Testing More, Teaching Less - American Federation of Teachers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IntroductionAll children deserve a rich, meaningful publiceducation that prepares them for the opportunities,responsibilities and challenges thatawait them as contributing members of a democraticsociety and a global economy. That vision shouldbe as true for students in Birmingham or the SouthBronx as it is for those in Beverly Hills. And it’s whythe AFT and our affiliates have been advocates ofclear, common, core curricular standards for morethan 20 years, and why we strongly support the CommonCore State Standards (CCSS) for mathematicsand English language arts and other career- andcollege-ready standards efforts today. But the deeperlearning we aspire to has too often been a rhetoricalaspiration—not accompanied by the supportsneeded to make implementation a reality—andeclipsed by the misuse and overuse of standardizedassessments required by policymakers fixated on accountabilityabove all else.The coupling of state standards and assessmentsto measure and report student and school performanceunder the No Child Left Behind Act narrowedcurricula across the country. Despite a laudatorygoal of shining the light on student needs, it took usin another direction, away from valuing the essentialskills of persistence, critical thinking and collaboration.Instead of resulting in the standards-basedpublic education system our nation and our childrendeserve, the current standardized test-basedaccountability system has left classroom teachersalmost solely responsible for the performance ofstudents and schools. Many districts piled on, addinga plethora of other standardized tests to benchmarkstudent performance levels, measure progress towardsa state’s standardized test, or layer on requirementsfor promotion or graduation.Educators know the necessity of gauging studentlearning—they use various assessment techniquesthroughout the school day. And we support theproper use of standardized testing and sensible accountabilitymeasures. Educators, parents and othershave joined the AFT’s efforts to restore the balancebetween teaching and testing, most recently throughour “Learning Is More Than a Test Score” campaign.The current test-and-punish accountability systemhas squeezed out vital parts of the curriculum thatare not subjected to accountability testing, sacrificedstudent learning time to testing and test preparation,and forced teachers—particularly those teaching ourmost vulnerable students—to focus their attentionon students achieving just below the passing score.That is not what countries with high-performingeducation systems do, and it is not what the UnitedStates should do.Last summer, delegates to the AFT conventionwent on record in support of testing that informs,rather than impedes, teaching and learning, and infavor of studies that shed light on the real costs oftesting. Testing More, Teaching Less is part of deliveringon our commitment to provide guidelines, studiesand other helpful information to our membersand the broader public about the nature, amountand costs of student assessments. Many otherstakeholders have voiced their concerns about theimpact of standardized tests and have taken actionto curtail overtesting and its consequences. In Texas,lawmakers cut the number of high school end-ofcourseexams required for graduation from 15 to five,and eliminated the requirement that results wouldcount for 15 percent of a student’s overall grade.The Orchard Park Central School District Board ofEducation in New York took a stand with a resolutionproposing that this year’s state assessments be usedfor “measuring the state’s progress in introducingthe Common Core Learning Standards rather thanfor measuring student performance or educatoreffectiveness.” Lawmakers in New Mexico called foran analysis of the cost, both in instructional timeand money, of all student assessments. And just thismonth, the New York Times ended a strongly wordededitorial about the dangers of “testing mania” with acall for the country to “reconsider its obsession withtesting, which can make education worse, not better.”We’re at a point where the adoption and implementationof the Common Core State Standardsfor the majority of the nation’s students should bedeepening the potential for all students to learn whatthey need to be college- or career-ready upon gradu-Testing More, Teaching Less 1
ation. Instead, public policy and politics have putthe testing cart before the standards-and-curriculumhorse. As educators, we know that any meaningfulstandards need more than assessments to succeed.Resources for improved instruction are necessary, inaddition to aligned curriculum, professional development,and time and tools for teachers to learn andcollaborate. Unfortunately, the majority of teachersrecently polled by the AFT say that this is not happening—orit is happening without the voice andviews of teachers. Yet, states are moving forward withassessments that have consequences for students,teachers and schools. That’s why I called for a moratoriumon high-stakes consequences associated withnew standards-based assessments. The U.S. Departmentof Education heard and responded to thevoices of teachers who haven’t had enough time orsupport to translate these standards into classroompractice, allowing states to ask for additional timebefore using outcomes of new assessments based onthe CCSS to evaluate teachers.In this climate, it is more important than ever thatwe look at testing and its impacts in a more informedway. This analysis aims to illuminate with data whatmany educators know from experience, parents learnfrom their children, and students feel firsthand—testing has spiraled out of control, and the relatedcosts are unacceptably high and are taking theireducational toll on students, teachers, principals andschools. Our study examines that very concern: thetotal cost of testing, including the direct (financial)costs of tests and the cost of instructional time lostto testing and test preparation associated with twodistricts’ testing schedules. This is an illustration ofthe kind of information we as professionals and asa public need in order to ask and answer the rightquestions about the role of testing in our schools.How much do we spend? What do we get in return?What do we give up as a consequence? What are thebest ways to use precious instructional time and resourcesso all our students have the content, criticalthinking, problem-solving and persistence they needto succeed in school and in life? Testing More, TeachingLess doesn’t provide all the answers. But it makesclear that the current testing environment is inhospitableto the knowledge, skills, and abilities we aspireto develop in students—and it offers some concreterecommendations for correcting the dangerouscourse we are on.I would like to gratefully acknowledge thoughtfulreviews of an earlier version of this analysisfrom Jesse Rothstein of the University of California-Berkeley, Elena Silva of the Carnegie Foundation forthe Advancement of Teaching, and a reviewer whoprefers to remain anonymous.Randi WeingartenPresident, American Federation of TeachersJuly 20132 American Federation of Teachers
Page 1 and 2: Testing More,Teaching LessWhat Amer
Page 3: Randi WeingartenpresidentLorretta J
Page 8 and 9: Executive SummaryOBJECTIVESStudents
Page 10 and 11: associated interim/benchmarking tes
Page 12 and 13: The Testing LandscapeState-mandated
Page 14 and 15: Table 1BAssessment Inventory, Midwe
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?