Hello! I appreciate your work so much. However, I do support student achievement testing when it is used ONLY for intended, as designed, purposes. For example, most state tests (e.g. NC where I live) are designed to measure student progress toward achieving state standards (reading, math, science). The add-ons such as teacher evaluation are not part of test design or development. They're invalid policy add-ons and should be dropped! But test data do show us important things. In NC, they have been used to argue for better state funding for schools because students are not achieving academically. Without the test data, the argument would be much harder. I guess what I'm asking is that you shift from what I'm perceiving as an anti-test in all cases stance to a stance against inappropriate uses of tests. I do believe there are sound ways to use test data. Without it, we wouldn't have the Leandro case in NC. This webinar about Leandro gives a good background. It's incredible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myDlLF7Oqf4
Standardized testing can be used to the good, but it usually isn't. It is often used to justify school vouchers and spending public dollars on private schools. At the district level, I have seen it used to evaluate individual students even though this kind of testing is designed to evaluate groups, not individuals. Poverty has always been the most important factor in test scores. We have known that for years. But it is easier to blame schools low test scores than it is for our society to look at the systemic issues of childhood poverty.
No news to those of us who've been following the topic for decades. These tests are used by policymakers as a proxy for their "fidiciuary" oversight responsibliies while there's been precious few examples at any level of significant resource reallocations toward disadvantaged students. Worse, as the study shows but isn't highlighted, local districts are complicit in continuing the practice because it's easier and cheaper than actually altering instructional resources for those kids on a sustained basis so they could actually acquire the missing background knowledge their situaitons have deprived them of through no fault of their own. Sadly, their parents aren't organized enough to have the influence of the historic majorities on boards, administrations and unions so the status quo maintains, as it has for twenty plus years. Meanwhile, testing companies prosper.
Hello! I appreciate your work so much. However, I do support student achievement testing when it is used ONLY for intended, as designed, purposes. For example, most state tests (e.g. NC where I live) are designed to measure student progress toward achieving state standards (reading, math, science). The add-ons such as teacher evaluation are not part of test design or development. They're invalid policy add-ons and should be dropped! But test data do show us important things. In NC, they have been used to argue for better state funding for schools because students are not achieving academically. Without the test data, the argument would be much harder. I guess what I'm asking is that you shift from what I'm perceiving as an anti-test in all cases stance to a stance against inappropriate uses of tests. I do believe there are sound ways to use test data. Without it, we wouldn't have the Leandro case in NC. This webinar about Leandro gives a good background. It's incredible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myDlLF7Oqf4
Standardized testing can be used to the good, but it usually isn't. It is often used to justify school vouchers and spending public dollars on private schools. At the district level, I have seen it used to evaluate individual students even though this kind of testing is designed to evaluate groups, not individuals. Poverty has always been the most important factor in test scores. We have known that for years. But it is easier to blame schools low test scores than it is for our society to look at the systemic issues of childhood poverty.
No news to those of us who've been following the topic for decades. These tests are used by policymakers as a proxy for their "fidiciuary" oversight responsibliies while there's been precious few examples at any level of significant resource reallocations toward disadvantaged students. Worse, as the study shows but isn't highlighted, local districts are complicit in continuing the practice because it's easier and cheaper than actually altering instructional resources for those kids on a sustained basis so they could actually acquire the missing background knowledge their situaitons have deprived them of through no fault of their own. Sadly, their parents aren't organized enough to have the influence of the historic majorities on boards, administrations and unions so the status quo maintains, as it has for twenty plus years. Meanwhile, testing companies prosper.