Earlier this week I said I found it interesting that colleges were moving away from standardized tests while K-12 school rush to test more. Some apparently are in doubt about the first part of my statement. While none of the top 20 universities have declared the SAT/ACT optional on their campus, a growing number of reputable schools have. Here's a list of 815 colleges who don't require SAT/ACT for all students. I have no idea if this trend has reached its zenith or if this list will continue to grow, but it seems clear to me that the trend in college admissions has definitively shifted toward placing less emphasis on standardized test scores.
CNN wrote about the movement away from SAT/ACT scores a year ago, USA Today wrote about it three years ago, and the NY Times featured an article on the topic six years ago. And I won't get into all the coverage of other steps taken to deemphasize standardized test scores.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with colleges that have moved in this direction, I think it's notable that they have done this in the midst of perhaps the largest expansion of standardized testing in K-12 schools in our nation's history.
Showing posts with label standardized testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standardized testing. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Colleges and Standardized Tests
A headline in today's local paper pointed out that another high-ranking college has chosen to eliminate the SAT and ACT as a requirement. Does anybody else find it odd that colleges are placing less emphasis on standardized test results while K-12 schools rush to test more?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Tests Aren't Omniscient
I like David Brooks, but sometimes he goes off the reservation when he writes about education. Today's column isn't too bad -- it's worth a read.
He makes a number of points, but I found his remarks surrounding measurement of teacher quality most notable -- two sections in particular:
Most important, it would increase merit pay for good teachers (the ones who develop emotional bonds with students) and dismiss bad teachers (the ones who treat students like cattle to be processed).
Developing bonds with students should be encouraged; treating students like cattle should not. But Brooks mostly discusses the use of standardized test scores and I'm unaware of any in use that measure this. If he's talking about making relationships with students a criteria in evaluating teachers, then I'm with him -- but if he thinks that this is what state tests are measuring then he needs to give this a little more thought.
Today, tests can tell you which students are on track and which aren’t. They can tell you which teachers are bringing their students’ achievement up by two grades in a single year and which are bringing their students’ levels up by only half a grade. They can tell you which education schools produce good teachers and which do not.
New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has data showing that progress on tests between the third and eighth grades powerfully predicts high school graduation rates years later — a clear demonstration of the importance of these assessments.
The first paragraph represents a problem I have with a lot of proponents of merit pay and accountability -- it oversells what we can do with tests. Brooks says that tests can tell us these things. At this present moment, using the tests we currently use, they can do nothing of the sort. What they can do is inform us -- using the information we can make reasonable guesses, but teachers' results one year are only weakly to moderately correlated with their results the next year. In other words, if we base our evaluation of teachers on one year of test data then we're going to be wrong an awful lot of the time (not to mention the approximately 2/3 of teachers who don't teach a subject that's tested by a state test). I think there are a lot of solid arguments for better and more widespread use of data, particularly in evaluating teachers and schools, but paragraphs such as the one above aren't really truthful and don't do anybody any favors. Remember: overstating your case doesn't make it stronger.
As for the second paragraph, I hardly think it's a surprise that a child's growth in test scores over the course of six years of schooling is correlated with whether or not they graduate from school. All that means is that the tests aren't completely useless -- it's not any sort of demonstration of their omniscience.
By all means, let's find better ways to use the data we collect -- but let's start with a realistic understanding of what we can and cannot know from this usage.
He makes a number of points, but I found his remarks surrounding measurement of teacher quality most notable -- two sections in particular:
Most important, it would increase merit pay for good teachers (the ones who develop emotional bonds with students) and dismiss bad teachers (the ones who treat students like cattle to be processed).
Developing bonds with students should be encouraged; treating students like cattle should not. But Brooks mostly discusses the use of standardized test scores and I'm unaware of any in use that measure this. If he's talking about making relationships with students a criteria in evaluating teachers, then I'm with him -- but if he thinks that this is what state tests are measuring then he needs to give this a little more thought.
Today, tests can tell you which students are on track and which aren’t. They can tell you which teachers are bringing their students’ achievement up by two grades in a single year and which are bringing their students’ levels up by only half a grade. They can tell you which education schools produce good teachers and which do not.
New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has data showing that progress on tests between the third and eighth grades powerfully predicts high school graduation rates years later — a clear demonstration of the importance of these assessments.
The first paragraph represents a problem I have with a lot of proponents of merit pay and accountability -- it oversells what we can do with tests. Brooks says that tests can tell us these things. At this present moment, using the tests we currently use, they can do nothing of the sort. What they can do is inform us -- using the information we can make reasonable guesses, but teachers' results one year are only weakly to moderately correlated with their results the next year. In other words, if we base our evaluation of teachers on one year of test data then we're going to be wrong an awful lot of the time (not to mention the approximately 2/3 of teachers who don't teach a subject that's tested by a state test). I think there are a lot of solid arguments for better and more widespread use of data, particularly in evaluating teachers and schools, but paragraphs such as the one above aren't really truthful and don't do anybody any favors. Remember: overstating your case doesn't make it stronger.
As for the second paragraph, I hardly think it's a surprise that a child's growth in test scores over the course of six years of schooling is correlated with whether or not they graduate from school. All that means is that the tests aren't completely useless -- it's not any sort of demonstration of their omniscience.
By all means, let's find better ways to use the data we collect -- but let's start with a realistic understanding of what we can and cannot know from this usage.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Standardized Tests and Tenure
Earlier this week, New York passed a law banning the use of standardized test results when making decisions on teacher tenure. The little afterthought of a law that was stuck in a big budget bill has set the education blogosphere aflame. It contains a piece of almost all of the major issues of the day: unions, standardized tests, teacher quality, and the intervention of politicians.
Here's a recap of how various people reacted to the decision:
Joel Klein: The sky is falling, and it's all the union's fault
Randi Weingarten: We don't need no stinkin' standardized tests
The NY Times: It's not a good idea, and it wasted valuable time
The Quick and The Ed: It's bad . . . and anyone who argues it's not is stupid
Education Notes: It's good . . . and nobody is honestly refuting my argument
The Socratic Method: It's both unnecessary and stupid
Eduwonkette: People are overreacting
Sherman Dorn: Let's not forget that it's a moratorium, not a ban
My guess is that the way people view this law is largely the same as the way the view unions. If they don't like unions, they don't like the law; and vice-versa. And that's really a shame, because it's the sort of polarizing pseudo-argument that overly-partisan politicians in Washington use to paralyze our country.
The reality, in this situation, (as it always seems to be) is somewhere in between. The idea that unions are either purely good or purely bad is pure nonsense. In this case, unions went out of their way to push a law that may or may not have been unnecessary, but probably won't really hurt anyone in the short-run, though it could prove harmful if it became permanent. In the meantime, it's possible that the state government would have been more productive if they'd been doing something else. What? Exactly. Let's break this down:
The Means: Unions clearly used the back door route to pressure politicians to tuck what they wanted in an unrelated large bill. I can't fault anybody who doesn't like the way they did it -- they're not exactly setting a stellar example here.
The Ends: Districts aren't allowed to use data from state tests to make decisions on teacher tenure for the next two years. This might be a bit extreme, but I see little evidence that the data would have radically transformed decision-making. The last time I checked, the state English test was given in Mid-January and the state Math test was given in Mid-March (approximately 55% and 75% of the way through the school year). Furthermore, I'm not sure that the tests are designed to be used as value-added assessments (meaning that you can compare the results from one year to those from the previous year to see how much a student learned) as they are in TN and some other states. Throw in the fact that the majority of teachers do not teach 3rd-8th grade Math or English, and you have a set of information that is far from perfect. Maybe two years from now they'll have a better system, but right now I don't see any compelling reason to believe that a district or principal gains much from using the data or loses much from not using the data. Meanwhile, the possibility that inaccurate data is used to decide whether a teacher stays or goes is eliminated.
The Context: How much of an effect the law has over the next two years largely depends on how many principals and districts were planning on using the data from state tests to make decisions on tenure over the next two years. If nobody was planning on doing it, then the law was a gigantic waste of time for everybody involved. If a lot of people were moving in that direction, then the state just intervened in a heavy-handed way that might result in fairer tenure decisions over the next two years.
So, in the end, these are really the questions we should be answering:
Here's a recap of how various people reacted to the decision:
Joel Klein: The sky is falling, and it's all the union's fault
Randi Weingarten: We don't need no stinkin' standardized tests
The NY Times: It's not a good idea, and it wasted valuable time
The Quick and The Ed: It's bad . . . and anyone who argues it's not is stupid
Education Notes: It's good . . . and nobody is honestly refuting my argument
The Socratic Method: It's both unnecessary and stupid
Eduwonkette: People are overreacting
Sherman Dorn: Let's not forget that it's a moratorium, not a ban
My guess is that the way people view this law is largely the same as the way the view unions. If they don't like unions, they don't like the law; and vice-versa. And that's really a shame, because it's the sort of polarizing pseudo-argument that overly-partisan politicians in Washington use to paralyze our country.
The reality, in this situation, (as it always seems to be) is somewhere in between. The idea that unions are either purely good or purely bad is pure nonsense. In this case, unions went out of their way to push a law that may or may not have been unnecessary, but probably won't really hurt anyone in the short-run, though it could prove harmful if it became permanent. In the meantime, it's possible that the state government would have been more productive if they'd been doing something else. What? Exactly. Let's break this down:
The Means: Unions clearly used the back door route to pressure politicians to tuck what they wanted in an unrelated large bill. I can't fault anybody who doesn't like the way they did it -- they're not exactly setting a stellar example here.
The Ends: Districts aren't allowed to use data from state tests to make decisions on teacher tenure for the next two years. This might be a bit extreme, but I see little evidence that the data would have radically transformed decision-making. The last time I checked, the state English test was given in Mid-January and the state Math test was given in Mid-March (approximately 55% and 75% of the way through the school year). Furthermore, I'm not sure that the tests are designed to be used as value-added assessments (meaning that you can compare the results from one year to those from the previous year to see how much a student learned) as they are in TN and some other states. Throw in the fact that the majority of teachers do not teach 3rd-8th grade Math or English, and you have a set of information that is far from perfect. Maybe two years from now they'll have a better system, but right now I don't see any compelling reason to believe that a district or principal gains much from using the data or loses much from not using the data. Meanwhile, the possibility that inaccurate data is used to decide whether a teacher stays or goes is eliminated.
The Context: How much of an effect the law has over the next two years largely depends on how many principals and districts were planning on using the data from state tests to make decisions on tenure over the next two years. If nobody was planning on doing it, then the law was a gigantic waste of time for everybody involved. If a lot of people were moving in that direction, then the state just intervened in a heavy-handed way that might result in fairer tenure decisions over the next two years.
So, in the end, these are really the questions we should be answering:
- Did the ends justify the means?
- How can we obtain better information on teacher performance than is currently available?
- Is it possible for all of us to say the word "union" and remain rational?
Friday, February 29, 2008
More on Standardized Testing and Private Schools
This blurb in the Tennessean covers a bill recently introduced in the TN legislature that would require all school-age students (even if home schooled or attending private school) to take state tests. Two things that I find interesting:
1. The chief objection to this bill seems to be that taking these tests will narrow the curriculum. I wonder if these same people would put forth a similar argument against testing in public schools. On the one hand, it would seem unfair to argue that students in private and home schools should have broader curricula than students in public schools but, on the other, it seems logical to assume that schools run by the government should also be subject to more governmental regulation.
2. Despite the paucity of information in the blurb, the message board is out of control with anger from both sides. Whether or not any accountability would accompany the state tests is left up to the reader to infer -- and people do, passionately. It seems as though most of the opinions expressed are only relevant if the writer is correctly inferring the rest of the facts.
Must opinion on education policy salways be so reactionary and ideological?
1. The chief objection to this bill seems to be that taking these tests will narrow the curriculum. I wonder if these same people would put forth a similar argument against testing in public schools. On the one hand, it would seem unfair to argue that students in private and home schools should have broader curricula than students in public schools but, on the other, it seems logical to assume that schools run by the government should also be subject to more governmental regulation.
2. Despite the paucity of information in the blurb, the message board is out of control with anger from both sides. Whether or not any accountability would accompany the state tests is left up to the reader to infer -- and people do, passionately. It seems as though most of the opinions expressed are only relevant if the writer is correctly inferring the rest of the facts.
Must opinion on education policy salways be so reactionary and ideological?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Vouchers or Accountability
A blurb in Ed Week today mentioned the results from the first year of a five-year study on vouchers in Milwaukee. Apparently the Governor and legislature cut a deal: more vouchers were authorized in exchange for making the private schools in which voucher recipients enroll administer the same state tests as public schools. As a result, students who remain in the Milwaukee public school system and students who receive vouchers and enroll in private schools are both taking the same exams (which makes comparing results awfully easy).
After the first year, the researchers could find no difference in performance between students who enrolled in private schools and students who remained in the public school system. Some of the people leading the investigation are clearly proponents of vouchers, but if these results hold up for the next four years they're going to have to scramble in order to spin them in their favor. And there's a good chance that they have a legitimate argument; private schools aren't accountable for their results on the state tests and, therefore, probably spend a great deal less time preparing students to take them. Here's where it gets interesting: generally speaking, people in favor of vouchers are also in favor of accountability (and, therefore, standardized tests) but, in this case, the only argument to support the effectiveness of vouchers may be that the standardized tests did not accurately represent what happened in the schools. In other words, the only logical argument that I can foresee is either that vouchers have shortcomings or standardized tests have shortcomings -- either way somebody is going to be put in an uncomfortable position when they present the findings. I love twists of fate.
After the first year, the researchers could find no difference in performance between students who enrolled in private schools and students who remained in the public school system. Some of the people leading the investigation are clearly proponents of vouchers, but if these results hold up for the next four years they're going to have to scramble in order to spin them in their favor. And there's a good chance that they have a legitimate argument; private schools aren't accountable for their results on the state tests and, therefore, probably spend a great deal less time preparing students to take them. Here's where it gets interesting: generally speaking, people in favor of vouchers are also in favor of accountability (and, therefore, standardized tests) but, in this case, the only argument to support the effectiveness of vouchers may be that the standardized tests did not accurately represent what happened in the schools. In other words, the only logical argument that I can foresee is either that vouchers have shortcomings or standardized tests have shortcomings -- either way somebody is going to be put in an uncomfortable position when they present the findings. I love twists of fate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)