Standardized testing week is a mixed bag. Here's the up side. My load is easier because I don't teach during the week, and I give very little homework. Because I don't have stacks of papers to grade, I have more time to plan, which is the part of teaching that I enjoy. Only a few of my students are stressed out by testing, because I don't make it a big deal. Only the ones who put pressure on themselves or pick up the pressure from other sources, stress out. I give them snacks. It is quiet for a change. Aw, peace and quiet. Afterwards, when everyone is done they had free time on the computers. There is still a sense of optimism because they know there is another chance in May. And if they improve, which most do, we are happy, even if they don't make that magic 300.
Now, the down side, aside from connectivity issues.
We are not supposed to look at the questions. We are not supposed to read them the questions because there is, in math, a text-to-speech feature to do that, even if many students don't use it (it sounds weird, it sounds fuzzy, it sounds like a robot, I hate that voice). I am not supposed to tell them to use the text-to-speech even if I notice that they are not using it, I know they are poor readers, or there is a lot of difficult text. I am not supposed to remind them to use the formula chart if they forget what volume or area is. I am not supposed to tell them to go back and check their work even though I know they rushed, and know they randomly clicked clicked through it. All I am supposed to do is teach them what I can beforehand, teach them the tools that are there beforehand, set up the test, get my session ID, approve them to get them started, and log out when the session is done.
Standardized testing, whether online or bubble tests, have always troubled me as a teacher. I don't really remember them when I was a student. Oh yeah, that's because they didn't overrun the school year. I remember PSATs, ACTs and SATs, but that wasn't a school thing, only for those of us planning to go to college. But my memories of school (public school in Guam) were the projects I did, the songs I sang, the friends I hung out with, the games I played, the reports I wrote, the classes and teachers I had, my little (multiplication tables) and big (school spelling bee champ, student council, honor society) victories. Oh, and the bomb scares in high school.
As an adult, I took the GREs and the PRAXIS teaching test, which I studied for using the commercial study guides. These were very helpful. You could do well on the test because you knew what was going to be on the test, and you could study for it.
But, our computerized HSA is not like that. There is no way to know if the questions are aligned to the standards, to know if what you are teaching is what is being tested. When it was a bubble test, you could read the questions, and once in a while you found one that was ridiculous, not a match to standard, or confusing, even to a teacher. You were able to send your concerns to the testing office and usually get a response. One year, a testing company was fired because of so many complaints and errors. But now, you can't do that because if you do, you are revealing that you "looked," you broke protocol - broke the rules!
Yet, starting this year, thanks to our new Educator Evaluation System, 25% of our rating will be determined by student test scores. Some would say that is nothing to be worried about because if you get effective ratings on the other 75%, you're still good. However, how can we held accountable for test scores if we have no way to verify that it is a valid test? Are the questions well-written? Are they a match to standards? Is it really a test for the standard, or is it more a test for computer skills, or reading skills? Or test-taking skills?
And then there's the Common Core. We were told that only certain Common Core standards would be on what they called the "bridge" assessment. We have a new Common Core curriculum, (GoMath) and so we are dealing with not only the implementation of a new curriculum and new standards, but supposedly a different "bridge" assessment. We were told to focus on only a few CC standards that would be on the HSA, which we did. Here is where I confess that I looked at the test. In my criminal "looking", I did not see any of these bridge standards, but it pretty much looked like the usual online HSA. However, there is really no way to verify my hunch or not, because I wasn't supposed to be "looking." But here we were, being good little boys and girls (us teachers) teaching what we thought we had to be accountable for, and then, oh, never mind. Rug pulled out. Ouch.
Today, on the Badass Teachers Facebook page, a question was asked: "Should we start petitions in every state demanding that all standardized tests be returned to teachers and parents for their review, so they can use them to help students?" Resounding yes to that. This is the ONLY use I can see from standardized tests. Unless I see specifically how my students answered on these tests, I won't know what I need to help them with, or if it is even worth spending time on. As it is, it is meaningless. Oh yes, like I said in the first paragraph, there are a few selfish perks to it, but still meaningless educationally and a waste of time and resources.
Anti-testing activists (I consider myself one) claim our current climate of standardized testing is child abuse. It doesn't appear that way if you observe my classes. The crime is not child abuse. The crime is fraud.
