The Stiggins article raised many important issues on assessment. One of these issues being the motivations of policy makers. The idea of assessment in the form of high stakes testing to reward and punish schools, educators, and even students seems somewhat boggling to me. The whole motivation through rigorous challenge and the causation of anxiety seems fairly flawed to me. Stiggins mentions this idea of motivating student to work harder by raising the bar and doubling their work/challenges. These students are failing these initial challenges and now are being asked to double their efforts on something they can't do in the first place. This mirrors the idea that I've seen in some of the schools I've observed in: Students who aren't performing satisfactory in math receive double the class time to pique their interest and performance of the subject. This idea that doubling the amount of class time and NOT reevaluating the approach seems very flawed to say the least. I feel this stems from the school's anxieties to meet the demands of high stakes testing and to avoid " punishment". One can only hope that in the few future these policies are reformed.
Another interesting factor of the stiggins article was this idea that policy makers construct decisions on education reform, based on the results of these tests. These policy makers often having no educational experience themselves. This parallels essentially everything I've ever read of Diane Ravitch. Ravitch being one the contemporary critics of the current state of assessment. Here's a video of her on the daily show:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/z5vvj3/diane-ravitch
She talks of the "business model" being the approach these non education based policy makers are using to reform school policies. This " business model" being one where results/high test scores are emphasized like that of profits in a business. The focus on the standardized test results and not on important factions of education like content is flawed and detrimental to the overall education of students.
Anyone who may be interested in delving deeper on the topic should read her book:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Great-American-School-System/dp/0465025579
I feel that one of the most important things to come out of this article is the need to maintain a balance of assessment for learning and assessment of learning. As you mentioned in your blog, simply doubling the workload and raising the bar (as well as the stakes) without a plan of action to address students' learning needs as well as motivation to learn, is almost ignorant. There needs to be we a way of assessing our students in a way that helps us monitor their progress, inform them of this progress, and providing them a way to retain and maintain the motivation for continued progression and success. Once we have obtained this, we will have reached a balance in these two forms of assessment. We can maintain the bar raised high and fulfill our duty as educators.
ReplyDeleteI feel that many teachers are quick to judge the quality of student performances by focusing primarily on the resulting scores of students. This is a traditional way of assessment that leads to a valid and reliable inference of student achievement. However, this form of assessment has led schools to focus more on the characteristics of the instruments used to produce such scores. As educators we must redefine our assessments and recognize that assessment is more than the test score's dependability, but also about the score's effect on the learner. Let us remember the mission is helping all students succeed and enable all students to experience the productive emotional dynamics of success.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of raising the bar for each individual student is an important motivator, and that allowing more class time for math and english can improve a students approach to a subject, but it would only work if implemented correctly. Which would require teachers to be more thoughtful of each of their students as individuals that have different goals and perspectives and can't fit a mold, as much of the current "business model" suggests. In that same regard I have seen teachers that buy into the standarized testing, and hate it only because they are told to hate it and be grumpy about it, use this standard to remove students from their class that are not doing well enough, I've seen students with IEP's be put in more restrictive environments because the teacher was concerned about how they would keep up when it came time for assessments that are intended to reflect how the teacher did or school did as educators. I think most people who go into education as teachers would agree with what you have posted, so I wonder where the transformation takes place, from being an opponent to being a passive tool in enabling this type of testing to regulate education.
ReplyDeleteHey Bart,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up how you feel that simply doubling work amount is something you've seen observing, and I hate to say that I have as well. It definitely will be difficult for a struggling student do complete all the extra work when they can't even do the original task at hand. I don't really understand how some teachers are okay with having a mentality of "you're not doing your work, so here's more work for you to do." One of the important things I took away from Stiggins is that assessments are tools for both the student and the teacher. We need to constantly check up on how we deliver instruction as well as how our students receive what we teach. I feel like this sometimes gets thrown out the window when we're staring so many high stakes tests in the face. If we start communicating better with our students about how they're learning, we might get better responses from them.
Hey Bart, I couldn't agree more! Doubling up on work and time makes no sense whatsoever! If a student has not gained interest the first 50 minutes, why would we assume a time extension would garner interest? If it was me I would just be annoyed and care less about what was going on in the classroom. Instead of taking these measures, the assessments should be used to change/better adjust our ways in teaching these students. Giving them extra work when they can't do the first part is just setting up the students to fail. Unfortunately, I don't have any answers and have yet to really see it all for myself. One day though, one day.
ReplyDeleteHi Bart,
ReplyDeleteI think you are right in locating the impetus to extend class time around the imperative to succeed on high stakes tests. In other words, doubling work is done with a flawed logic that strangles learning, rather than cultivating the setting around which it might flourish. Is it possible, though, that more time could not equal more boredom? If we are doing the engaging work of our discipline, work that has engaged us as learners, for longer amounts of time, isn't it possible that our students will not be crushed by the extra work load? Kelly Gallagher, a favorite reading/education theorist/practical thinker of mine, talks of the reading "flow." This is the phenomenon we have all experienced when fully engrossed in the topic at hand. The work stops feeling like work and starts feeling like fun and engaging inquiry. We can't stop. I don't have an issue with higher workload/expectations. I, like you I think, do have an issue if that extra work looks like worksheets and rote memorization. A friend of mine is teaching a unit on the prison system to sophomores right now. She says that her students eat up class time researching quietly, stopping only to share surprising facts with one another. The work is difficult, much more difficult than what I am seeing in the English classes I am visiting for this class. Indeed, the class sounds like a college class. And yet, the students are having fun doing it because the work is challenging and high interest. They will have a final assessment that is big and time consuming. Further, it sounds like they would like more class time for this engaging topic. Is that a bad thing if they're in the flow? Isn't it always a matter of what we do with our time, short or long?
Hi Bart,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you angst against doubling up work and block periods. I think a good resolution to this issue of trying to instill curriculum effectively would be Stiggins strategy of teaching for learning. The trick part here is that in m.ost cases, it's executed by utilizing various form of formative assessments which doesn't exactly reflect a students "for learning". If student's learning is better tracked, not only by them as well as the teacher, then there might be some more enthusiasm from both parities (assumed by Stiggins as well). All of this reflects back onto the educator. I really do feel as though many teachers need to go back to the basis of teaching adolescents and tracking their understanding because there seems to be this disconnect between moving on with material and the student absorbing the information that we're assessing.
Nice post!
Saarah Mohammed
Hey Bart,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I liked the textual evidence you provided about Diane Ravitch and I read a short review of her book "Death and Life..." As long as we are plugging books, I think everyone should read "The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City" by the UIC Education Dept's very own Pauline Lippman. It is seriously the model for the encroachment of neoliberalism on the last untouched "market:' public schools.
In the book Lippman makes several points, including:
-Corporate venture philanthropy is not a golden-hearted endeavor but a way by which philanthropists gain power over education
-Tax Increment Financing (TIFs) are a slick way to take income tax collected from the poorest neighborhood schools and redistribute this wealth to the schools in the richest neighborhoods
-When society is oriented totally toward economic goals, a student's education becomes a private good subordinate only to market forces rather than a social good that seeks to actualize individual students' potential
Everyone at UIC that wants to be an educator should 100% read this book!
Correction!
Delete*When society is oriented totally toward economic goals, a student's education becomes a private good subordinate only to market forces rather than a social good that seeks to actualize individual students' potential to improve both themselves and society.