Our Students Understand THE TEST More Than We Realize
Last week, I received the results of my middle school-aged daughter’s state assessments, – and it validated what I’ve theorized for years.
My daughter was partially proficient in math and minimally proficient in English language arts according to the AZMERIT, the state summative assessment used by the Arizona Department of Education to measure and monitor not only student achievement but also overall school performance.
The irony and conflict with my daughter’s results is she is in Honors English and receives A’s in English language arts. She is not thrilled about reading (she’s like most kids these days who are more multisensory and prefers to watch and hear than read), but she does well. She is an excellent writer. However, according to the state assessments, she’s minimally proficient in not only a class but also an area in which she is extremely strong and skilled.
Math was not a great experience for my daughter last year. She was not a fan of her teacher, and she felt overloaded by nightly homework in which she had to complete multiple problems. She received her first C ever because, according to the teacher, she didn’t work up to her capability and potential, She’s also more verbal than logical. Regardless, she was evaluated as partially proficient on the state summative assessment.
My wife and I discussed my daughter’s results with her. She told us the tests were hard in 7th grade. My wife and I understood. We are both educators, and we both know where the complexity shifts are in the K-12 learning experience: between 3rd and 4th grade as students move from learning to read and do math to reading and doing math to learn; between 6th and 7th grade when the texts and problems become more abstract; high school where the texts and problems become more complex. We accepted the test could have been more difficult and challenging for our daughter, so we did not fret over her performance.
However, I had another theory. Something I have suspected not only about my daughter but other students and their parents.
I took my daughter out to In-and-Out for lunch to do a Jerry Maguire. A Jerry Maguire is when you take someone to a crowded place to have a serious conversation that could go bad or take a wrong turn; however, the person most likely (and hopefully) won’t make a scene.
I asked my daughter to be straight with me about what happened with the state assessments. I assured her I would not be upset, but I wanted to understand what happened because her results did not reflect her capability and her performance in these subjects in schools not only presently but also historically.
I said, “Tell me the truth. You didn’t care how you did on the tests.”
My daughter nodded.
I asked why she didn’t care. She told me there were too many questions and toward the end she got tired and gave up. She had enough. She also said what I was wondering if and waiting for her to say.
“Besides, they don’t mean anything. It’s more about the school and the teachers than me.”
That’s why I titled this blog “The Students Understand THE TEST More Than We Realize”. It’s not that they understand the content or how to answer the items they are presented on the tests. It’s that they understand in states where the assessments do not affect their grades, whether they go to the next grade level, or whether they grade that the tests really are not about them.
My daughter is not the only one who feels this way. I have spoken to other parents whose kids purposefully “threw the test” because they didn’t have any impact on their lives or they were just tired of being tested. I have spoken to school leaders who told me about students who purposely “threw the test” because they knew their progress had greater impact on the school or their teacher’s performance than their own. I have spoken to parents who told their children not to stress or even taken the test seriously because they “mean nothing”.
There is a sad element of truth to this.
THE TEST mean nothing to the students, and they know this.
How? Experience.
Students move to the next grade level despite how they perform on THE TEST. Students’ final grades in a course are not impacted by their performance on THE TEST. The only “consequence” students will face based on their performance on THE TEST is they will receive extended learning time in literacy and / or math as part of the Response to Intervention (RtI) / Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) or they will be placed in a “lower level” course that might be easier for them – and that’s perfectly fine with many students who do not want to be challenged in school.
The parents also understand that the tests mean nothing to their students. That’s why many parents have chosen to opt-out of the state assessments. That’s why many parents don’t stress to the students to do well on the state assessments. That’s also why many parents choose to keep their students home because they disagree with the “testing culture” of education or because their children are so anxious they become physically ill and don’t want to go to school. (I will admit I kept my daughter home one day during her testing week because she was so upset about the tests.)
However, THE TEST does impact the school and its staff – and the students understand this!
Schools are penalized because of the letter grade they receive. It impacts their standing with their state department of education who will put them on comprehensive school improvement or targeted school improvement (or both at the same time, which is similar to putting schools on “double secret probation”).
Schools are also ostracized for their letter grade. It impacts their reputation or standing in their community. It also impacts schools’ marketing and recruitment campaign. How can schools promote themselves as a great school when their letter grade is a C, D, or F? What parent wants to send their child to a school that is graded a C. D, or F according to student performance and progress on THE TEST?
Staff are also impacted by the letter grade. The staff has to be confronted and continuously be reminded by the leadership at the district or site level that they “need to raise their school letter grade” or “need to show the growth”. Many teachers whose class has a majority of students who did not attain proficiency on THE TEST have the scores held against them. They have more professional demands and development thrust on them without any extra time to meet those demands or practice using the methods, strategies, and techniques from the trainings. They are directed to meet and function as PLCs without any clear understanding of what a PLC is, their purpose, or their function (PS – Don’t say you “do PLCs”. You are a PLC.).
That’s one of many reasons why students may not be performing poorly on state assessments. They understand it’s about the school and staff, not them. They understand their results impact the school and staff, not them. They understand they don’t need to care because THE TEST has nothing to do with them.
Sadly, they are right?
So what can be done?
First of all, we need to stop behaving as John Oliver satirizes in this clip.
Admit it. Your school does this. Or may have done this. Or you know a school who preps and pumps up the kids about THE TEST by making videos such as these.
Guess what? It’s not working. It’s also insulting. Standardized testing time is about as exciting and as highly anticipated among the staff and students as Sex Education Week.
We need to change the attitude and culture of testing amongst all stakeholders – the students, the parents, the staff, and the overall school system. Don’t treat THE TEST as it is what is is.
It is what you make of it. However, if you make it what the videos in this clip from LAST WEEK TONIGHT portray it to be, your students – and even your staff – will see right through you.
We need to clarify and communicate what is the true purpose of assessment.
Assessment is measurable.
It’s about measuring and monitoring student performance and progress. That’s not based on a letter grade or score given to the student, the staff, or even the school. It’s about gauging growth. It’s about making informed decisions about how to develop and deliver instruction. It’s about encouraging students to demonstrate and communicate their learning up to and beyond the expectations set by a standard.
Assessment should also based multiple measures, not on just one test that serves as the primary criterion. Effective Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support use multiple criteria to measure and monitor not only student performance and progress but also mitigating factors. Each of these criteria serve as a checks and balance to ensure students’ needs for learning are being addressed efficiently and effectively.
Assessment is a ceiling.
It’s about understanding what is the goal established by the learning expectation of a standard and how it sets the ceiling of assessment – the highest and deepest level a standardized assessment could and should demand students to demonstrate and communicate their learning. However, many learning expectations of standards have multiple objectives within them that serve as assessments over a continuum of learning. We need to deconstruct the learning expectation of standards not only to determine how many objectives are within them but also what exactly and how deeply they could demand students to demonstrate and communicate their learning.
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Levels are an effective resource and tool for determining not only the level of complexity but also what is the ceiling of assessment set by the most cognitively demanding objective of a standard’s learning expectation.
– Does an objective, activity, item, or task simply require students to recall information or recall how to use information or procedures to answer correctly? Then the goal a DOK-1.
– Does an objective, activity, item, or task challenge students to apply knowledge, concepts, or skills or use information and basic reasoning to establish and explain with examples how to answer questions, address problems accomplish tasks, or analyze texts or topics? Then the goal is a DOK-2.
– Does an objective, activity, item, or task engage students to think strategically or use complex reasoning to examine and explain with evidence how to attain and explain answers and arguments – be it their own or those made by others? Then it’s a DOK-3.
– Does an objective, activity, item, or task encourage students to think extensively or use extended reasoning to explore and explain with examples and evidence how to transfer, use, and share learning in different contexts and new situations deep within a subject area, across the curriculum, or beyond the classroom? Then it’s a DOK-4.
The DOK levels of the individual objectives within a learning expectation will differ. Why? Because assessment should be a scope of learning. Assessments won’t test students only at the DOK ceiling. That would make the test too hard.
Assessment is responsive.
It’s about determining where are the gaps. However, that’s not determined by looking at the results of THE TEST. Start with the learning expectation of the standard as written and published. Don’t make objectives “student friendly” because you might be denying students to develop deeper vocabulary knowledge. Inform the students this is the highest and deepest level of learning they are expected to demonstrate. Ask students, “What are the words, terms, or details you do not know or understand?” Don’t have students simply shout out words. Have them express what they don’t know or understand by phrasing it as a question. (e.g. What is theme? What does it mean to multiply? What does it mean to analyze? What are the parts of a cell? What are the Articles of Confederation?). Have the students develop the foundational – or DOK-1 – learning experience based on what they don’t know or understand, not just what they must learn. Determine what are students’ areas of strength, growth, improvement, need, and interests when it comes to the learning expectation of the standard.
Assessment is diagnostic.
It’s about planning how can students grow in their learning. Provide opportunities for students to demonstrate and communicate their deeper conceptual and procedural understanding. However, that’s not based on how many questions, problems, or tasks they can answer, solve, or complete correctly. Student learning should be marked and measured based on how clearly and comprehensively students can practice, transfer, use, and share their learning. Turn the statements of objectives in the learning expectation of standards into good questions that will not only serve as assessments but also set the instructional focus. Have students address and respond to these questions in their own words. Have students use the texts or items they must read, review, and respond to in class as examples and evidence to strengthen and support their responses. This provides both students and educators another source of data they can use to measure and monitor student performance and progress.
An effective practice in diagnostic assessment is standards-based grading. Students are graded based on their level of proficiency. That’s not determined solely by how many items they can answer correctly in one setting or an average of performance on assignments and assessments. It’s about evidence of learning and how successfully and even how often students are hitting or mastering the learning targets or ceiling of assessment set by the most cognitively demanding learning expectation of a standard. It’s on an item-by-item basis rather than judging the assessment as a whole or student learning as an average of scores.
To learn more about standards-based grading, I highly recommend you read and review the work of my colleagues Rick Wormeli, Ken O’Connor, Lee Ann Jung, and Garnett Hillman.
Assessment is encouraging.
It’s about where else could students go. It should not be treated as THE END. Assessments should be formative as well as summative. Benchmark assessments should inform students not only where they are and whether they met intended goals, objectives, or targets. They should also inform students what is the next stage and encourage them to challenge themselves and take that next step.
This is also why standards-based grading is a more encouraging and effective form of assessment. Grades and scores are based on the mode — i.e., the value that occurs the most — rather than the mean or average of grades or scores. Student “scores” for learning should also be on a scale of 0-3 or 0-4 instead of a 100% scale or letter grades. This allows student learning to be evaluated on an item-by-item basis or based on individual performance over a series of assessments, the most common score would be the grade. For example, if the student scores are 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 4, 4, the overall “score” of student performance would be a 3 because that’s the most common “score.” The other scores could be attributed not only to whether the student just did not “get it” but also whether students could be presented with a “bad item” or even if the student is having a “bad day”.
That’s the socioemotional learning factor of assessment we need to consider. Sometimes kids just have a “bad” or “off-day”. Unfortunately, that could be on the day they are taking THE TEST. Is it far to evaluate student performance for an entire year if they happen to have a “bad day”? That’s how individual athletes and sports teams are evaluated – based on that one game rather than their average of performance over a season.
Assessment is authentic.
It’s about what else students could design, develop, or do. Standardized assessments are about the masses and the middle. Students are lumped into a group or subgroup and compared against their peers. Authentic assessments not only gauge but also showcase how students can demonstrate and communicate their learning in their own unique way, Provide them with opportunities to demonstrate and communicate the depth and extent of their learning through authentic learning experiences such as problem-based, inquiry-based, project-based, expeditionary, or service learning.
Let’s face it. THE TEST is not what it used to be – a measure of student learning or a means for school accountability. It’s about advertising in that the school’s letter grade not only impacts their standing in the community but also drives their marketing and recruitment campaign. It’s about anxiety in that the schools, staff, and students are so stressed they are worrying themselves sick. It’s also about apathy in that students have figured out THE TEST has no true impact on them. They are burned out from all the tests they take over the course of the year that lead up to THE TEST. They also see through the hypocrisy of the campaigns and promotions about THE TEST.
Our students understand this, and we need to understand and accept that if we are ever to change the attitude and culture of assessment and truly determine how well our students, staff, and schools are performing..
