Get Schooled

By jim d

July 5, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Ms. Miller.

YOU ROCK! Lets trash all these stupid redundant tests and the politicans that insist they do any good or provide any useful data whatsoever.

By Lee

July 6, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

When talking about the CRCT, or any of the other tests such as the graduation test or end of course test, you must remember the reason these tests came to be.

And the reason is that schools were (and still are) graduating barely functional illiterates.

How many times on this blog have I read about a high school teacher lamenting that they have a student who is performing on a 5th grade level? More times than I can count.

How many times on this blog have I read where a teacher wants to retain a student, but is overruled by the principal? A lot.

My wife, who teaches elementary grades, swears that she doesn’t have to look at a student’s records. She can tell within the first couple of weeks of school which teacher the student had the year before. Yeah, some of them are that bad.

How many times have we gone to the store and the teenaged clerk cannot even count change?

These are the reasons why we have high-stakes testing. We can’t TRUST our school systems to do their job correctly.

In an ideal world, the teacher is in the best position to decide whether or not a student needs to be promoted or retained. The principal should be there to verify and approve. Sadly, there are many who have abdicated their responsibility in these areas.

The CRCT, or any standardized test for that matter, should merely be one item in an administrator’s toolbox to evaluate school performance. Used correctly, they can identify trends such as strengths and weaknesses in the school’s curriculum and methodology. They should never be used as a substitute for professional judgement.

But first, we have to put professional judgement back in the schools.

By Ernest

July 6, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

In lieu of taking the CRCT, I’d probably prefer seeing the ITBS administered. As Suzanne mentioned, this at least provides a measure against students nationally. I know the arguments will probably be that there should be local control with education and testing however I lack confidence in the measurements of the CRCT.

If GA wants to compete internationally for businesses, it needs to show it has a capable and trainable workforce. I question whether the results from the CRCT would give companies ‘warm and fuzzies’ about our education system.

By thomas

July 6, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

I am totally for the CRCT. It could use some improvements, but we need some objective criteria to judge the academic proficiency of a student. Even with the current CRCT, we know what kind of student we are dealing with who scored a 787 on last year’s reading test vs. one who scored 838.

By decaturparent

July 6, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

This is a rant… but I gotta get it off my chest….

NCLB should move to a random testing model where schools are selected for testing on a random basis with no more than 10-20% of schools being tested in any given year. The test should be administered throughout the year and NORM REFERENCED (like the ITBS or CogAT) so that the scores will be relative and it will not matter if a child took the test in September or April. The norm referencing should account for the fact that some kids will be tested in September and others in April, May, November, etc.

The test should be given with very little notice at varying times of year so that the tests measure actual academic skills as opposed to test taking skills and so that schools are not tempted to take away from learning time with a month of prep on how to take a bubble test. Every child in the nation should take the same test in the same grade.

If the feds are so interested in testing everyone they should administer and grade the dern thing themselves. The test should be designed by an independent panel of leaders in industry and academia who are not elected or appointed by anyone who is elected.

With the much lower test volume that would result from random testing, children could take high quality tests that require them to actually write out some answers and to demonstrate critical thinking skills rather that just regurgitation and answer selection skills.

The current state designed tests that are administered under NCLB are garbage tests with sinfully low cut scores. They don’t tell anyone whether the students in any given school can even think their way out of a bathroom closet.

I am very interested in knowing if my kids can think as well and have learned as much as kids in other states because they will compete with children from other states for college slots and employment. I could care less what their score is on a cheap Georgia designed test because unless this state gets its act together in the next decade or so I am going to do everything that I can to help them get the heck out of Georgia.

You know, this is very cynical, but there are days that I think the Glenn Richardson crowd wants to keep Georgia kids stupid so that they have to stay here because they can’t compete in any other state (except Mississippi and Alabama perhaps).

By SET

July 6, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

An interesting point about testing a representative sample of students to see where the schools are faster and cheaper. Reminds me about County Health testing a percentage of the police department officers here for TB every year. If they get an unexpected spike they rush and test everybody. (Police Officers here are considered at risk for TB among other infectuous diseases. Our Worker’s Comp law says TB contraction is presumtively job related for a cop/jail-prison guard. Don’t know if our teachers are similarly protected in W/Comp law.)

Guess what, this year a local small Police Agency had over a third their officers convert from skin test negative to positive at one testing. Health Dept won’t disclose who patient zero was (medical privacy, you know!) So the officers involve believe it was a hispanic student who worked in the dept. The now-positive officers are taking 8 months of antibiotics that are giving them GI upsets. These are Worker’s Comp cases. Of course none of this appears in the local news. It’s not nice to remind/inform people that Mexicans tend to carry TB.

Life in California.

Remember this if your immigrant students start coughing a lot and tell you it’s “Hay Fever”.

Back to point. While I would advocate forced testing of a random sample of students for HIV - at least in the black urban schools where it’s spreading like wildfire unopposed, I do think we need to settle on academic testing for all students at certain times in thier school careers.

But I believe the Federal Government (meaning Congress) has no say in the matter. The states need to make their own decisions about this. Which tests, when to give them.

My only suggestion is to give the terminal tests under conditions similar to the UK. Administered by outside agencies away from the schools. With the results used for future placement. (A levels?)

By catlady

July 6, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

The CRCT is a poor excuse for a test. As stated above, it has many poorly written questions. It also tests on stupid stuff (state bird of Georgia, anyone?) It also does a poor job telling us much of anything. A child with a 797 may have gotten just one more question wrong than a child with an 815. How random is that?

Testing with the CRCT is like painting a portrait with a paintball gun.

SOMEONE makes a lot of money off of it, like so much other stuff we “have” to use.

By Janine

July 6, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

As you all know, with NCLB each state is responsible for… [allowed to ].. design their own tests, standards, etc as well as devise methods/techniques for grading , pass/fail cut offs, etc. Each state is free to make the tests as difficult or as easy as they choose. So, let’s say all of Alabama’s schools are making AYP ( I think I read that most actually are and always have]. Is it because the Alabama tests are easier, the scoring is “user friendlier”, or is it that their schools are actually outstanding?” Has anyone ever compared the tests of one state compared to those of another? ARe they easier or more difficult? Is more covered, are questions more difficult, is scoring questionable? just what is happening here. How does anyone know if NCLB is helping/hindering/neutral? Can one tell from NCLB [in GA : CRCT} test results/AYP that education in one state is better than that in another…or, from a any reasonable/useful perspective…whether the school is doing well or not?

By Tony

July 6, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

One of the most important factors for the reliability of a test is that it measures what it purports to measure. I do not think the CRCT does that very well. As designed, it measures a very small portion of the curriculum. Since Georgia is implementing a performance based curriculum one would expect to find testing that measures students’ abilities to demonstrate what they have learned. However, the CRCT continues to assess students with multiple choice questions - some of which are poorly written.

The net effect of a high stakes assesment is to narrow the curriculum taught by schools. There are many things to learn as children grow and not everything that should be learned can be measured by a multiple choice test.

The amount of learning time is also reduced by the current emphasis on testing. We lose seven days for ITBS, five days for CRCT, one day for writing, eight days for benchmarks, and now some want us to assess kids every three to four weeks to gather even more data. This is ridiculous!

I will agree with those who have said that a curriculum based test is a better way to assess kids’ progress rather than a standardized achievement test. But for the test to be effective it must measure more aspects of the curriculum than we currently measure.

By Lisa B.

July 9, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

I don’t think the CRCT is well-written and accurate enough to be the basis for pass/fail grades for schools. The tests provide useful information which point out weak areas of instruction, but is worthless for comparing the performance of Georgia’s students to other students across the nation. I had a student move from Pennsylvania a week before the CRCT. She’d barely passed the Pennsylvania test last year and was nervous. However, she said the CRCT was very easy, and when the scores came in, she’d exceed expectations in every category. I only had her for a week prior to the test, so she didn’t even get to experience the “drill and kill” tactics to prepare. Similarly, I had a student move in from Mississippi who had always passed the state test, but was far below grade level and failed miserably the CRCT. I’ve noticed that most of the Democratic presidential candidates, when asked, are opposed to a national test. I wonder why. Of course, the Republicans aren’t terribly interested in a national test either, but seem to lean far more towards privatization.

By luvs2teach

July 10, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

To all the parents who complain about their child having to take the CRCT - who do you think asked for the accountability? It’s like the old Bill Maher bit about hamsters pushing the level when they hear things they like, “Oh, accountability, that sounds good…I like that…” PUSH!

We hear push-button terms and sound-bite solutions and we push that lever - the voting lever! When this act was being put in place, what did you all think was going to happen? Did you think we were going to measure accountability with a yardstick?

Now, I’m not against accountability, and there were some parts of NCLB that I thought were good (particularly the highly-qualified teacher bit). However, part of the reason we are testing is to help identify and eliminate grading inflation - did that kid really earn an ‘A’ - let’s test him and see just what he learned…that’s a criteria referenced test.

For reading and math, I don’t have a problem at all with using a norm-referenced test like the ITBS - it’s probably a more accurate indicator of growth than the CRCT. However, as a science teacher, the ITBS is less useful. In middle school, 6th grade learns Earth Science, 7th learns Life Science, and 8th learns Physical Science (or will be this year - the switch is in place). The CRCT tests on that particular subject - the ITBS tests all - even those that the student hasn’t had yet.

I don’t love the CRCT - it definitely has its flaws. But I do like knowing, at the end of the year, that my students’ science scores are a direct reflection of the instruction in my classroom.

(like Lisa B. I’m catching up after being out of town - hey, y’all!)

By jim d

July 12, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Welcome back Luv,

Gotta disagree with you on why we are testing. It has nothing to do with accountability. No indeed, it is purely financial reasons. This whole testing craze goes back to Tx. and Dubya rewarding his freinds.

http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/whatsnu_bush-mcgraw.html

Any teacher worth their salt knows early in the year which students are going to pass and which ones will struggle, we really don’t need millions of dollars spent to tell us what any teacher could—if only we’d listen!

By luvs2teach

July 12, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

jim d - I agree 100% that it’s a financial boon to someone (who shall remain nameless lest I be called a Godless liberal, LOL). But the whole thing got pushed through with the notion of more accountability for our lousy public schools with our lazy teachers.

Blaming teachers and the public schools for our nation’s woes is second only to baseball as a national pasttime - yet most people will tell you their school is good.

Funny.