Comments on: Predicting Futility (At a Price)

By: Steve Perez

Steve Perez — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:29:35 +0000

Angie, thanks for sharing your story – it’s a real reality check on the current testing mania.

By: Angie

Angie — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:29:46 +0000

Jackie, I loved your article. You’re right on the money. I remember many, many years ago I had a student who struggled so hard, it broke my heart. He was in 5th grade, but was performing on a 3rd grade level. Well, when he got a high score on his citywide test, the principal and his parents were thrilled! I stared at them with my mouth wide open. These seemingly intelligent people were willing to believe one test score over a year of low performance. I was a brand new teacher, but I knew how ridiculous the whole thing was. Obviously he had guessed well on the multiple choice questions. It was luck that got him the high score, not intelligence. Maybe the people pushing these assessments got to where they are today because of multiple choice tests!!
Angie

By: jd2718

jd2718 — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:45:33 +0000

Certainly in math, there is no comparison between looking at a list of right and wrong answers, on the one hand, and looking at student work on the other. Only in the latter case do we know what’s going wrong.

If a multiple choice test analysis comes back saying that Steven is having trouble with fractions, what do we do? We test him with short answer questions so we can see his work so that we can find out what’s wrong.

Jonathan

By: NYC Public School Parents: Periodic assessments: a waste of precious time and dollars

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:40:57 +0000

[...] piece by Jackie Bennett on the UFT blog Edwize about the so-called periodic assessments – which start next week. She says they will produce [...]

By: Jackie Bennett

Jackie Bennett — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:07:05 +0000

Hi Peter – actually my instructors were wonderful and so was the workshop. It was professional. There was a presenter from the vendor who was smart and patient with our many questions and not for one second did I feel like I was being condescended to. And that is just as true for the DoE liaison who accompanied her in order to answer questions. She was great, very engaging. Both of these women exhibited enthusiasm and grace under pressure, even when my colleagues and I asked a lot of questions. These women were terrific.

But I disagree about the usefulness of the parsed data (won’t repeat my post) and I also disagree that this is what our younger teachers need. I am often extraordinarily impressed by our new teachers, and given the limited resources in any organization, I’d prefer the money had gone to supporting them in what they most seem to want support in, which is in how to handle 30 children at one time. Would love to know if the board is being as exacting with providing them mentors and assistance with class issues as it is with getting the numbers into ARIS in time.

(And here, here to rainyvines. The literature is in the language. Heaven save us from the pasteurized, adulterated and abridged garbage they pass off as reading material in English classes these days. I still believe in books, as you surely seem to. As to skills without context, and education without knowledge – a depressing subject, to take up in some later post.

By: rainyvines

rainyvines — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:58:43 +0000

I agree with Jackie Bennett (and it’s not the first time). I see many problems with this costly use of multiple choice data to “inform and drive instruction.” In addition to those she already mentioned, these tests are utterly inappropriate for beginner and intermediate-level English language learners, who may not understand the texts or questions in the first place.

Also, regardless of population, the tests assume a mindset that may be unnatural to young children and even teens. When children have difficulty locating the “main idea,” they may be blessed, not deficient. Children (even into high school) often find supreme importance in things that adults might consider irrelevant at best (ever read The Little Prince?) A skilled teacher can help them come to recognize overarching themes and concepts, without destroying their love for the particulars.

Multiple choice tests assume that children have the same conceptual hierarchy as adults (or should). Like so many other aspects of test-obsessed culture, these tests and the accompanying test prep disregard and destroy children’s individual ways of thinking.

Devil’s Advocate: Children should learn about “main idea” and such before they get slammed with it. They will need it in high school and beyond, so the earlier they get used to it, the better.

Refutation: Yes, they will need to use it. It does not follow that they need to begin in fourth grade, or even sixth. And it should be introduced in the context of compelling ideas and literature, not canned, pasteurized, adulterated, abridged stuff.

By: Peter Goodman

Peter Goodman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:18:23 +0000

Jackie
Maybe I sat in on a session with a better instructor … I was impressed … with a school system filled with newer teachers the ready availability of predictive assessment data, IF PROPERLY USED, can be useful.

In collabortive schools with Teacher Centers at the core of school PD data can drive and inform instruction …

What is sad is that some of Klein’s ideas, example, Inquiry Teams, are excellent ideas … mandating and driving down school throats guarantee failure.