Testing More, Teaching Less - American Federation of Teachers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1BAssessment Inventory, Midwestern School DistrictMinutes Per Test, Number of Annual Administrations and Total Annual Testing MinutesLocal Assessments Grade Minutes Annual MinutesKindergarten Test K Developmental indicators 30 3x 90DIBELS K-3 Reading diagnostic 10 3x 304-5 10 1x 10SRI (Scholastic) 6-9 Reading 30 3x 90TerraNova K-1 Reading, math 120 1x 1202 130 1x 130Curriculum-Based Assessments (CBA) 2-3 Math 50 3x 1506-12 Math 50 2x 100Reading 75 2x 150Science 110 2x 220Social studies 110 3x 330PSAT 10,11 Preliminary SAT 135 1x 135NOCTI 12 Career/technical EOC 300 1x 300GRADE (Pearson) 3-11 Literacy (federal grant) 90 3x 270Interim/Benchmark TestsCurriculum-Based Assessments (CBA) 3-5 Math 50 4x 200Classroom Diagnostic (CDT) 6-11 Reading 75 5x 375State-Mandated TestsMath, reading, science 270 3x 810Grades 3-8, 11 3-8 Math, reading 395 1x 3954, 8 Science 160 1x 1605, 8 Writing 330 1x 33011 Math, reading, writing,scienceEnd-of-Course* 9-12 Math, reading, socialstudies, science*Assumes students take two end-of-course assessments per year for four years.990 1x 990120 2x 240that while nearly all respondents believed that thepurpose of interim assessments was to guide andimprove instruction, 90 percent of the same respondentsbelieved they measure progress toward theend-of-year state test, 80 percent believed they werealso diagnostic and 90 percent thought they wereformative (Heppen et al., 2011).Despite the ubiquity of interim/benchmark testing,research on these tests has failed to demonstratea positive and statistically significant impact onimproving student achievement on end-of-year tests,which is the tests sole purpose. 1 The studies that havefound some positive impacts focused more on datause and accessibility.” 2 It is not clear whether the1. A national study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research (Furgeson et al., 2012) of 22 Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) found that “frequent formativestudent assessments” (referring to interim/benchmarking assessments) had no impact on positive achievement impacts among CMOs. In a study of Formative Assessmentsof Student Thinking in Reading (FAST-R), teachers in Boston were given test data aligned to the state assessments every three to 12 weeks, and data coaches helpedteachers interpret and use the data. A two-year evaluation of 21 elementary schools found small but statistically insignificant effects (Quint et al., 2008). A one-year studyof benchmark assessments in 22 Massachusetts middle schools also showed no effect (Henderson et al., 2007). May and Robinson (2007) studied a benchmark assessmentprogram used in high schools to prepare students for the Ohio Graduation Tests and found no statistically significant impact from the benchmarking for students takingthe graduation test for the first time.Testing More, Teaching Less 11
esults of those studies are due to the benchmarkingtests, the practice effects of repeated test-taking, orthe improved data literacy of teachers. New Leadersfor New Schools (Marshall et al., 2006) identifiedseveral reasons why interim assessments may notproduce significant achievement gains:• Poor alignment with state standards, tests orpacing guides;• Results presented in an overly elaborate, confusingmanner;• Results used only to focus on bubble kids;• Not administered frequently enough to have animpact on instruction;• Scored externally with teachers having no investmentin the results;• Too short and don’t give teachers enough detaileddata; and• Teachers think tests will be used to blame them.Both Midwestern School District and EasternSchool District layered on an array of interim/benchmarkingtests administered several times a year:Midwestern School District: ACUITY is a statetailoredcommercial benchmarking test administeredthree times annually. The ScantronPerformance Series, given twice annually, is alsoused for benchmarking in grades 7-11. MidwesternDistrict has “mock” end-of-course testingtwice a year in high school.Eastern School District: The state-developedClassroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT), administeredthree times annually, is used to predict outcomeson the state-mandated test in grades 6-11and is also used for benchmarking to the stateend-of-course tests. For benchmarking purposesin grades 3-5, the district used a modified versionof the district-developed Curriculum-BasedAssessments, which is administered four times ayear in math and five times a year in reading.Classroom-based assessments. These assessmentsare used during teaching and are embedded ininstruction; they are a tool that helps teachers adjusttheir instruction in the moment to meet the needsof students. This isn’t just about giving a quiz at theend of class, but it’s also questioning and observingstudents on performance tasks. Results are receivedinstantly, which allows teachers to adjust theirinstruction immediately. Teachers also use tests,quizzes and homework to assess student learning.Teachers surveyed in Chicago spent 22 minutes aday giving students curriculum subject assessments(tests, quizzes, etc.) and another 32 minutes a dayassessing students’ work during contractual hours(Bruno, Ashby and Manzo, 2012).Embedded and rapid assessments. Embeddedassessments could be thought of as the “next generation”formative assessment. Assessments embeddedin instructional materials using emerging technologyand research on learning aims to inform instructionthrough a balance of fine-grained classroom diagnostictests, challenging tasks and projects in whichstudents work through individual topics at theirown pace, taking brief tests of their mastery alongthe way, with feedback delivered to the student andteacher on individual processes or misconceptionsthat cause the student problems (Gordon Commission,2013). They are now used in some computerbasedmath programs such as Carnegie Learning,Khan Academy and Agile Mind, and in Scholastic’sREAD 180 and Lexia Reading. Both Eastern and Midwesternschool districts already use READ 180, andEastern School District also uses a Carnegie Learningprogram.Randomized and quasi-experimental researchindicate that “rapid formative assessment systems”effectively raise student achievement (Nunneryet al., 2006; Ross et al., 2004; Ysseldyke and Bolt,2007; Ysseldyke and Tardrew, 2007) and are a moreefficient use of resources than a range of alternativeinterventions such as a longer school day, value-2. A multidistrict, multistate quasi-experimental study of the first year of a data-driven reform strategy (Carlson, Borman, Robinson, 2011) found a small positive impacton math scores but no statistically significant impact on reading scores. However, subsequent research on all four years of the same program (Slavin et al., 2013) revealedthat impacts on elementary reading and math were never statistically significant in any of the four years except fourth-year reading. In middle school, significant positiveeffects were limited to the first two years in reading and only the first year in math. In a value-added study of four districts (102 principals and 593 teachers), an index ofteacher general data use had a positive impact on middle-grades math and elementary-grades reading, but no impact on middle school reading or elementary math (Fariaet al., 2012). An index of principal general data use had a positive impact on middle-grades math but no impact on middle-grades reading or at the elementary level foreither subject.12 American Federation of Teachers
Page 1 and 2: Testing More,Teaching LessWhat Amer
Page 3 and 4: Randi WeingartenpresidentLorretta J
Page 5 and 6: ation. Instead, public policy and p
Page 8 and 9: Executive SummaryOBJECTIVESStudents
Page 10 and 11: associated interim/benchmarking tes
Page 12 and 13: The Testing LandscapeState-mandated
Page 16 and 17: Midwestern Public SchoolsTesting Ca
Page 18 and 19: added teacher assessment, class siz
Page 20 and 21: approximately four hours to student
Page 22 and 23: $20,000 per pupil in the highest-sp
Page 24 and 25: Instructional Time Lostto Test Prep
Page 26 and 27: proximately three hours per week. T
Page 28 and 29: Time Initiative estimated that incr
Page 30 and 31: ReferencesBruno, Robert, Steven Ash
Page 32 and 33: APPENDIXResearch on Time Used for T
Page 34 and 35: Appendix Table ADirect Cost of Asse
Page 36 and 37: Appendix Table CEstimated Hours of

Testing More, Teaching Less - American Federation of Teachers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?