friend or neighbor is not achieving at the same rate.

Good example of the individual developmental differences that I referenced in my last post.  Even among experienced high school wrestlers, it's very common for kids to not effectively used techniques recently taught, until the following year...  often at the beginning of the next season, before receiving any additional instruction on them.

[ramjet]

or the method of coaching was adjusted to get the young kid to retain but expectation at level will tell you if he is learning but actual application through test (match) will tell you for sure.

[imnofish]

The tests are the same across the State so if you have a school that is far below average then it would seem they are not collectively doing something as well as th average Schools. Likewise if  a school is far above it would be nice to know why and how would that translate to those below average.

A standards are used everyday in life.

Measurement of gas for example.
Employee evaluations ... for example sales gross margin.
Matches won vs losses.

Look at the big picture here.

Also that's why they test several times a year to try and minimize the impact of intangibles.

How does one small school compare to another in vey specific subjects and how do they compare to the average and to the high and the low.

Again what would be an alternative to testing?

The preferred alternative would be a testing regimen that is based on authentic assessment.  Students demonstrate the ability to apply skills that demonstrate comprehension of broad, primary objectives, upon which a proven foundation to future knowledge and success acquisition can be built.  Kids demonstrate these competencies with hands-on skills application, rather than by filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper.  State-trained, professional evaluators score their performances, with the understanding that the results are to be used to inform instruction, going forward, as students develop and mature.  The purpose is strictly to inform future group and individual instructional efforts, including curriculum development.  It is not used to label, reward, or punish teachers or students.

[littleguy301]

The tests are the same across the State so if you have a school that is far below average then it would seem they are not collectively doing something as well as th average Schools. Likewise if  a school is far above it would be nice to know why and how would that translate to those below average.

A standards are used everyday in life.

Measurement of gas for example.
Employee evaluations ... for example sales gross margin.
Matches won vs losses.

Look at the big picture here.

Also that's why they test several times a year to try and minimize the impact of intangibles.

How does one small school compare to another in vey specific subjects and how do they compare to the average and to the high and the low.

Again what would be an alternative to testing?

I dont have an alternate to testing but I have an alternate thinking into testing.

Yes you need a starting point and a finish point in your testing but somewhere in the middle your going to have some ups and downs. It is how you address your ups and downs is where I feel the problem lies.

If in general your school is very low in a certain area, then a change of how to get better is in order. But first lets look at the enviorment of those taking the tests. Meaning everything involved.
examples:
class sizes
tax base
school budget
income level
family dynamics
where your district is located

I cannt compare a school of 200 kids in a area that is low tax base, school cuts, large class sizes to a school of a same size enrollment but has small class sizes, good tax base and isnt worried as much about budget issues.

I believe in comparing like schools. Once we can do that then as a whole we can then help the schools at what is maybe looked at as under achieving and then put out some plans and tools to help that school become better with in reason. We first have to identify the problem or the problems some districts have and then as education we can put some plans and tools into effect to help those that are lower to achieve at a better rate.

Also, if you have a district that has scored very well over the years like in the top 5% and they slip to top 7%, I wouldnt be to alarmed either. They are still at the top of the specturm but because they slipped a tad, I wouldnt put that school in the basket of being failing either. I see this often. I have a school in my area that is up in arms and changed alot of the education because the state said they were one of the biggest slipping schools in the area. Basically they were still the top school but since they slipped from the to 3% to top 5% in the state that 2% slip alarmed the education board so much they needed change. No one ever thought to say, hey this school is better than 97% of all state schools to begin with and now is better than only 95% of all schools on tests. I find that almost laughable to change the education aspect because of a 1 year drop but still maintaing a very high standard in education.

[littleguy301]

or the method of coaching was adjusted to get the young kid to retain but expectation at level will tell you if he is learning but actual application through test (match) will tell you for sure.

At times a match is not the good test point either. Maybe a practice with a liked skilled wrestler may be a better test. If a wrestler is failing the last thing at times you want is to put that wrestler in a pressure situation like a match with all eyes on them. A wrestlers mental state is to be taken into thought also.

Wins and Losses, interesting way to judge a wrestler before getting into high school.+

Question, would you rather take your wrestler to a youth tourament and rank him a 1 knowing he has a pretty good chance of winning all the matches or enter them as a 5 and have a chance of going 50/50?

I believe at pre-high school that effort and devolpment is better words to use than base it on wins and losses. I personally would rather have my wrestlers go 50/50 wrestling the toughest kids that their ability can handle over trying to base the year on wins and losses. I see to often that people will enter their kids lower than what they are so that wins come easy.

story time: I had a parent come to me and compare 2 different kids to me at the end of the year. The parent stated his child had a 28-4 record, won several tournaments but when it came to regionals that wrestler lost both matchs very badly and was out. He then compared to another kid that did not win any tournament during the year but yet was beating the kids that beat his child. He couldnt understand why a kid that never won a tournament all year could be better than his child that won several tournaments. I found out that this person was entering his child as a beginner all year to win these tournaments and the other wrestler was entered as a 5, wrestled up weights and ages all year and instead of going to all these tournaments build a training program to do on these weekends to become better.

But with that said, neither wrestler went to state but one finished the day and the season .500 and the other finished the day getting pinned pretty quick twice but had an outstanding wins and losses record at the end of the year. Now a few years latter, you guess it the one that went .500 is still plugging along and is getting much better and the one that had several trophies is about at the end of his rope in wrestling.

[imnofish]

or the method of coaching was adjusted to get the young kid to retain but expectation at level will tell you if he is learning but actual application through test (match) will tell you for sure.

Of course coaches adjust their teaching technique, but the variances in the individual time frames for personal proficiency among the wrestlers demonstrate that individual learning curves are beyond the coaches' control.  Kids simply don't all respond in the same way, at the same time, to the same stimuli; their brains and bodies develop at their own, individual rates, to their own unique talents.  Simply put, we all learn in our own time, in our own way.  Some things, we never learn, no matter how hard we and our teachers/parents/coaches work at it.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, because we generally tend to excel at something else with which most other people struggle.  Not all proficiencies are covered by standardized testing; nor is it possible to identify, quantify, and test them, despite the fact that many of them are essential to future success.  Another point to be considered is that all of this high-stakes testing has us believing that failure is always bad and of no value.  Failure is simply informed feedback for future learning, whether we are talking about how we execute that double leg takedown or how we mentally approach geometry.  In wrestling, a great example can be found in Olympic Champion Ben Peterson's struggles with the double leg takedown.  His long, lean build made it a challenge for him to finish the move...   until he learned the low (heel-trapping) technique that became his "bread and butter" takedown.  Had his coaches insisted on repetitive focus upon traditional technique, his story probably would have had a much less successful ending.  By his own admission, this change of direction was a pivotal moment in his journey to excellence.  That's because it was predicated upon identifying and developing his personal strengths, rather than seeing them as liabilities to be overcome, with the intent of making him like every other wrestler. 

[ramjet]

All points taken guys.

LG what you describe as potential tough scenarios in A District are something most Districts need to overcome and an average is taking that into account. So with that said then it's good for that District to know how they compare those stats are available. Heck as Parent you may be very interested how the school you're child attending is doing compared to the average. MAP testing several  times is to try and average out those extrodinaire circumstances.

Fish in the end the test on the mat during a dual meet or weekend tournament is where the program, the coach , and the wrestler are judged. Testing during practice is the classroom nothing wrong with practice tests that is a methodology choosen by the teacher/coach to improve test scores. If it works then fantastic if it does not adjustments need to be made.

I wonder if the  educators should collaborate more on methods and ideas to improve rather than getting rid of the tool used to measure.

[bigoil]

LG,

I think you and I are on the same page. One test does not make an issue and like you I track the progress of my children, 3 of which are completely different students, kids, care, etc. I don't expect them to be the same. I do expect to see a pattern of development.

In the case of a classroom, you have a sample size of 25 to several hundred in a grade perhaps that can look at development year over year. I would not be out for heads more likely looking for positives and how do we do more positives.

Can you teach my kid a half nelson ?

[ramjet]

Bigoil do the KT only look at the numbers once a year and look a sample of those numbers?

[imnofish]

All points taken guys.

LG what you describe as potential tough scenarios in A District are something most Districts need to overcome and an average is taking that into account. So with that said then it's good for that District to know how they compare those stats are available. Heck as Parent you may be very interested how the school you're child attending is doing compared to the average. MAP testing several  times is to try and average out those extrodinaire circumstances.

Fish in the end the test on the mat during a dual meet or weekend tournament is where the program, the coach , and the wrestler are judged. Testing during practice is the classroom nothing wrong with practice tests that is a methodology choosen by the teacher/coach to improve test scores. If it works then fantastic if it does not adjustments need to be made.

I wonder if the  educators should collaborate more on methods and ideas to improve rather than getting rid of the tool used to measure.

All of that is going on.  It's not that people are against testing; it's just that it's being overdone.  Frequent testing has become epidemic, as short-term micromanagement of teaching and learning has become the norm.  Lots of instructional time lost that could ultimately benefit the big, long-range  picture.

[Handles II]

You guys just don't, and apparently won't get it.
Kids aren't Kwik Trip numbers.
Kids aren't widgets.
Kids have numerous factors that can drastically skew their test results, be that a test once a year, or twenty times per year. And that can be an individual kid as well as an entire grade or district that have little or nothing to do with the effectiveness of a teacher, or a school, or the intelligence of the student or student body.
Kids, unlike widgets or KT numbers have these things called lives. Lives and the daily changes and fluctuations within those lives, as well as the basic demographics in a district have a much greater impact on scores than most people will realize or admit. As Ghetto said in an earlier post, some of his student's difficulty with reading drastically effect their math scores, yet on a math quiz they do very well. Even differences in regional dialect and verbiage can play a huge part in the test results and cause one district to "seem" like they are failing, when they aren't.  

While I'm not entirely against standardized testing, I and most other educators are against the cost, how they are written and graded, and when they are implemented, utilized, and analyzed, especially when analyzed by those who don't care to understand the difference between a widget and a student.

Those of you who are so very much in favor of our current testing. Please let your legislators know that you want the same tests and the same frequency of tests to be completed at every private, for-profit and voucher school in the state.

[ramjet]

Fish how the data is applied depends on the end result. If the end result is an increase in awareness and effort to improve education there is no way you would convince me that it is bad.

Now is it over done? On one hand you want to throw out the variables and not use the results of one test, so multiple tests in fact do that and using averages through out the state and using those results based on multiple samples and the average of like size schools also does the best to give benefit of doubt and consider or overcome uncontrollable circumstances.

So somewhere there has to be measure we all agree on and common sense tells us it has to have standards and use averages trying take out those uncontrollable variances.

I still have no response as to how you measure or determine that standards are being met. I think we mostly agree just because you say so does not make it so.......

HandlesII you right away attack both Bigoil and I, and you further insulted us by saying we do not understand kids well I have three children and two grandchildren I will not list thier accomplishments but you are completely wrong you also know that my Wife works in education and I can tell we discuss at length many of these issues and she is not shy about sharing her perspective and opinion. I listen to her intently as she is very good at what she does. So you are as unfair to Bigoil and myself as you feel we are with you. We just have not posted that but you have.

I asked you a legitimate question as to what you suggest to measure or assure that educational standards are being met?

Testing is not only about the children it is as much about the Adminstration, Teachers, School Board, Parents, kids and community. This group has to work together to ensure that the kids are afforded the best environment opportunity and tools to get the best education possible. That said the Techers are held accountable. Parents are not so much but educators know that going in they are getting paid for the job, and the Adminstration and Board need to consider that when evaluating any Teachers and test scores. Sure the DPI does not but It is impossible for them to do that because of the magnitude of the differences in those variables. So if the test is standard across the Board everyone has the same goals each District has to examine how to get the most from the variables mentioned above to achieve high scores or at least average or above.  Average being the listed goal.

By the way when I pay my widgets college tuition I will let them know I am clueless about them or thier education....😄

[imnofish]

You guys just don't, and apparently won't get it.
Kids aren't Kwik Trip numbers.
Kids aren't widgets.
Kids have numerous factors that can drastically skew their test results, be that a test once a year, or twenty times per year. And that can be an individual kid as well as an entire grade or district that have little or nothing to do with the effectiveness of a teacher, or a school, or the intelligence of the student or student body.
Kids, unlike widgets or KT numbers have these things called lives. Lives and the daily changes and fluctuations within those lives, as well as the basic demographics in a district have a much greater impact on scores than most people will realize or admit. As Ghetto said in an earlier post, some of his student's difficulty with reading drastically effect their math scores, yet on a math quiz they do very well. Even differences in regional dialect and verbiage can play a huge part in the test results and cause one district to "seem" like they are failing, when they aren't.  

While I'm not entirely against standardized testing, I and most other educators are against the cost, how they are written and graded, and when they are implemented, utilized, and analyzed, especially when analyzed by those who don't care to understand the difference between a widget and a student.

Those of you who are so very much in favor of our current testing. Please let your legislators know that you want the same tests and the same frequency of tests to be completed at every private, for-profit and voucher school in the state.

+1

[imnofish]

Fish how the data is applied depends on the end result. If the end result is an increase in awareness and effort to improve education there is no way you would convince me that it is bad.

Now is it over done? On one hand you want to throw out the variables and not use the results of one test, so multiple tests in fact do that and using averages through out the state and using those results based on multiple samples and the average of like size schools also does the best to give benefit of doubt and consider or overcome uncontrollable circumstances.

So somewhere there has to be measure we all agree on and common sense tells us it has to have standards and use averages trying take out those uncontrollable variances.

I still have no response as to how you measure or determine that standards are being met. I think we mostly agree just because you say so does not make it so.......

HandlesII you right away attack both Bigoil and I, and you further insulted us by saying we do not understand kids well I have three children and two grandchildren I will not list thier accomplishments but you are completely wrong you also know that my Wife works in education and I can tell we discuss at length many of these issues and she is not shy about sharing her perspective and opinion. I listen to her intently as she is very good at what she does. So you are as unfair to Bigoil and myself as you feel we are with you. We just have not posted that but you have.

I asked you a legitimate question as to what you suggest to measure or assure that educational standards are being met?

Testing is not only about the children it is as much about the Adminstration, Teachers, School Board, Parents, kids and community. This group has to work together to ensure that the kids are afforded the best environment opportunity and tools to get the best education possible. That said the Techers are held accountable. Parents are not so much but educators know that going in they are getting paid for the job, and the Adminstration and Board need to consider that when evaluating any Teachers and test scores. Sure the DPI does not but It is impossible for them to do that because of the magnitude of the differences in those variables. So if the test is standard across the Board everyone has the same goals each District has to examine how to get the most from the variables mentioned above to achieve high scores or at least average or above.  Average being the listed goal.

By the way when I pay my widgets college tuition I will let them know I am clueless about them or thier education....😄

Kids aren't widgets.  Teachers aren't technicians; nor are parents.  Holding people accountable to something that contradicts the best brain research, developmental research, educational research, etc., while using it to impose an educational culture that further erodes educational opportunities for students, makes no sense.  The annual standardized tests are designed to systematically identify questions that students get right about 1/3 of the time; thus dividing students into 3 different performance "levels."  The end result is that the questions most likely to be answered correctly are eliminated from the test; which makes no sense because they are most likely to reflect what they have been taught.  Teachers teach the required curriculum; then the test development methods skew the tests away from what they have taught.  This has been a longstanding deficiency of standardized, multiple choice tests.  Does that sound like a reliable, fair, useful process to you?  Two years ago, we were spending $1.7 BILLION on standardized testing and it's not getting any cheaper.  There are much better ways to invest those resources, if we truly want to help students learn.  As for your question about how I would prefer to measure progress, reference my earlier description of authentic assessment.  Before we lost our way, that had actually been used in lieu of standardized tests very successfully (out East; can't recall specific state), so it is already a proven, superior alternative.

http://fairtest.org/exposing-myths-high-stakes-testing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/25/how-much-time-do-school-districts-spend-on-standardized-testing-this-much/

http://zhaolearning.com/2012/05/24/follow-the-money-a-high-school-students-take-on-standardized-testing/

[bigoil]

All points taken guys.

LG what you describe as potential tough scenarios in A District are something most Districts need to overcome and an average is taking that into account. So with that said then it's good for that District to know how they compare those stats are available. Heck as Parent you may be very interested how the school you're child attending is doing compared to the average. MAP testing several  times is to try and average out those extrodinaire circumstances.

Fish in the end the test on the mat during a dual meet or weekend tournament is where the program, the coach , and the wrestler are judged. Testing during practice is the classroom nothing wrong with practice tests that is a methodology choosen by the teacher/coach to improve test scores. If it works then fantastic if it does not adjustments need to be made.

I wonder if the  educators should collaborate more on methods and ideas to improve rather than getting rid of the tool used to measure.

All of that is going on.  It's not that people are against testing; it's just that it's being overdone.  Frequent testing has become epidemic, as short-term micromanagement of teaching and learning has become the norm.  Lots of instructional time lost that could ultimately benefit the big, long-range  picture.

Fish, I agree with you on everything you just said.