|
|
|
Education - making a bad situation worse?
For that to happen, the state is going to have to severely improve both the quality and distribution across the curriculum of the items it tests. I have in the past commented about items (questions) in my subject (government) that are inaccurate as phrased, having no correct answer or more than one correct answer, and have pointed out in a public hearing which included one of the state's top-ranking testing officials that one recent form of the government test had way too many questions on the economic areas, well beyond the state's guidelines for testing. But there are more serious problems, and I wonder if there are not other issues. First, the questions have 4 answers. But there is as yet no correction for guessing as there is on the AP and SAT examinations. On those, if there are 5 answers you get a raw score of the number correct minus 1/4 the number wrong. Were you randomly guessing you would on average wind up with a raw score of zero. Absent a correction for guessing the raw score received by a student may be inflated because there is no penalty for wild guessing and there may be a benefit. I am thus not sure how such an approach provides an accurate measure of what the students know, even were the items individually and collectively an accurate and meaningful measure of what students know and can do. Second - while there is no doubt that selected response (multiple choice) items CAN be sophisticated, the vast majority of items in my subject are at the lower if not lowest levels of Bloom's taxonomy, recall. And given the ability to use process of elimination, even recall is not really required, only reasonable recognition. Now, were life constructed of many situations where we get to pick one from four or five preprovided choices, then perhaps such a test might be a meaningful measure of what students have learned that is truly applicable enough to life to warrant our making high stakes tests. But of course it does not. And I strongly disagree with the first of the two paragraphs I have just quoted. Given the high stakes of these exams, how they are constructed WILL drive instruction. After all, besides the stakes for the students a propos their own graduation, the English and Algebra exams are used under NCLB for the purposes of determining AYP, and thus have exceedingly high stakes for districts, schools, and school personnel. If you eliminate ANY writing requirement, including in ENGLISH for gosh sakes, you are inevitably going to see a decrease if not an elimination of the teaching of writing skills - what is not tested will simply not be taught in schools where there is real concern about scores. Totally unaddressed in this article nor in recent pieces accepting the state's bragging about scores on the test is that what is issued is a scaled score. Like the SATs, a raw score of points gained or percentage correct is converted into a score along some arbitrary scale. But the method of conversion has not to my knowledge been publicly released by the Maryland Department of Education. Suppose I want to show my students "doing well" in my class - I can theoretically take a test on which the median grade was 40% and by curving it or redistributing the actual scores along some arbitrary measure present report that says the median grade was B-. i raise this point because of what I saw on this past year's test. Granted, the state held out some kids who had failed a course for the year before they sat for the tests. In my case, that applied to about 4-5% of my students. The "pass" rate for the rest of my 10th graders was over 90% - sounds like I am a great teacher, right? The previous year my pass rate was in the low 80s for my 10th graders. Even accounting or those not tested, I did not improve that much in my teaching between my 11th and 12th years of teaching. I think, but cannot prove, that the supposed improvements reported by the state are at least in part - perhaps in large part - a result of manipulations of the conversion between raw and scaled score. Why this past year? Because those students are in the class o 2009, the first for whom the tests really count - sudents in previous classes did not have to pass, merely sit for, the exams. Why my title? Our emphasis on testing ha been distorting our teaching, our schools, our educational processes. But at last in MD, unlike Virginia, there was still some writing requirement, however minimal, that the students had to meet. Given the power the tests have to drive instruction, eliminating that requirement means we will now have even less instructional time on the basic academic and personal skill of writing. Our students will have less opportunity to learn to express their own ideas. Better students who do not have to worry about passing the test will not see all of their instruction reduced to test prep, so long as they are in a school whose socioeconomics mean that most students arrive with sufficient background and skill to be successful in any environment. But if you are in an inner city school whose students come from a deprived educational background, they will see their school time reduced increasingly to little more than preparing to take multiple choice questions. We will truly be leaving them behind. The elimination of any writing requirements on such tests can only serve to further narrow what many students in Maryland will learn. I am both saddened and angry, but not at all surprised. Things continue to get worse. Peace. — Kenneth Bernstein |
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to
advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from
this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.
