Testing More, Teaching Less - American Federation of Teachers

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