Chapter_6

= // To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher // =

Chapter 6: Keeping Track

In this chapter, Ayers takes a hard look at standardized testing and what they do (or do not ) really tell educators. The author relates that "courageous school principals and school district leaders require standardized tests only when absolutely necessary to comply with the law" (p. 128). Do you agree with this statement, or is this another attempt at critcizing standardized testing and federal mandates in general? Haven't we all observed educational leaders requiring more testiong than is mandated; are these just "fearful principals"?

(ODonnell) I have mixed feeling about this statement. From my experience, most schools still only implement the one standardized test each year- the one mandated by the state. Does this make them courageous? But those same schools, especially the ones on the SINA list, have implemented formative assessment such as progress monitoring to get a better picture of student needs. Does this mean that they are fearful? (Pfaff, N): We may have seen more principals administer more testing,but I don't think it's all out of fear. I think it is to use as extra data points to get a better understanding of the kids we serve. I do, however, agree with Ayers statement. It do think school principals try to limit the their testing because at what point will we test our kids in the ground? As far as the law is concerned, I don't necessarily agree with Ayers but I do think his comment have merit. I know there would be much less testing in our school if we weren't required to do so. We wouldn't eliminate testing completely but we would lessen the amount we subject kids too. As we all come from school with higher levels of poverty and diversity we see the biases these standardized test have. I saw a question on our ITBS that required the students to know that the rock band 'The Beatles' needed to be capitalized. For the students in my class whom are from a different culture than white middle class, how are they expected to know who The Beatles are. The question was insulting to the children... and they didn't even know it. I know I was very upset. Maybe Ayers's statement is criticizing standardized tests. But what person in education doesn't? Everyone does, and until the biases are worked out of them they will always be up for scrutiny. And rightfully so.

(Langenfeld): Courageous or not, I sense that school leaders are increasingly under pressure to increase the amount of high-stakes testing used for multiple reasons. For example, in Iowa City, we have dodged the DIBELS universal screening bullet until this year. Because it is a common, standardized assessment used by the AEAs and due to our high number of students in Special Education and recent visit from the Office of Civil Rights, we are now required to give the DIBELS battery three times a year in addition to all of the other assessments currently required in the elementary grades. Are we giving these test only to comply with the law? I don't think so. I would like to believe we are giving them to help us better understand our learners, identify patterns and trends so we can make data-driven decisions, focus on the right work, and fuel deeper professional conversations about how to best meet the needs of our kids.

(Weires): Ayers doesn't seem to be much of a fan of standardized testing, does he? Standardized testing in its current form has gotten out of hand not only in the number of tests given, but in the way results are being used. Standardized has become high-stakes. While I do think that some valuable information can be garnered from such tests, we need to step back and decide how much is too much. If a test cannot give us data we can reasonably act upon, then why give it? I agree with Ayers that authentic assessment methods are a much better way to know what learning is occurring, but I do think there still needs to be some sort of accountability within the system. (How that looks, I don't know. ) Ayers points out the difficulties of trying to use authentic assessment in a standardized way, noting that once it becomes standardized, it loses the aspects that make it "authentic" in the first place. Additionally, administrating such an assessment would be cost prohibitive. Does anyone know of other assessments being developed that would be more authentic, yet reasonable to administer and interpret?

(Sebring): It has been interesting to observe the transfer of power within the state government. In particular, there have been some waves of uncertainty with the new leader of the department of education. He has been discussing teacher pay and how that is going to drive much of the instruction (inadvertantly). I would be interested to listen to Ayers' comments in response to what the new leader has been saying. And yes, I think it is safe to say that Ayers is NOT keen on standardized testing. I like how he discussed true authentic assessment and how it includes "the three p's: projects, portfolios, and performance" (p. 129). I do agree that there does need to be some performance measure to assess the learning, but done when only absolutely necessary. I really believe that standardized tests really take the fun out of teaching and learning and "liberating the curriculum". And yes, we have all observed leaders that require quite a bit of testing. Do I believe they are "fearful"? I think maybe some of them are, while others are really into analyzing data and promoting their school (if the data shows the learning is progressing). Let's be honest, leaders have a lot of scrutiny placed upon them. If their school doesn't perform, their jobs are on the line. Do you believe if the leaders of government had the same sanctions placed upon them as our schools have, our government would behave/act differently? If the tables were turned, it would definitely be an interesting situation to watch. (Marty, commenting on Sebring): I agree that the principals who can promote their school with good scores have nothing to fear, but the school who are SINA have much to fear. A recent article in the Telegraph Herald made it clear that administrators are the ones who stand to lose the most if their school moves from SINA to PLA= persistently low achieving as it may result in the principal being let go, which is what is happening local at Prescott school. She will be keeping her administrative position in another capacity in the district, a new principal will take her place.

(Van Heukelom): First of all, I think there needs to be a balance of all types of assessment. I don't think that standardized testing is the best form of evaluating our students but I do think there are some benefits for giving these tests. They help us see where we compare and what areas our school needs to improve upon. Which brings me to my second point: as long as we are using the assessment to better our schools and our students, I think they are fine to use. If any kind of assessment is given and nothing comes from it, then we are wasting our time giving the assessment. However, if we are analyzing the results, and making instructional changes based upon them, we have a purpose for giving the assessment. School leaders who give only necessary standardized tests hopefully don't have a need for giving more. Not sure I would consider them courageous - just smart! Hopefully they have gathered enough information from the one(s) they have given and don't require giving any more. And I'm not sure I would consider school leaders who give too much testing, "fearful" - just not as efficient! The one thing that bothers me most about standardized testing is the bias, and I'm not sure how to change that. I guess Ayers puts it the best by simply saying we can't take standardized tests too seriously.

(Wendler): I was not a huge fan of this chapter by Ayers. He seems to be synically opposed to standardized testing. Yes, standardized testing has its flaws, and may not give us a complete picture of a student, but no test does that. A phrase I have heard a lot it that each test is a "snapshot" of each student. The more snapshots we collect to more able we are to put a child's puzzle together and make instructional decisions on what that child may need to improve. I think that districts in general, have made efforts to give a variety of assessments, which will in the end give us better information to make decisions. In Dubuque we use ITBS (mandated), MAP, BRI, ELA, OS and so on at the elementary level. Each test is very different in how it is proctored and what data we receive from it. By pulling together all of this "different" data, we can usually do a good job of pinpointing areas of need both within the school and with each child.

I do not think that "fearful principals" test more that others. I think that good school leaders use a variety of assessment to help teachers and the school make instructional decisions that are best for our students. We can never gather too much data, the more the better. The negative that I see is that usually these assessments interrupt instructional time in the classroom. Good leaders will find ways to get different data from different places to give us the most information possible to make the best possible decisions for our students and our school.

(Weires commenting on Wendler) I like the idea that we are trying to put together each student's puzzle by considering the many different pieces we have. We need to get those making decisions based on single standardized test scores to see this. I'm glad you pointed out the amount of time used for testing and how that impacts instructional time - this is definitely an issue. Test scores can't go up if we don't have the time in the classroom to teach the students.

(Pfaff) I do feel that principals are feeling the squeeze from their school district and the results of standardized testing. My school is currently in the second year of being labeled School in Need of Assistance (SINA). Just this week our principal announced to the staff that our ITBS results came in and since that was announced the whole staff is anxiously waiting to hear how our scores are and if we are off of the labeling. I feel standardized tests are good for some students but for the majority of students it is not an accurate test on how a student performs overall. I do not know what kind of test would be the best for students but something needs to change. Also I agree with the other posts that Ayers is not a fan of standardized testing.

(Pfaff) commenting on Langenfeld: I agree with your comment about giving standardized testing does give teachers and principals an idea of what the students are learning and what they should still be continuing to learn about. I just wander if these types of tests are best for all students to take.

(Hawkins) Yes, I would agree that Ayers is not a fan of standardized testing. I also agree with Heather that schools in Dubuque are anxiously awaiting ITBS scores. I am on the site council at one of our middle schools and the data was released the day of our last meeting and that was the first thing the principal wanted to share with the group. He was proud of the growth the students had made in the past 4 school years and he praised the teachers in his building for all their efforts with kids. This was used in a positive way even though the school was still below 80% proficient in some areas. When I look at all the assessments my own kids bring home from school, it is reassuring to know that teachers are taking many snapshots of their students and working from those snapshots to improve instruction. I think in our district principals give the required district tests and then work with their staffs on some common assessments, I don't think it is done out of fear, it is done so they can show improvement of their students. I hear many principal comment on improvements in their buildings, they might not be big gains, but a gain is a gain.

(Wendler commenting on Van Huekelom): Katie I agree with you, bias bothers me too. But with the pressure put on standardized tests, aren't we forced to take them seriously even though they drive us nuts? (Van Heukelom commenting on Wendler): Yes, I think you are right, Dan. Perhaps, I shouldn't have agreed with Ayers in saying we don't have to take them seriously. I guess what I meant by not taking them too seriously is that we need to understand that when a minority student doesn't do well on a standardized test because of bias, we have to realize this and take other factors into account when figuring out what this student knows.

(Lowery): I think that school leaders are constantly looking over their shoulders at the standardized test scores to determine the amount of slack they are going to receive. Last year, my building was the only high school in our district to not be labeled a Persistently Low Achieving School. Therefore, the pressure to remain that way, since the label comes according to standardized test scores, was increased while every other high school building was given a bye year to adjust to changes made to improve the schools. I think school leaders in this day and age attempt to focus on the whole student with the instruction strategies they present, visions that are created and other factors that are positive for students to participate in to not seem like they are only focusing on the test at the end of the year. I feel my principal is one of a few principals that focus on testing within the content consistently and not just the standardized test data. I will have to say that a lot of decisions are made based off that data within our building internally, but the work is done throughout the entire year in preparation for the test, not just the last month before the test.

(Pfaff, N) Commenting on Lowery: I think your statements on school leaders looking over their shoulders' is spot on, Ocie. Leaders are held accountable for what happens under the roof in their building. Talk to the principals who have lost their jobs or been reassigned because of persistently low test scores. Talk to them about fair. I would be willing to bet 90% of those principals come from schools with high poverty rate.

(Marty) I recently attended a Language Arts Curriculum Development meeting that focued on looking at the different reading assessments we currently use in our district, how we use them, and some other options that we might consider in place of those assessments. We did not come to any conclusions, but we agreed that our system needs improving in order to be the best picture of what students really know about reading, and its different components (i.e. phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension). Although Ayers (2010) tone seems to be negative in this statement, "Sorting children into winners and losers is the main business of standardized tests" (p. 127). I agree, as a district, that we follow this practice, but we are looking for the students who need additional intervensions to reach the grade level expectations as well as those who may need to be challenged by more than what our average curriculum offers. Our interventions are not skill and drill as the chapter implies either. Much of what we do at the elementary level revolves around using manipulatives for both math and reading, which appeal to a variety of learning styles. If we find the student is not making progress, we try another method to reach their deficit until we find one that actually starts to have an impact. Without testing, we may not be able to identify the needs our students have.

Hawkins comment on Langenfeld) Ann- I like your comment about why districts give all the assessments. I think you came up with good reasons but I think a bigger question is how do you convience the classroom teachers of those reasons when they are so overwhelmed?

(Bischoff) I believe Principals have their hands tied with standardized tests and federal mandates. For the last three years at Pleasant Valley High School we have been offering MAP testing to all of our freshman students. With the Map test the next question is based on if you got the previous question correct or incorrect. If you get a question correct the next question will be harder. If you get a question wrong the next question will be easier. We have found this test has help get a better gauge on where our students are academically. Teachers have the option to occasionally use the MAP test during the year for their classes. For the most part students have been positive about the test. I have had some lower level students say they like it better because they feel like the questions were at there learning ability. Higher level students also like the test because it challenges them more than ITEDS. I have also heard from students they like getting their results as soon as they are done. Their scores are also broken down into different categories and they can see were they were good and were they need to improve. These tests are not required by the state and they have been beneficial to our students and teachers. I believe Ayers would prefer a test like this over a normal standardized test. Although the MAP test does not meet one of his alternative three P’s. (Projects, Portfolios, or Performance). that he states on page 129.

(Merritt) Commenting on Bischoff: I agree that the students that I've been around do prefer the MAP tests and the I also agree that it appears to be a nice test. Immediate feedback and questions based on answers to previous questions. It's kind of like those books where you choose a solution and it tells you to go to a certain page and then you choose another path, etc.

(Merritt): I'm not sure I agree with the whole courageous and fearful thing on this mainly because I think each context is different and the pressure to test is different at each school. I've never personally been around a principal that has just tested the daylights out of our students so if this were true, I'd have to say I've always been around courageous principals. I think most principals probably do try to do near the minimum required or close to when it comes to the number of standardized tests. I think a reason this happens is because of the disruption that standardized testing usually has on the school. I look at ITBS week for our school and how much effort we put into having a different schedule, snacks, planning, etc. I think if all of that wasn't involved, then we'd maybe see more testing. Also, I agree with the idea of the 3 P's that Ayers mentioned on page 129: projects, portfolios, and performance. We definitely need to start finding additional measures of our students achievement than standardized testing. I'm not saying abandon standardized testing, I just think there are additional measures we could use.

(Falck): Standardized testing is something many educators frown on when it is brought up. Not all students who are successful in the classroom are successful on these tests. Not all subject areas are tested, so how is that I as a social studies teacher can be judged by these test? There are so many variable to whether a student does well on these test or not, that I have to say I am not a huge supporter. However, I do see the need for them. We as educators do need to have some kind of testing that shows us how our students compare to other students, in our district, state, and nation. Whether or not our current testing is the best one, I do know, but I do think that we have to have some kind of standardized testing. I do not believe teacher pay should be based on this, being that the best teachers will leave the struggling schools, and they will be even worse off then they were before. I have not been in a building where the kids are tested all the time, however we do make a big deal out of ITED’s in our building specifically because we are a SINA school and need better scores.

(ODonnell commenting on Falck): What if a school that focuses all of their energy on standardized tests results in lengthen core classes- reading and math- and shorten classes like science and social studies. Would you want your children to attend the school? I wouldn't. One thing that standardized tests fail to do is give a well-rounded view of a students education. Your comment about how can your be judged as a teacher from this test really got me to think.

(Jones): For the most part I agree with Ayers’ statement. With that being said I don’t necessarily believe that standardized tests themselves are completely useless, but I do have a major problem with the way that standardized test results are used (misused) today. I think “courageous” school leaders take it upon themselves to educate their stakeholders on how standardized test results should and should not be used. “Teachers, parents, and youngsters need to know exactly how the tests are made, who makes them and for what purposes, and who wins and who loses among test-takers” (Ayers, 2010, p. 125). In addition, I think courageous school leaders are willing to call out those individuals and/or organizations who misuse test results to advance their own agendas.

(Hach commenting on Merritt): I also liked the 3 P's Ayers mentioned in this chapter. Has your school implemented any of these kinds of assessments with students? I know at our school teachers who would like to use more assessments like the 3 P's really struggle with how to put a grade on assessments such as these and how these fit into the grading system we use. I think if teachers are willing to put forth the time and energy to create and use more meaningful assessments (for both the student and teacher) then we will ultimately have a better understanding of our students learning than an assessment such as a standardized test.

(Hach): I believe in our district we use standardized tests only when absolutely necessary. I also feel that our teachers and administrators understand the tests well enough to know what these tests can tell us about our students/school and what they don’t tell us about our students/school. I think the administrators have spent a decent amount of time explaining why we have to give standardized tests and the limited scope to which we can actually use the results for. I don’t believe our school requires more testing that what is mandated. My principal does require all classrooms to conduct a variety of other weekly assessments, but those assessments provide teachers with valuable information and data on each of their students that can and should be used to better differentiate weekly/daily instruction. I don’t believe the problem in our school is the over-use of assessments, rather the concern is are teachers actually using assessments to drive their instruction.

(Baldry) In Davenport, our ESL students take two tests--the ITBS and the I-ELDA (Iowa English Language Development Assessment). The I-ELDA is also a standardized test, but it focuses on the four aspects of language--reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Students must be proficient on both tests (41st percentile or better in reading, math & science on the ITBS and a 5 or 6 out of 6 on the I-ELDA) in order to be exited from ESL. We have students in our program who have lived in the U.S. for most, or even all, of their lives and speak and understand English as well as most "American students." Some of these students have scored in the 70th or 80th percentile on the reading and science portions of the ITBS, have a 6 on the I-ELDA...but they are still in ESL because they are only in the high 30th percentile in math...is that really a reason to remain in ESL? Also, these students must maintain these scores for three years in a row...we have a student this year who dropped to the 38th percentile in reading after being set to exit from the ESL program this year if he made the appropriate scores for the 3rd year in a row...and he now has to go back to full status and prove himself for 3 more years in a row...is this really fair????? We have native English speakers who have never scored anywhere near the 38th percentile in reading...do they belong in ESL? Just voicing some of my frustrations with the "importance" of standardized test scores! Shouldn't teacher perceptions (the human factor) be an important part of some of these decisions, too?

(Hughes) Classrooms are expected to give too many summative tests. One fifth grade teacher reported her students where taking 70 or so math tests in the calendar year. That was just math. With the need for more formative assessment, the overall amount of testing needs to be reviewed. Are all the tests giving teachers the information they need to drive instruction? Are some redundant? How is a teacher supposed to use the information when every time you turn around you are preparing to give another test? There needs to be time allotted to teach. It seems teachers are bogged down by testing. I feel a leader with courage is willing to advocate for learning and address the purpose behind some of the testing at the district level. It seems new tests are expected annually, but current tests are not being taken out of the equation. I believe tests give valuable information, but when it gets to the point there is not time to teach, we need to take a closer look at if we are truly using the information to drive instruction or just to meet a deadline. As Ayers points out, “Fight to bring them into some meaningful perspective” (p. 129).

(Wylder)––Standardized testing is not courageous. The purpose of the test is to separate students from one another based on skills. In other words, who are the smart ones and who is not. These tests do not test the mastery of a concept; they test multiple skills at a time. Therefore, requiring students to take more of these types of tests is an unhelpful process that takes away from instructional time. Creating intervention groups where students can isolate skills and gain proficiency with peers is a more important use of time. My second graders were given all portions of the ITBS test this year and it took six days for us to complete. One subject of study was cut out for one whole week while this test was administered. How would it be fair to expect students to achieve higher levels when they would be given less instruction time? I also wouldn't say that the principals are being fearful. I would say tat the principals are responding to something outside their control that can effect the teachers that work in their buildings and the students that go to their schools. What is the other option? Refuse to take the tests and lose federal money? That is not a choice; a school would not be able to run if funding was pulled.

(Wylder commenting on Wendler)––Yes, standardized tests give us a snapshot. However, I want to know, what is the purpose of lining up students in the US and saying, " You are in the lowest percentile in the country and you are in the highest percentile in the country?" Is that really helping us promote the idea that learning is important, that we should be collaborative learners? Or are we just perpetuating the idea that learning is a competition to see who can learn the fastest and the most? It seems to me that learning is a team sport and we are telling students to compete against each other rather than with each other.

(Griswold) Like it or not, standardized testing is not going away. As an instructional leader, we have to figure out how to increase our scores as a school while doing what’s best for our students. On the same idea, our students should have authentic assessment whenever possible. Forget the standardized tests that are required once a year, these aren’t the things that we really want our students to be able to do. We want them to be able to actually read, solve math problems, and have writing skills at their grade level. Any other skills that measure skills other than that are somewhat pointless. So, our formative and summative assessments in these areas are pointless, especially if they are “trick” questions. As for all other subject areas, we should be pushing our authentic assessments and teaching kids how to solve a multitude of 21st century skills to be the citizens that they will someday be. Younger students should be exploring more of these areas to see what they could be interested in, while older students should be fine tuning many of these skills and preparing for their next step.