What and how do we assess our students' learning? The school-aged children where I work are assessed in a number of ways. One assessment is a computerized test that all the students in kindergarten through fourth grade take. It is from the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA). The students take this test three times each year, allowing the teachers and parents to see the students' progress along with a district average and national average. The scores are able to be compared for the same child to show growth, and to also show if that child is above, below, or on target with his/her peers in reading and math. A second assessment tool used by our district is Accelerated Reader (AR). This allows the teachers to make sure that the child is reaching a reading level goal, among other things. And thirdly, and most importantly, is our state's tests, Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test (OCCT). This test is currently given to third grade and above to measure student achievement.
In my personal opinion, yes, I believe these tests help to validate the learning that is supposed to be happening in every classroom. But I do not think teaching to a test is the right way to teach. If we as teachers are correctly teaching the curriculum that we are required to teach, then we should not have to spend extra time preparing the students for a test that we have already taught them the skills that they need. So if we are doing we are supposed to do, then we shouldn't have to worry about our students passing "the test."
In Japan, children go to kindergarten or day care until they are 6 years of age. Formal schooling then begins with elementary schools for grades 1-6. Grades may not determine if a child promotes to the next grade as it is determined more by attendance. But as they get to junior high school and high school aged, then they must pass a test to progress. The test is written by the teachers, but many practice tests are available. There are some more elite schools that require their own tests that are more difficult than the standards. I, personally, feel that the children in Japan are much more disciplined than the children in the United States so they are able to master academics in a different way than here. It would be interesting to look at a study of the differences in morals and respect between the two countries to see if they are a factor in the academic differences in the students.
Resources: http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/measurement/pubs/apD51.pdf
I agree with your stance on teaching to the test. Teachers are being accused of teaching just to test content and then recently the buzz phrase curriculum alignment has been used, teachers aligning curriculum with tests. To me, they are one in the same and maybe we should attempt to link curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards in a more transparent way. I think this communication can ensure we are prepared for standardized tests, they are not going away, while still able to encourage creativity and student interest. There is an obvious need for children to learn both skills to be successful on tests as well as skills that allow them to think and engage in learning.
ReplyDeleteIt is wonderful to see teachers who are so passionately involved in the field of early childhood like you. it generates more passion in your colleagues, keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing on Oklahoma's testing forms. whatever style you abide by and believe in, the question is
Do tests reflect current knowledge about how students learn?
"Not at all. While our understanding of the brain and how people learn and think has progressed enormously, standardized tests have remained the same".
Also, " Today, cognitive and developmental psychologists understand that knowledge is not separable bits and that people (including children) learn by connecting what they already know with what they are trying to learn. If they cannot actively make meaning out of what they are doing, they do not learn or remember".
I believe in the multiple intelligence testing. We just need a balance.
http://www.fairtest.org/facts/whatwron.htm
Thank you for sharing the information. I agree that the curriculum should not be necessarily based just to pass a test. Like you said, if the teacher teaches the material and the student learns it, the test should not be a problem. I know in Texas students do not graduate if they don't pass the TEKS which is the exit exam. There are a lot of students who get very nervous and stressed all year because of this. I have met some that have very good grades and all the credits needed but just cant ass the test and end up with a GED. I do not think this is fair because they have completed their schol and have not quit, therefore they should not settle for a GED but a high school diploma instead.
ReplyDeleteDear Sara, thank you for posting your state's and school district's different assessments for testing. My school is currently undergoing changes where we will be using a programs called MAPS, which is a norm-criterion based test done on the computer. I am very excited because it will allow teachers to gain specifics to where a child is struggling in the standards of the common core curriculum.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Kelly
I like how the early years for promotion are based on attendance. I believe the more a child attends school the more they will learn. Teachers creating the end of year test would be marvelous. More teachers would be dedicated to teaching and making learning fun versus teaching to the test.
ReplyDeleteWhere I live, we have yearly assessments (in the school system). Before the children are given these assessments they are always given a practice test, to see what they know. The one thing that bothers me about this assessment is after they receive the scores, the remainder of the curriculum is to prepare the children for the assessment, rather than going by the original plans. I really do not like "teaching the children for the test", rather than teaching the children for advancement.
ReplyDelete