Some thoughts on the End of Level
Testing in World History:
Here is the
perfect way to motivate students to study for the End of Level Bench Mark Test. It is a simple method which reflects the end
of level testing paradigm. All students
who received a score above the District average will receive the grade they have
earned for the term. However, if their
score is below the district average, they get an F as their quarter grade. When I presented this idea to my students,
they were dismayed. They protested that
it wasn’t fair, that judging their entire performance on 50 questions for which
they did not know how to specifically prepare was unjust. I replied – get used to it. Of course, I
would not think of actually mistreating my students in this way, but I am
troubled that the District Assessment does exactly that to the school, to me,
and to my students.
Here are some of my objections to the “End of
Level Bench Mark Review”.
1. I have no way of knowing or reason
for trusting the scholarship or validity of the test. In the vast content of history, from Big Bang
to Renaissance, who can accurately pick what is most worth knowing. Even more disturbing to me, how can I possibly
know that the person who wrote the questions actually understands “history” in
the same way I, as my students’ teacher, do.
How can I know these teachers’ choice of answers is even correct? I find a lot of errors taught in classrooms
and much of what passes for fact is actually opinion. Let me give a few examples. In teaching the causes of the Civil War, I
have heard very well educated and studied teachers claim that slavery was not
the cause of the war. They even go on to
quote Lincoln and others to support a position that the War was fought to save
the Union or push some economic position. But other instructors point out that secession
was motivated by the determination to preserve slavery, or that economic
tension was caused by a slave based, plantation economy. I am quite confident one could shark up
documented support for the idea that the Civil War was caused by “Global
Warming”. A second example might be the conflict between
Jews and Romans in the 1st century AD. Was the conflict based on Roman greed and
aggression or did the Romans act compassionately and justly to end the
persecution of Greek pagans who were terrorized by fanatical Jewish sects
determined to purge the “Promised Land?”
I could provide endless examples on almost every subject outlined in the
prep guide provided by the District. How
can these dichotomies of cause and effect be satisfactorily sampled by multiple
choice questions crafted by persons with their own bias and no idea of what other
teachers are presenting to their students?
It is impossible for a classroom teacher to know what view of History
will be the basis of the questions.
These will be questions crafted by high school teachers, impelled by
their own personal opinion and bias, who happen to sit on the District Test
Development Committee. A student might
actually choose what they have been taught as the right answer and because they
are at odds with the opinion of the test builders be penalized by the predilection
of the test makers..
2. Multiple choice questions cannot
honestly sample a student’s knowledge.
It is like assessing the Sistine Celling by examining paint chips. Even more troubling is the practice of
crafting distractors that are tricks.
Trick questions do not assess student knowledge of any subject. I have never seen the test, I have no way of
knowing if it is valid at even the most basic level, and yet I am expected to
teach my students how to choose answers I do not know, to questions I cannot
imagine.
3. Teaching to and reviewing for the
test, is by nature instruction on the most basic level and is not a worthy use
of the 90, 90 minute periods one has in class over a school year with one’s
students. Their education is compromised
in order to gin up statistics which bureaucrat and college researchers can tout. Meanwhile, the most important part of History
Class is stinted. A significant goal of
a survey course in World History should be to spark a lifelong love of the
study of History in a student. As students
examine the universal truths revealed in History, and become excited about
seeking for them, they can develop the wisdom that is requisite for self-government. But, time and time again, I am forced to compromise
my efforts to share the truly valuable in order to prep my students for a test,
the content of which I can only guess at, and which does not cover much of what
I consider truly valuable for my students to learn. In my own classes I have had to sacrifice
book reports and in class enrichment activities in order to review for a 50
question multiple choice quiz that will gobble up one of their precious 90
minute classes in waiting for a computer screen to advance to the next
question.
4. The multiple test cramming process
necessary to prep for tests is directly contrary to teaching strategies
presented in the District Refresh training.
We are encouraged to teach to higher learning skills, emphasizing
critical thinking and reasoning, but are tested on the lowest level of
learning.
5. The testing mechanism – a computer
lab – has proven unreliable. In the 2013
World History test, my students spent more time waiting for the “next” question
than in giving responses. And for
several, after an hour of key clicking, the test disappeared from the desk top
and no one (including the school and District STS) knew how to get it back so
they could finish it. Now they, and I, will be judged on a test average skewed
by a computer glitch.
6. I have received no meaningful
feedback on the test. I have no
comparative data on my student’s performance on the 2012 tests. It has been a year, and I do not know how my
students did in comparison to the district average or how I did in contrast to
my fellow teachers, either at my or other high schools in the district. How can I know weather I am doing a “good”
job teaching if I have no way of comparing my efforts with any legitimate
standard? Who knows? I may be ruining my student’s education and
no one will tell me or protect them.
7. The validity of scores on these tests
is questionable. I have heard of
teachers who read the questions from the computer screens while their students
are testing and then share information with the classes that test later. There is no way to insure that scores are
fairly earned from class to class and teacher to teacher.
8. AP Students do not (if their teacher
so chooses) take the test. This is preposterous
on many levels. First, it culls from the
school and district pool the brightest students, thus giving a false assessment
of our student’s capabilities. Even more
troubling to me is the excuse for not requiring testing offered in defense of
AP teachers who choose not to have their students involved. They claim that AP classes do not have time
to prepare students for or to waist on testing.
If the test is valid a study tool, it should be equally beneficial to both
AP and “lesser” students. More
importantly, AP Students, the self-selected best and brightest, are the ones
who should have the least need of classroom time for instruction. They should be the ones who would suffer the
least harmed by having two full days of class activity and instruction ripped
out of their course schedule.
9. Special Ed. Students and Students
with Accommodations are neither accommodated nor given special consideration in
the administration of the test. Students
who by definition have special needs are not given special options; rather,
they are required to face testing conditions which would not be permitted to
the classroom teacher. Their scores are
lumped in with those of other students without the distinct adjustments to
which they are entitled.
10. There is enormous wasted expense in
the crafting, administering, and monitoring of these tests. District level personnel, who could better
spend their time working with teachers in need of support, are devoting time
and resources to this bogus process. This is a gigantic waste of money!
11. The stated goal of the test – to
improve teacher performance – is compromised.
It is claimed that there are teachers, (I was even told, mostly in Jr.
High Schools), who are not teaching the desired content and that these tests
will somehow motivate them to cover the appropriate material. I am forced to ask why teachers who are, and
have for decades have been, teaching core standards are forced to weaken their
instruction in order to rectify the misbehavior of others. First, I do not believe that a 50 point
multiple choice test can produce the desired effect on those who are not
teaching. Second, District resources and
personnel time could be better spent working directly with teachers who fail in
their responsibilities. Their detection
and correction is the job of Principals and district administrators and can
only be done on a one-on-one basis. Thus,
teachers who have been doing a “good” job are harmed while substandard teachers
are not assisted.
There are many more difficulties with this process. I point out that attempting to dictate a
uniform Social Studies curriculum has been wisely rejected for years. Unlike English, Science, or Math, there are
not specific, multiple choice testable ideas in History. Even more importantly, the vastness of
information relating to the 7,000 year history of man, together with the
practically infinite prehistory of the world, make it impossible to cover more
than a tiny fraction of the subject.
There is NO reasonable way to determine which crumbs from the feast of
History MUST be ingested.
Finally, let me point out that “studies show” American
education is losing ground. Perhaps it
would be a valid interpolation of the data that end of level testing has been
the cause of this decline.
