Chapter_6

=//To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher//=

Chapter 6: Keeping Track

In this chapter, Ayers takes a hard look at standardized testing and what they do (or do not) really tell educators. The author relates that "courageous school principals and school district leaders require standardized tests only when absolutely necessary to comply with the law" (p. 128). Do you agree with this statement, or is this another attempt at criticizing standardized testing and federal mandates in general? Haven't we all observed educational leaders requiring more testing than is mandated; are these just "fearful principals"?

Ayer’s dislikes standardized tests with a passion. When he was growing up and moving along in his professional career he was bombarded with many of them. He explained how they did not accurately measure what people were testing for. For example, when he was taking the test to be a teacher, it did not measure what each of the students thought teaching to be.

Leaders in the current era give standardized test more frequent than necessary. I believe the one reason they do is because there is such a demand for students and schools to be proficient. This demand is put on their shoulders by the government, state regulations, and laws. In Iowa students are required to take ITBS and in order to prepare the students to do well on those, leaders tend to mimic those test taking strategies and give tests just like them. If students are not proficient schools are put on the “failing” list. I don’t think they want to give more standardized tests, but they do not know a better way to achieve well on these state administered tests.

Yes, I do believe the leaders that administer more standardized tests are fearful. They are scared of being on the “list”, if they knew best practiced teaching strategies and all of their teachers could apply these, I don’t think they would feel the need to have more standardized tests. (Josh J.) Josh And i wonder if effective administrators are truly "fearful" or just afraid of the public's perception of them and their school if they don't pay attention to standardized tests and subsequently end up on a list? You make a great point that many "do not know a better way to achieve well....". Maybe the best way to look at this is a bit as Ayers approached the topic in chapter 5 - The Hidden Curriculum. Can't we do the things that actually improve learning and still help students be successful on the norms that we are all evaluated on? Yes, I know it's a lot, but maybe I'm just an optimist! I look at it this way - I never really understood that students did so poorly on inferences until the advent of a true item analysis. And shouldn't we want our students to graduate with the ability to think critically, read for comprehension, and 'drill down' into a topic to more fully understand it? Thus, mandates and standardized tests have required us to do these things, and yet some are beneficial for students. Aren't they? (Dr G)

==== I have to agree with Josh J. Ayers has anything but a soft spot in his heart for standardized testing. In fact, it is safe to say he thinks they’re useless and reckless. One of the most entertaining things Ayers states is “Standardized tests should come with printed warnings: USE OF THESE MATERIALS MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE, OR, THE LIFE CHANGES OF HALF OF THOSE TAKING THESE TESTS WILL BE NARROWED” (Page 128). This was just something I thought was very interesting. ====

As far as the first question for this chapter goes…
==== If I understand what the word “courageous” means in Ayers’s context, I would have to agree with the statement. Many educational leaders feel the immense pressure to be proficient so they over use standardized tests. However, the courageous ones (like in Illinois) only use standardize tests when they have to and that takes some courageous guts. When you lower your chance to show your proficiency you’re either crazy or you have the mindset of Ayers (which would be a different kind of crazy). Furthermore, I don’t think the statement is another attempt at criticizing standardized testing and federal mandates in general because the validity of the statement doesn’t hold as well as other facts and opinions in this chapter. For example, "Standardized tests are culturally biased. That is, they distort the performance of people who are culturally or linguistically different, regardless of ability, intelligence, or achievement” (Page 126). This to me holds more merit. ==== ==== In addition, I do not think there is such a thing as a “fearful” principal and some of you may disagree. Still, no education leader wants their school to display low proficiency scores. No one wants to look dumb, so to prevent this from happening some administrators may over assess. ==== ==== Since we currently must use standardized tests to comply with the law, isn’t it a good idea to have schools use assessment every year so when the important years come (3,8,11) the students have had some practice with these types of assessment? At first thought it would be, but since they are said to be ineffective anyway, why does it matter? - Josh Saba ====

Josh: Once again, you pose some great thoughts, question, and reflections. Your piece on "culturally biased" has pretty strong research to support those claims, and I'm sure that within the urban schools they see that even more! And as I read your last thoughts on testing in all grades and how that might better prepare students for what they have to do anyway, I started questioning my own actions when I was a principal. I fought those sentiments from the Central Office and thus, did not require testing other than the 11th grade. That changed immediately when I left. Maybe I was "in the wrong" all along?? (Dr G) In an era of education that is driven by data and more specifically standardized tests, I would agree with Ayers statement. I don’t think that school leaders are fearful but rather they are acting in a manner that is concurrent with the views of the rest of society. We have been taught from an early age that we don’t want to end up on those “naughty” lists and education is no different. School leaders are eager to keep their schools off of those dreaded SINA/DINA/PLA schools lists. I believe that if it were up to many school leaders and there were no state/federal mandates placed upon them, standardized tests would not be administered in many schools. The fact that so much can ride upon the outcomes of one test is obscured. There are so many different factors that can attribute to the “success” or “failure” of a student on one of these tests that the results must be taken with a grain of salt. I would like to see the same student take the exact standardized test at two given points in time (relatively close to each other) and then compare the results. I would be interested to see if the student scores similarly on both tests or if other outside factors may influence the results. With all that being said, I don’t think that anyone can argue with the statement that “all school leaders want their schools to be successful.” Coincidentally, school leaders will do whatever they need to and what is within their powers to help their school be successful. If this means extra testing to identify areas that are weaker or if it means working on strategies for taking these tests, school leaders are going to do it if they feel it necessary. Having taught in schools that are SINA schools, I have experienced firsthand some of the initiatives that school leaders have adopted in the schools to bring about change. Sure, at first I and other staff were apprehensive to the change because too often had we seen that as soon as the staff had bought into one initiative and put a decent amount of time into its implementation, the leaders of the school would abandon it for yet another initiative. However, once we found a plan that worked for all and remembered that student success was our number one concern, we could work collaboratively to achieve positive results. I don’t think that the idea of standardized test is going to be leaving the realm of education anytime soon. While many may not agree with their validity, the fact of the matter is that they are a part of education and if we fear them and we are apprehensive to address them, our schools are going to fall behind. Being proactive about standardized tests and not always looking at them in a negative light can help a school leader, and their school, look past the stigmatism and address what needs to be addressed. (Joe D.)

Yes, and teachers are more apt to follow us when we lead with optimism and courage! (Dr G)

Every district I've been involved in requires the students to take the tests each year. However, I think there is a big difference between Elementary and Secondary when it comes to these tests. ITBS testing can be very stressful for our younger students. I think we as teachers/administrators have to be careful how we introduce these tests to our students. I was intrigued by the paragraphs on p. 128-129 in which Ayers talks about refusing to buy into the testing mystique. Part of which,includes "Teachers would certainly explain to students that reading is not the same as test-taking."

As Ayers says on p. 127, "The single most powerful predictor of how a child will do on any standardized test is how he or she did on the first test ever taken; and the single most powerful predictor of how a child will do on that first test is the economic status and educaitonal background of the parents." Based on that statement I wonder why we bother making the kids practice taking a test each year that just increases anxiety for students and doesn't really measure anything? Is it being done to give the students practice, or to give administators numbers to look at in order to justify the next radical professional development idea that they want to push on the staff? I think it does take a courageous principal to require the tests only for certain grades. I'm not sure a district would even hire a principal with that philosophy in the current education system. I agree that educational leaders are scared of ending up on "the list" and they are willing to do what is needed to make the public believe that they are doing everything they can to raise those test scores.

As Ayers talks about on p. 125, "Breaking the grip of standardized tests requires in part exploding the myth of scientific objectivity that cloaks them." I would like to know a lot more about the 'how' and 'why' we use ITBS. Each time I ask this question the end answer usually comes back to money. No one can afford to create a new test, so we use the lesser of the evils. We are basing a lot of very important decisions on these tests - aren't they worth the money to correct? (Kerri)

Kerri: I loved your reflection on Ayers' quote regarding the socio-economic status of children and the subsequent impact on their test scores. I just spend two days in Dubuque hearing the portfolio presentations of our 2009 UEN graduates. During those conversations, virtually every mentor present echoed Ayers' thoughts. It is always good to hear those in the field echoing what we read and discuss. However, does that change the system in which we work? Obviously not, but as an optimist, I always want to believe that aspects of current accountability will get changed to better reflect what they should reflect - a growth model! Maybe what we need is a new set of assessments that we can actually use and not just for comparison? But then that would impact the $2.2 billion dollar industry that it is! Oh, did I just lose my optimistic nature??? (Dr G)

I agree with Joe D.’s statement when he says, “I don’t think that school leaders are fearful but rather they are acting in a manner that is concurrent with the views of the rest of society.” School leaders are required to give standardized tests even though they may not believe in the validity of the results. But it is part of the “necessary evils” of their job description and consequently must be done. A school administrator can either agree with it or not, however, the way that an administrator presents the standardized testing to the staff is going to have a big impact on the educators’ attitude towards the test. If the school leader does not agree with standardized tests and holds the same view as Ayers on the topic, the school leader should still present it in a way that is not going to make the teachers feel like it is a hassle or a “necessary evil”. Working as a team and getting your teachers’ support by NOT having a negative attitude towards the tests will help the overall morale of the school and their views on testing. Because, let’s face it, standardized tests are not going to go away any time soon in our education system. Schools therefore, should try to make the best of it and try to use the information given by the tests to better help the students.

I do believe that the tests are biased. I have gripes with the way the Math TAKS test is presented in Texas. All the questions on the Math TAKS are in “story format”, meaning that students have to READ the question, then answer. This is biased towards students who struggle with reading. I can have a student who is excellent at math and understands the concepts, but may struggle with reading; this skews the results and gives an unfair representation of what the student can do in Math. I, also, agree with Ayers when he talks about the tests being culturally and economically biased. “How much money does your mom make?... OK, you’re on the bottom.” (p.127) I had to chuckle at this statement because it is so true in many cases, and he just says it point blank. Then I look back and realize how depressing that statement is because it is so true. (Jeni R)

Great points Jeni. It is what it is, and our job is to work within the system and facilitate it in the most positive nature we can. There are things to be learned from testing; we need to focus on that and keep it as upbeat with our staff as we can! (Dr G)

A part of me wants to agree with Ayers - let's throw out all standardized tests and only run with the ones required by law. This is in essence, going against the standards/accountability movement and is consistent with his previously stated views. The other part of me points to the work done by Reeves, et. al and the 90-90-90 schools ([|pdf]) as well as the DuFour's PLC framework ([|see Adlai Stevenson HS]). Both used standardized test scores as their metric for success! I haven't heard too many people dispute these two stories with rebuttals like, "you know...those students didn't really improve." Instead, they are shared at teacher and administrator prep programs as process models. I know from reading several DuFour books that schools are encouraged to create common formative and common summative assessments. While these assessments may not be standardized, I'm guessing they're still not in line with Ayers' idea of projects, portfolios and performance. These types of assessments use indicators such as "on grade level" which I know would send Ayers into a fit. Is there a happy medium somewhere that Ayers is missing? He notes a "menu of possibilities" including anecdotal records, journals, support groups, etc. on p. 133 as opportunities for teachers to keep track of their own teaching to ensure that students aren't being missed. This is a big assumption -- that educators know what their students should be learning, know what success criteria look like for these essential learnings and can help students close the gap towards understanding the essential learnings. Mr. Ayers, I'm going to disagree with you here. Your suggestion just isn't practical or sustainable. If every classroom teacher put in the time, energy and had the creativity that you have, I might be drinking this kool aid. Until then, I believe teachers, just like our students, need a bit more structure around their assessment practices (Matt T.)

Chapter 6 – It is easy to jump on the high-stakes testing bashing bandwagon. One needn’t read many authors or hear many educational speakers before one has enough ammunition about cultural bias, grade-level applications, and economic and educational backgrounds of families. The separation of test takers into winning and losing camps is a sad accompanying reality. One also appreciates Ayers’ positive alternatives for authentic assessments like projects, portfolios and performance opportunities for students.

Since high-stakes, standardized testing is not going away anytime soon, perhaps a balanced approach to its use and value is even more appropriate. After critiquing the legacy of U.S. standardized testing, Stiggins suggests that our assessment future should include a balance between daily formative assessment and occasional summative testing to verify learning has happened. Mr. Ayers does hold to the value of high standards developed in classrooms, schools and districts. It follows that measuring where students are at with respect to those standards would be a legitimate enterprise.

Educational leaders should frequently keep track of individual student progress. Through the use of formative, and other classroom, assessments teachers should provide authentic opportunities for students to strive toward meaningful standards. If this is done, principals should allow the use of standardized tests to see whether progress is made for groups of students. It shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of the building or district, but it can play a role in a balanced approach to progress. (Rick)

Be careful Rick - it's starting to sound like you're becoming a fan of assessments!! Maybe it's the connection to Starbuck coffee, Harley's, and Mc D's!? (Dr G)

I guess I don't see why we would take more standardized tests than necessary? Is this couragous? Is it fearful to practice test taking to be ready for the BIG day? Last year we were put on the SINA list for a few kids that were receiving special ed services. If you took them out the rest of the school was proficient. Because we were on that list the whole school worked, with great ambition (and with an obviously fearful administrator) to make sure our test scores went up. Of course they did... drastically! Was it a true representation of our kids? I don't know, I would say NO based on what we see on a daily basis from some kids who some how scored near the top of the standardized test. Following the tests and results, a questionnaire was giving to the students-- why did you do better (so much better)? #1 answer- We Tried because it seemed like it was really important this year. Really? I guess in the past we just didn't buy in and sell that it was important and maybe we were drinking the Kool-Aid that our kids wouldn't ever fall below the line. If testing isn't going away than I do feel that it is important that we test every year then so kids know what, why, and when testing takes place. Do I think we need to test more yearly? No, because our teachers should already be handling how tests work, checking for understanding, etc. Do I think that testing needs to be changed? Absolutely as the more we look at ITBS the more we recognize that questioning is pointless to grade levels and needs to match up with the Core. (Aaron B)

Aaron: Certainly it is challenging to motivate secondary students for standardized testing. Maybe all students; but definitely gets tougher as they get older and understand that standardized testing means nothing to them. Stressing and modeling the importance can make a big difference; especially to middle school-aged students. Unfortunately, my experience is that even stressing and modeling loses effectiveness for 11th graders when taking the ITED's. Alas the creative incentive ! I'll bet we all have stories about how administrators have worked with their staff to come up with creative incentives for their juniors. For me it was open campus for juniors during their last month of school. Hey, don't criticize me - it worked!! (and I might add is still being utilized)! Thanks Aaron (Dr G)

Dr. G: I can attest to the fact that the open campus incentive is a huge motivator for students, and as you said, it is still being used. It is just a little disheartening to me that we are at a point in education where much of our "success" as a school is linked to scores on a standardized test that kids could care less about, and we have to keep coming up with new ways to motivate kids to "do their best". Unfortunately, the intrinsic motivation of simply being the best you can be is not strong enough for most of our students, and I don't know how we can change that. (Travis)

I will start off by saying that I am not a big fan of standardized tests based on the way they are currently used. Using a tool that has been widely shown to have cultural, economic, and racial biases as the sole indicator of a school's success strikes me as irresponsible and unfair. I would relate my current feelings about these assessments to Ayers' quote on p. 128, in which he says, "...tests drive students away. They feel arbitrary and hollow, even to those who succeed at them. They do not loop back to learning or teaching in any important or even apparent way, and, therefore, are largely meaningless for teachers struggling to teach." However, I would not say, as Ayers does, that they are completely without value. If properly aligned with something like the Iowa Core, with clear directives of what is to be taught, they could be useful. I think they could be at least a component in a group of indicators, including assessment FOR learning, to see if actual learning is taking place. I guess to answer the specific question, I don't view "non-testing" principals as "courageous", nor do I view leaders that include additional tests as "fearful". Dr. Gilson discussed our school's previous use of other assessments (Workkeys (sp?) as an additional tool to understand students, and I see value in that. It is the dependence upon one flawed, for-profit exam that doesn't have clearly-stated curricular aims that I have an issue with. (Travis)

Thanks Travis. I doubt any of us would argue with much, if any, of what you reflected upon! (Dr G)

//I think standardized tests have their place in education and they do serve a purpose, however, I feel they are given entirely too much weight in determining student learning, quality of teaching, curriculum effectiveness, etc. I mean we’ve all seen students completely blow-off a test because they simply don’t care, thus that score does not reflect their true ability. I think standardized tests are great tools to use to identify student growth and areas that could be improved; however, we can’t give one or two tests the power to determine the quality of teachers and curriculum. I think good principals, and teachers, realize in order to truly determine a student’s ability we need to look at all types of data; standardized test scores, classroom performance, and any other testing scores. Standardized tests have a purpose, but they can’t be the be-all, end-all when trying to determine student achievement. (Whitney Bowen)//

//Whitney:// //You make some great points, but let me ask you something specific - would you support standardized test scores for the measurement of improvement in students; and then relate that aspect to merit pay or some design? (Dr G)//

I don't like the idea of using test scores in regards to merit pay for a couple of reasons. One, I would hate to think that teachers' pay would be riding on the students' performance on standardized tests because lets face it...some students don't care. No matter their intelligence, some students will bomb standardized tests because they give no effort. My second reason for not supporting would be that some students struggle with testing (i.e. some special education students) and they may not measure-up on standardized tests, but do well on other types of assessment. I think it is important to look at several data points in order to get a true picture of how our students are achieving. (Whitney)

 I agree with the statement that “ courageous school principals and school district leaders require standardized tests only when absolutely necessary to comply with the law”. It is easy to fall prey to the countless measures of student success based off of standardized testing. Some feel it is an injustice to not provide erroneous standardized tests because ultimately they play a significant role in determining, college entrance, scholarship opportunities, and can ultimately affect the proposed career path. I know that when I applied to the Master’s program at U.N.I. on top of my transcript is my ACT scores. I took that thing my junior year of high school. Yet it will follow me to the grave. So are principals courageous when not requiring the minimum amount of testing? Absolutely! They are putting trust in the ability of their staff to teach. If the staff is teaching and students are learning, the extra rehearsal is a moot point.

As for as Ayer’s beliefs about authentic assessments, rubrics, and portfolios, I tend to agree with him. I find authentic assessments and portfolios a more valuable way of assessing our students. But like anything else, it isn’t without flaws. (Joe B.)

Well stated Joe; few things are without their flaws. And I suppose that until assessment for learning-type "scoring" becomes a part of rigorous measures used for college entrance, scholarships, etc., we will continue to use the "for profit" (as Travis termed it) standardized test measures! (Dr G)

Many of you have commented on the fact that school leaders are fearful of being on the "list". I believe that some are, and I hope I never get to that point. I hope I continue to be fearful of students not being engaged, active, knowledgeable, and the list goes on and on and on. Maybe if we were all a little more fearful of that being on the "list" would take care of itself.

Now for the questions, I don't think that we need to over test our students but I also don't think standardized tests are all bad either. As it stands I would argue that ITBS are pretty pointless but that has a lot more to do with how those tests are written and how they match, or should I say don't match the proposed Iowa Core Curriculum. Why not use a test that measures what we are actually teaching (or at least supposed to be teaching) in our classrooms. If we want to know whether students have the essential skills and concepts lets make our standardized tests match that. Some of you are probably tired of hearing me talk about the time I spent in Kentucky but I think they had this figured out. The CATS matched the state mandated curriculum; I know it seems pretty crazy for those of us teaching here in Iowa. My students at the end of fourth grade were asked to take a test over the concepts that were supposed to have taught. I am ok with this type of standardized testing and believe it even has a place in schools. This can be one more piece of the puzzle for teachers and administrators. It can't and shouldn't be the whole puzzle but definitely a piece of it. I have to agree with Kerri on this one if we are going to base a lot of very important decisions on these tests aren't they worth the money to correct? Yes Kerri I believe they are and am hopeful that the Iowa Core Curriculum will help this to happen. (Erin Burmeister)

//"After all, these standardized tests can't measure initiative, hopefulness, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, goodwill, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes." I definitely agree with this statement Ayers made in chapter 6 regarding standardized testing. Students see the results of their ITBS and are automatically categorized as winners or losers. Although this is not the intention, students can feel like failures- as if the the results of this one "ultimate test" defines their entire intelligence.// //This tests do nothing at all in the way of showing the above qualities that are also very important in the successful future of a child. When people are considered for job positions, it is often the qualities listed above that a future employer inquires about. (Katie F.)//

//I agree Katie, but is it easier said than done when principals are mandated to require certain types of standardized tests? (DR G)//

Ayers (p.123) took a standardized basic skills test for a teaching certificate. Ayers’ thoughts, “First was the thought that whatever it was they were testing for, it had no relation to what I understood teaching to be. I might get a perfect score or I might fail the test outright, but neither result would be helpful in determining whether I would succeed or not, whether I would be a good or a rotten teacher.” I totally agree with Ayers that most standardized tests do not prove that you know the information well or not. I understand that schools have to give standardized tests, but I do not think the scores should be the end all of everything. I like Ayers idea of using projects, portfolios and performance to assess students; these give a more realistic picture of what the student really knows. (Amy)

So, other ways to get at the same information? Agreed; now if only those that made the "rules" would see that! (Dr G)

I think that principals who have confidence in their school and confidence in their teachers would not need standardized tests. I think this because if they know that their teachers are practicing best practice and that the students are performing to the district standards then I do not think that there is a need to have standardized tests. They probably already have the necessary data to support their school. I think that fearful principals would require more testing because they are not confident in the practices of their buildings/districts. I also think that a confident knows that the student comes first and a variety of methods are used to asses the students knowledge and not just one test.(Katie O)

I think it is obvious that Ayers is against standardized testing! Although I am not a big fan of standardized testing either, I disagree with the statement that, “Courageous school principals and school district leaders require standardized tests only when absolutely necessary to comply with the law.” To me it makes it sound like principals and districts that do give standardized tests are scared or afraid. I think that there is probably a little bit of fear in making sure they are complying with state laws, but I think it is more about results. Parents want to see results of their child’s progress and so do other stakeholder groups. Testing is an “easy” way to show them the progress. That is what they expect. It was like that when they were in school so that is what they want now. Standardized testing is a way that results can be shown. At Fairfield the K-2 have gone to standard’s based report cards. There were a lot of questions about the form because parents kept converting a 5 into an A, 4 to a B, and so on, when really a 5 meant the student mastered that concept or skill. I honestly feel that we need to convince parents and community members that standardized tests are not always the best way to show progress, and then the principals can back off the testing. If stakeholder groups didn’t base how well a student or school is doing off of test scores no one would be having this conversation. (Derek Philips)

Derek: I would agree that other stakeholder groups want to see the results of standardized testing; because that's the way the system is set up. Parents, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. Maybe ACT or other entrance exam tests, but I know that my wife and I (both educators) don't get too worked up about standardized test scores, npr, etc. for our children. Some students don't test very well, but do great in school. I'll still put my faith in them, and not worry whether or not they met AYP!!! (Dr G)