State Senate Democrats announced last night that they would block the Smarter Balanced Assessments in order to ensure the availability of adequate state supplemental school aid for years to come. This clip from the press conference is really incredible. That’s the kind of party that can start winning statewide elections again.
.
Showing posts with label Smarter Balanced Assessments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smarter Balanced Assessments. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
This dog won’t hunt
I came across this from a PowerPoint on Smarter Balanced’s item design (from page 29):
Call me crazy, but I think you can dog someone to take a run with you and then go for a swim and later doll yourself up. In other words, four of the five words can be used as both verbs and nouns, but the kids are supposed to mark the “correct” answer. (There is no indication that the question was coupled with any passage that actually used the words, and even if it had been, that’s not reflected in the wording of the question.)
Questions like this, apparently, are what will give us “incredible precision in identifying skills that students have mastered,” which is why we should pay top dollar for Smarter Balanced. I feel sorry for the teacher whose job evaluation depends on her students’ scores on this kind of test. I feel sorry for the kids, too.
The question reminded me of Tom Hoffman’s post describing a hopelessly written Pearson test question. As Hoffman wrote:
.
Call me crazy, but I think you can dog someone to take a run with you and then go for a swim and later doll yourself up. In other words, four of the five words can be used as both verbs and nouns, but the kids are supposed to mark the “correct” answer. (There is no indication that the question was coupled with any passage that actually used the words, and even if it had been, that’s not reflected in the wording of the question.)
Questions like this, apparently, are what will give us “incredible precision in identifying skills that students have mastered,” which is why we should pay top dollar for Smarter Balanced. I feel sorry for the teacher whose job evaluation depends on her students’ scores on this kind of test. I feel sorry for the kids, too.
The question reminded me of Tom Hoffman’s post describing a hopelessly written Pearson test question. As Hoffman wrote:
Not only can the teacher not easily ignore these exercises, there is tangible risk in teaching students to question or critique them too closely, as this would be likely to lead to students answering questions “incorrectly” on standardized tests.So the lesson is “Don’t critique the test too closely.” Brought to you by Smarter Balanced.
.
And also a unicorn
Here’s an email from the Iowa Association of School Boards’ “email campaign,” uncritically passing along the state task force’s recommendation of the Smarter Balanced tests and linking to the task force’s very incomplete “cost analysis.” The tag line at the bottom reads:
.
Brought to you by the joint efforts of Iowa Association of School Boards, School Administrators of Iowa, Iowa Area Education Agencies, Iowa State Education Association, the Rural Schools Advocates of Iowa, and the Urban Education Network of Iowa in support of adequate and timely school funding.Reminder: Saying “I want adequate school funding AND the Smarter Balanced Assessments AND a pony” is not actually a way of supporting adequate school funding. With friends like that, school funding doesn’t need enemies.
.
Foregone conclusion
Here’s a little-reported story about the state assessment task force’s process. To evaluate different possible assessments, the task force created a rubric, asked vendors to respond to a request for information, then planned to score the responses. What happened, though, surprised them: No vendor submitted the Smarter Balanced Assessments for review. Of the proposals that were submitted, the Next Generation Iowa Assessments received by far the highest score. The other proposals received sufficiently low scores that the task force eliminated them from consideration.
At that point, the Next Generation Iowa Assessments became the only proposal under consideration. From the point of view of the task force, that was a problem that had to be solved. At the time, Iowa was still a member of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium; in becoming a member, the state had agreed to adopt the Smarter Balanced Assessments.
The task force decided to issue another Request for Information and “to reach out to specific vendors to ask them to submit the Smarter Balanced Assessments for our review.” (Details here.) Lo and behold, a vendor submitted the Smarter Balanced Assessments for review.
Soon afterward, the state decided to withdraw from the Smarter Balanced Consortium, as a way of “respecting the Assessment Task Force’s independence and ensuring an impartial process.” A few months later, the task force recommended that the state adopt the Smarter Balanced tests.
If it had been the Iowa Testing Programs that had failed to submit a proposal in response to the Request for Information, would the task force have issued a second request? Would it have “reached out” to ask for a submission of the Next Generation Iowa Assessments for review? Or was the task force determined from the outset to recommend Smarter Balanced?
.
At that point, the Next Generation Iowa Assessments became the only proposal under consideration. From the point of view of the task force, that was a problem that had to be solved. At the time, Iowa was still a member of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium; in becoming a member, the state had agreed to adopt the Smarter Balanced Assessments.
The task force decided to issue another Request for Information and “to reach out to specific vendors to ask them to submit the Smarter Balanced Assessments for our review.” (Details here.) Lo and behold, a vendor submitted the Smarter Balanced Assessments for review.
Soon afterward, the state decided to withdraw from the Smarter Balanced Consortium, as a way of “respecting the Assessment Task Force’s independence and ensuring an impartial process.” A few months later, the task force recommended that the state adopt the Smarter Balanced tests.
If it had been the Iowa Testing Programs that had failed to submit a proposal in response to the Request for Information, would the task force have issued a second request? Would it have “reached out” to ask for a submission of the Next Generation Iowa Assessments for review? Or was the task force determined from the outset to recommend Smarter Balanced?
.
Monday, March 30, 2015
“A system of quick, informal tests—some lasting just a few minutes”
The Gazette ran a guest opinion piece this weekend by Mary Ellen Miller, a member of our State Board of Education and also a member of the state assessment task force, arguing that the state should adopt the Smarter Balanced tests. Miller makes some, ahem, interesting claims about Smarter Balanced.
First, Miller describes Smarter Balanced as a “a system of quick, informal tests — some lasting only a few minutes,” and that this “approach to assessment doesn’t take time away from instruction.” In fact, though there may be short practice materials included, the actual tests are between 7 and 8.5 hours long.
The task force report itself implied that schools would also want to purchase additional interim assessments—at additional cost—that would occur several times throughout the year. (See the chart on page 21.) So judge for yourself whether the tests will take time away from instruction.
Second, Miller asserts that “results from a survey of district readiness shows 99 percent of our public schools meet the minimum bandwidth requirements and have adequate computer resources to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments.” Miller states this as fact, not opinion, but it’s simply false. The state surveyed bandwidth, but did not survey computer hardware (as the task force acknowledged here). Anyone reading Miller’s piece would be misled about that basic fact. The Gazette should run a correction.
As for Miller’s assertion that 99% of districts have adequate bandwidth, remember that this is from the task force that thinks a school can give a 7.5-hour-long test to 600 students on just 30 computers. So you can see why they would say that bandwidth is sufficient.
Yet Miller claims that it’s opponents of Smarter Balanced who are misleading people. Her piece is just more evidence that the task force was determined to recommend Smarter Balanced no matter what their “inquiry” found.
Karen Woltman, the task force member who dissented from recommending Smarter Balanced, responds to Miller’s piece (with characteristic diplomacy) here.
.
First, Miller describes Smarter Balanced as a “a system of quick, informal tests — some lasting only a few minutes,” and that this “approach to assessment doesn’t take time away from instruction.” In fact, though there may be short practice materials included, the actual tests are between 7 and 8.5 hours long.
The task force report itself implied that schools would also want to purchase additional interim assessments—at additional cost—that would occur several times throughout the year. (See the chart on page 21.) So judge for yourself whether the tests will take time away from instruction.
Second, Miller asserts that “results from a survey of district readiness shows 99 percent of our public schools meet the minimum bandwidth requirements and have adequate computer resources to administer the Smarter Balanced assessments.” Miller states this as fact, not opinion, but it’s simply false. The state surveyed bandwidth, but did not survey computer hardware (as the task force acknowledged here). Anyone reading Miller’s piece would be misled about that basic fact. The Gazette should run a correction.
As for Miller’s assertion that 99% of districts have adequate bandwidth, remember that this is from the task force that thinks a school can give a 7.5-hour-long test to 600 students on just 30 computers. So you can see why they would say that bandwidth is sufficient.
Yet Miller claims that it’s opponents of Smarter Balanced who are misleading people. Her piece is just more evidence that the task force was determined to recommend Smarter Balanced no matter what their “inquiry” found.
Karen Woltman, the task force member who dissented from recommending Smarter Balanced, responds to Miller’s piece (with characteristic diplomacy) here.
.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Costs? What costs?
An illustrator I am not, but you get the idea.
I’ve written before about how mystifying it is that the president of Iowa’s teachers’ union, Tammy Wawro, who has continually advocated for a 4% or 6% increase in state school funding, would nonetheless support the proposal to adopt the Smarter Balanced standardized tests, which are so costly that they will gut state school aid increases for years to come. Now it turns out that Wawro will be one of the three presenters of the proposal to the legislature tomorrow. Does Wawro feel any responsibility for the school budget cuts that will occur as a result of adopting Smarter Balanced, or is she just in complete denial? How is she serving the interests of the state’s teachers or students by advocating for very expensive tests that can only be funded by diverting money from staffing and school programming?
Another presenter will be the superintendent of the Waterloo schools, Jane Lindaman. Lindaman, too, claims to support higher increases in state school aid. Will she identify the tax increases that should occur to enable the state to increase school aid while also buying these expensive tests? Will she discuss what cuts she expects to make in her own district to pay the bill for Smarter Balanced? Or are we all just going to pretend that adopting Smarter Balanced has nothing to do with future supplemental aid?
.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Legislature Considers Massive Cuts to High School Football
I couldn’t resist that post title, since apparently cuts to instructional programs don’t grab anyone’s attention. But if the legislature adopts the enormously expensive Smarter Balanced standardized tests, the cuts will have to happen somewhere. Last year our district cut seventh grade football, in addition to making cuts in orchestra and foreign language instruction and elsewhere. This year, even more cuts are on the way. Next year, when the Smarter Balanced costs start rolling in, what will be left to cut?
Please, wise legislators, let us know what we should cut for the privilege of having these shiny new tests. Then I can re-title this post accordingly.
Of course, once we’ve replaced all the teachers with online MOOCs, I suppose administrators and coaches will be the only staff left. So maybe there’s nothing to worry about.
.
Please, wise legislators, let us know what we should cut for the privilege of having these shiny new tests. Then I can re-title this post accordingly.
Of course, once we’ve replaced all the teachers with online MOOCs, I suppose administrators and coaches will be the only staff left. So maybe there’s nothing to worry about.
.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Do the Democrats mean what they say about increasing school aid?
I’m still mystified by the decision of the state teachers’ union president, Tammy Wawro, to support the task force’s recommendation that Iowa adopt the very expensive Smarter Balanced standardized tests. Judging from her Twitter feed, Wawro is an enthusiastic advocate of a 6% increase in supplemental school aid. Is she in complete denial about cause and effect? Adopt Smarter Balanced and you’ll kill any chance of decent supplemental aid for years. Does her left hand have any idea what her right hand is doing?
I’m beginning to worry that the state Democratic Party may be just as obtuse. Democratic legislators are united about the need for more supplemental aid. Yet how many have come out against Smarter Balanced?
At least eleven House Republicans are publicly against Smarter Balanced, which means it cannot pass without Democratic support. The single best thing the Democrats could do for future school aid is to vote this turkey down. If they don’t, all their noise about wanting a 6% increase is empty lip service.
My bad dream is that the Democrats declare a “win” by caving on Smarter Balanced in exchange for a slightly higher increase in aid for next year. They can’t be that lame, can they? Can they?
.
I’m beginning to worry that the state Democratic Party may be just as obtuse. Democratic legislators are united about the need for more supplemental aid. Yet how many have come out against Smarter Balanced?
At least eleven House Republicans are publicly against Smarter Balanced, which means it cannot pass without Democratic support. The single best thing the Democrats could do for future school aid is to vote this turkey down. If they don’t, all their noise about wanting a 6% increase is empty lip service.
My bad dream is that the Democrats declare a “win” by caving on Smarter Balanced in exchange for a slightly higher increase in aid for next year. They can’t be that lame, can they? Can they?
.
Monday, March 2, 2015
You can do this in less than a minute
Things are happening very quickly in the legislature. The likely vehicle for adopting the Smarter Balanced tests is HSB 172. The bill currently contains general language about adopting assessments; on short notice, though, language specifying Smarter Balanced could be added. There is some opposition to Smarter Balanced in both parties, but it’s hard to gauge numbers.
If you’ve been following the issue on this blog, please consider taking a minute—you can do it in even less than a minute!—to email the legislators about this bill. All you need to do is cut and paste the following block of email addresses into the address field, say “Dear Legislators,” and simply ask that they vote against HSB 172 because Smarter Balanced is too expensive and because the full costs are unknown and likely to be enormous. Every little email helps.
ako-abdul-samad@legis.iowa.gov, chaz.allen@legis.iowa.gov, bill.anderson@legis.iowa.gov, marti.anderson@legis.iowa.gov, rob.bacon@legis.iowa.gov, chip.baltimore@legis.iowa.gov, clel.baudler@legis.iowa.gov, terry.baxter@legis.iowa.gov, bruce.bearinger@legis.iowa.gov, jerry.behn@legis.iowa.gov, liz.bennett@legis.iowa.gov, deborah.berry@legis.iowa.gov, rick.bertrand@legis.iowa.gov, brian.best@legis.iowa.gov, tony.bisignano@legis.iowa.gov, joe.bolkcom@legis.iowa.gov, tod.bowman@legis.iowa.gov, darrel.branhagen@legis.iowa.gov, chris.brase@legis.iowa.gov, michael.breitbach@legis.iowa.gov, timi.brown-powers@legis.iowa.gov, josh.byrnes@legis.iowa.gov, gary.carlson@legis.iowa.gov, jake.chapman@legis.iowa.gov, mark.chelgren@legis.iowa.gov, dennis.cohoon@legis.iowa.gov, mark.costello@legis.iowa.gov, thomas.courtney@legis.iowa.gov, peter.cownie@legis.iowa.gov, jeffdanielson@gmail.com, dave.dawson@legis.iowa.gov, dick.dearden@legis.iowa.gov, dave.deyoe@legis.iowa.gov, bill.dix@legis.iowa.gov, cecil.dolecheck@legis.iowa.gov, bill.dotzler@legis.iowa.gov, jack.drake@legis.iowa.gov, nancy.dunkel@legis.iowa.gov, robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov, randy.feenstra@legis.iowa.gov, abby.finkenauer@legis.iowa.gov, dean.fisher@legis.iowa.gov, john.forbes@legis.iowa.gov, greg.forristall@legis.iowa.gov, joel.fry@legis.iowa.gov, ruthann.gaines@legis.iowa.gov, julian.garrett@legis.iowa.gov, mary.gaskill@legis.iowa.gov, tedd.gassman@legis.iowa.gov, pat.grassley@legis.iowa.gov, mike.gronstal@legis.iowa.gov, stan.gustafson@legis.iowa.gov, dennis.guth@legis.iowa.gov, chris.hagenow@legis.iowa.gov, chris.hall@legis.iowa.gov, curt.hanson@legis.iowa.gov, maryann.hanusa@legis.iowa.gov, rita.hart@legis.iowa.gov, greg.heartsill@legis.iowa.gov, dave.heaton@legis.iowa.gov, lisa.heddens@legis.iowa.gov, lee.hein@legis.iowa.gov, jake.highfill@legis.iowa.gov, rob.hogg@legis.iowa.gov, steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov, wally.horn@legis.iowa.gov, bruce.hunter@legis.iowa.gov, dan.huseman@legis.iowa.gov, charles.isenhart@legis.iowa.gov, david.jacoby@legis.iowa.gov, pam.jochum@legis.iowa.gov, david.johnson@legis.iowa.gov, megan.jones@legis.iowa.gov, ron.jorgensen@legis.iowa.gov, tim.kapucian@legis.iowa.gov, bobby.kaufmann@legis.iowa.gov, jerry.kearns@legis.iowa.gov, dan.kelley@legis.iowa.gov, kevin.kinney@legis.iowa.gov, jarad.klein@legis.iowa.gov, kevin.koester@legis.iowa.gov, john.kooiker@legis.iowa.gov, tim.kraayenbrink@legis.iowa.gov, bob.kressig@legis.iowa.gov, john.landon@legis.iowa.gov, vicki.lensing@legis.iowa.gov, jim.lykam@legis.iowa.gov, mary.mascher@legis.iowa.gov, liz.mathis@legis.iowa.gov, dave.maxwell@legis.iowa.gov, charlie.mcconkey@legis.iowa.gov, matt.mccoy@legis.iowa.gov, brian.meyer@legis.iowa.gov, helen.miller@legis.iowa.gov, linda.miller@legis.iowa.gov, norlin.mommsen@legis.iowa.gov, brian.moore@legis.iowa.gov, zach.nunn@legis.iowa.gov, jo.oldson@legis.iowa.gov, rick.olson@legis.iowa.gov, scott.ourth@legis.iowa.gov, kraig.paulsen@legis.iowa.gov, ross.paustian@legis.iowa.gov, janet.petersen@legis.iowa.gov, dawn.pettengill@legis.iowa.gov, todd.prichard@legis.iowa.gov, hcqbach@legis.iowa.gov, amanda.ragan@legis.iowa.gov, ken.rizer@legis.iowa.gov, walt.rogers@legis.iowa.gov, ken.rozenboom@legis.iowa.gov, patti.ruff@legis.iowa.gov, kirsten.running-marquardt@legis.iowa.gov, sandy.salmon@legis.iowa.gov, tom.sands@legis.iowa.gov, charles.schneider@legis.iowa.gov, brian.schoenjahn@legis.iowa.gov, jason.schultz@legis.iowa.gov, mark.segebart@legis.iowa.gov, joe.seng@legis.iowa.gov, mike.sexton@legis.iowa.gov, larry.sheets@legis.iowa.gov, tom.shipley@legis.iowa.gov, david.seick@legis.iowa.gov, amy.sinclair@legis.iowa.gov, mark.smith@legis.iowa.gov, roby.smith@legis.iowa.gov, steve.sodders@legis.iowa.gov, chuck.soderberg@legis.iowa.gov, art.staed@legis.iowa.gov, quentin.stanerson@legis.iowa.gov, sharon.steckman@legis.iowa.gov, sally.stutsman@legis.iowa.gov, rich.taylor@legis.iowa.gov, rob.taylor@legis.iowa.gov, todd.taylor@legis.iowa.gov, phyllis.thede@legis.iowa.gov, linda.upmeyer@legis.iowa.gov, guy.vander.linden@legis.iowa.gov, ralph.watts@legis.iowa.gov, beth.wessel-kroeschell@legis.iowa.gov, jack.whitver@legis.iowa.gov, mary.jo.wilhelm@legis.iowa.gov, john.wills@legis.iowa.gov, cindy.winckler@legis.iowa.gov, matt.windschitl@legis.iowa.gov, mary.wolfe@legis.iowa.gov, gary.worthan@legis.iowa.gov, brad.zaun@legis.iowa.gov, dan.zumbach@legis.iowa.gov
At this point, the best thing to do is email all of them as a group. If you’d like to pay special attention to your own legislators, you can identify them here.
The school budget you save may be your own.
UPDATE: I’ve corrected this post to reflect that the bill is now out of committee and before the legislature as a whole.
.
If you’ve been following the issue on this blog, please consider taking a minute—you can do it in even less than a minute!—to email the legislators about this bill. All you need to do is cut and paste the following block of email addresses into the address field, say “Dear Legislators,” and simply ask that they vote against HSB 172 because Smarter Balanced is too expensive and because the full costs are unknown and likely to be enormous. Every little email helps.
ako-abdul-samad@legis.iowa.gov, chaz.allen@legis.iowa.gov, bill.anderson@legis.iowa.gov, marti.anderson@legis.iowa.gov, rob.bacon@legis.iowa.gov, chip.baltimore@legis.iowa.gov, clel.baudler@legis.iowa.gov, terry.baxter@legis.iowa.gov, bruce.bearinger@legis.iowa.gov, jerry.behn@legis.iowa.gov, liz.bennett@legis.iowa.gov, deborah.berry@legis.iowa.gov, rick.bertrand@legis.iowa.gov, brian.best@legis.iowa.gov, tony.bisignano@legis.iowa.gov, joe.bolkcom@legis.iowa.gov, tod.bowman@legis.iowa.gov, darrel.branhagen@legis.iowa.gov, chris.brase@legis.iowa.gov, michael.breitbach@legis.iowa.gov, timi.brown-powers@legis.iowa.gov, josh.byrnes@legis.iowa.gov, gary.carlson@legis.iowa.gov, jake.chapman@legis.iowa.gov, mark.chelgren@legis.iowa.gov, dennis.cohoon@legis.iowa.gov, mark.costello@legis.iowa.gov, thomas.courtney@legis.iowa.gov, peter.cownie@legis.iowa.gov, jeffdanielson@gmail.com, dave.dawson@legis.iowa.gov, dick.dearden@legis.iowa.gov, dave.deyoe@legis.iowa.gov, bill.dix@legis.iowa.gov, cecil.dolecheck@legis.iowa.gov, bill.dotzler@legis.iowa.gov, jack.drake@legis.iowa.gov, nancy.dunkel@legis.iowa.gov, robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov, randy.feenstra@legis.iowa.gov, abby.finkenauer@legis.iowa.gov, dean.fisher@legis.iowa.gov, john.forbes@legis.iowa.gov, greg.forristall@legis.iowa.gov, joel.fry@legis.iowa.gov, ruthann.gaines@legis.iowa.gov, julian.garrett@legis.iowa.gov, mary.gaskill@legis.iowa.gov, tedd.gassman@legis.iowa.gov, pat.grassley@legis.iowa.gov, mike.gronstal@legis.iowa.gov, stan.gustafson@legis.iowa.gov, dennis.guth@legis.iowa.gov, chris.hagenow@legis.iowa.gov, chris.hall@legis.iowa.gov, curt.hanson@legis.iowa.gov, maryann.hanusa@legis.iowa.gov, rita.hart@legis.iowa.gov, greg.heartsill@legis.iowa.gov, dave.heaton@legis.iowa.gov, lisa.heddens@legis.iowa.gov, lee.hein@legis.iowa.gov, jake.highfill@legis.iowa.gov, rob.hogg@legis.iowa.gov, steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov, wally.horn@legis.iowa.gov, bruce.hunter@legis.iowa.gov, dan.huseman@legis.iowa.gov, charles.isenhart@legis.iowa.gov, david.jacoby@legis.iowa.gov, pam.jochum@legis.iowa.gov, david.johnson@legis.iowa.gov, megan.jones@legis.iowa.gov, ron.jorgensen@legis.iowa.gov, tim.kapucian@legis.iowa.gov, bobby.kaufmann@legis.iowa.gov, jerry.kearns@legis.iowa.gov, dan.kelley@legis.iowa.gov, kevin.kinney@legis.iowa.gov, jarad.klein@legis.iowa.gov, kevin.koester@legis.iowa.gov, john.kooiker@legis.iowa.gov, tim.kraayenbrink@legis.iowa.gov, bob.kressig@legis.iowa.gov, john.landon@legis.iowa.gov, vicki.lensing@legis.iowa.gov, jim.lykam@legis.iowa.gov, mary.mascher@legis.iowa.gov, liz.mathis@legis.iowa.gov, dave.maxwell@legis.iowa.gov, charlie.mcconkey@legis.iowa.gov, matt.mccoy@legis.iowa.gov, brian.meyer@legis.iowa.gov, helen.miller@legis.iowa.gov, linda.miller@legis.iowa.gov, norlin.mommsen@legis.iowa.gov, brian.moore@legis.iowa.gov, zach.nunn@legis.iowa.gov, jo.oldson@legis.iowa.gov, rick.olson@legis.iowa.gov, scott.ourth@legis.iowa.gov, kraig.paulsen@legis.iowa.gov, ross.paustian@legis.iowa.gov, janet.petersen@legis.iowa.gov, dawn.pettengill@legis.iowa.gov, todd.prichard@legis.iowa.gov, hcqbach@legis.iowa.gov, amanda.ragan@legis.iowa.gov, ken.rizer@legis.iowa.gov, walt.rogers@legis.iowa.gov, ken.rozenboom@legis.iowa.gov, patti.ruff@legis.iowa.gov, kirsten.running-marquardt@legis.iowa.gov, sandy.salmon@legis.iowa.gov, tom.sands@legis.iowa.gov, charles.schneider@legis.iowa.gov, brian.schoenjahn@legis.iowa.gov, jason.schultz@legis.iowa.gov, mark.segebart@legis.iowa.gov, joe.seng@legis.iowa.gov, mike.sexton@legis.iowa.gov, larry.sheets@legis.iowa.gov, tom.shipley@legis.iowa.gov, david.seick@legis.iowa.gov, amy.sinclair@legis.iowa.gov, mark.smith@legis.iowa.gov, roby.smith@legis.iowa.gov, steve.sodders@legis.iowa.gov, chuck.soderberg@legis.iowa.gov, art.staed@legis.iowa.gov, quentin.stanerson@legis.iowa.gov, sharon.steckman@legis.iowa.gov, sally.stutsman@legis.iowa.gov, rich.taylor@legis.iowa.gov, rob.taylor@legis.iowa.gov, todd.taylor@legis.iowa.gov, phyllis.thede@legis.iowa.gov, linda.upmeyer@legis.iowa.gov, guy.vander.linden@legis.iowa.gov, ralph.watts@legis.iowa.gov, beth.wessel-kroeschell@legis.iowa.gov, jack.whitver@legis.iowa.gov, mary.jo.wilhelm@legis.iowa.gov, john.wills@legis.iowa.gov, cindy.winckler@legis.iowa.gov, matt.windschitl@legis.iowa.gov, mary.wolfe@legis.iowa.gov, gary.worthan@legis.iowa.gov, brad.zaun@legis.iowa.gov, dan.zumbach@legis.iowa.gov
At this point, the best thing to do is email all of them as a group. If you’d like to pay special attention to your own legislators, you can identify them here.
The school budget you save may be your own.
UPDATE: I’ve corrected this post to reflect that the bill is now out of committee and before the legislature as a whole.
.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
“What is the goal?”
The Gazette has a terrific, thorough editorial on the proposal to adopt the very expensive Smarter Balanced standardized tests. Its conclusion:
Read the whole thing..
Even if Smarter Balanced provides more detailed student information, it is difficult to understand how our cash-strapped districts will be able to use such data to enhance student learning. . . .The editorial also raises smart questions about how exactly schools will use the test scores and whether the supposed gains are worth the huge increase in cost.
Are Iowans being asked to choose between the cost of an administrator to oversee test score data-crunching or the cost of a classroom teacher? If so, we believe most Iowans will — and should — choose the teacher.
Likewise, if the choice before state lawmakers is to purchase unproven, expensive assessments with titillating bells and whistles or fully fund our school districts, we hope they choose to better fund our schools.
Read the whole thing..
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Labor movement, R.I.P.
Never mind that more money for buying hugely expensive tests can only mean less money available for hiring and paying teachers. In what universe does a teachers’ union president sign on to a statement that the future of teaching and learning is online?
.
.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Priceless
Two members of our State Board of Education on the enormously expensive Smarter Balanced standardized tests:
Will someone please explain how these tests will actually be used to improve our kids’ education? Points for being concrete and specific!
.
Finally, any new state test will come with a higher price tag because state assessments have evolved in technology and in function. However, Iowa will get much more for our money with the Smarter Balanced assessments. The testing process will be more efficient, results will come back faster, and — most important — teaching and learning will be enhanced. The assessments offer incredible precision in identifying skills that students have mastered, as well as those areas where they’re struggling, both for individual students and for groups of students. This kind of information is priceless to the teachers, school administrators, parents and elected school board leaders who are working hard for our students.That’s the best they can do? “The testing process will be more efficient”—oh, but somehow twice as long. “The results will come back faster”—hooray, but who cares? “Teaching and learning will be enhanced”—didn’t our state board members learn about supporting their assertions with evidence? “Incredible precision”—well, they got the incredible part right. “This kind of information is priceless”—I guess that’s why no one can tell us how much it will cost.
Will someone please explain how these tests will actually be used to improve our kids’ education? Points for being concrete and specific!
.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
The cost-free world of education policy
How did it become so common—almost universal—in education policy-making to refuse to acknowledge costs?
Some examples, large and small:
So why is it the default mode of school policy-making?
.
Some examples, large and small:
- Our state assessment task force recommended adopting the Smarter Balanced standardized tests without even trying to assess how much the necessary technology would cost—even though that cost is almost certainly enormous. The report simply dwelled (unconvincingly) on all the supposed benefits of the new tests. So no need to assess costs!
- Last year, the state enacted a teacher leadership program that takes experienced teachers out of the classroom to teach other teachers. Don’t worry, they reassured us, the state will pay for the costs. Then this year, it turns out that there’s not enough money for school aid because we spent so much on the teacher leadership program. Couldn’t have seen that coming.
- At a recent school board meeting here, there was a lengthy discussion about setting academic goals for the district. The board decided to focus on raising reading and math scores. Don’t worry, the superintendent assured the board, focusing more on reading and math doesn’t mean we’ll focus less on other subjects. But how is that possible?
- Two years ago, our district adopted specific numerical diversity goals for school attendance areas without any consideration of what it would take to meet those goals. After months and months of effort to produce new attendance area maps, when it became clear what it would take to meet the goals, the board backed off from the goals.
- Six years ago, to get a grant, the district instituted PBIS, a behavior-modification program that emphasizes reflexive compliance with school rules. There was no consideration whatsoever of possible downsides—for example, of whether the program encouraged acquisitiveness, taught mindless obedience, or would have other unintended consequences. We can get grant money = let’s do it!
- The biggie: Everywhere standardized test scores are held up as the measure of educational success. But even if higher test scores are a benefit, the scores tell us nothing about the associated costs. What was dropped from the curriculum to make those scores go up? Did the teaching techniques have harmful effects in other ways? Were the kids deprived of free play time or a decent lunch period to achieve those scores? Did the teaching achieve short-term success at the cost of creating a long-term aversion to the subject matter? Did the school have to start using behavioral control systems that teach authoritarian values? Did the kids also learn that learning is a joyless drudgery to be avoided as soon as they’re free of compulsion? The scores tell us nothing about those things. What good is that kind of partial information?
So why is it the default mode of school policy-making?
.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Those are big numbers
We have no idea how much money it will take to implement the Smarter Balanced standardized tests. That’s one of the main objections to going ahead with them. We can estimate how much it will cost to buy the actual tests—and that’s an enormous increase over what we’re currently spending—but we don’t have any estimates of what the necessary tech upgrades and support will cost. Any estimate I try to make here would have to be very rough, because the state has simply not done its homework about the cost.
But I’ll try anyway.
Start with the proposition that every one-percent increase in state school aid in Iowa means about $64 per student. (Derived from the numbers here.) Right now, the Governor is proposing an $80 per student increase for next year.
Then let’s look at what another state has done to prepare for using Smarter Balanced. California is a much bigger state than Iowa, but we can at least try to compare on a per-student basis. California approved $1.6 billion to “help” districts implement the Common Core, including the Smarter Balanced tests. California has about 6.2 million K-12 students. So that’s about $258 per student.
Now school districts in California are taking legal action to obtain an additional $1 billion that the Smarter Balanced tests are costing them. That’s another $161 per student. We’re up to $419 per student (though some portion of that is for other Common-Core-driven costs). And, as the California School Board Association advised the districts, “Remember that while the state has provided some one-time funding for SBA implementation, the expenses of SBA implementation will be ongoing.”
Is it a perfect comparison? No, because I’m a spare-time blogger Googling figures on the internet, as opposed to, say, a building full of state employees who are paid to figure things like this out.
But those are big numbers. More reason to think that if these tests are adopted, we can say goodbye to any hope of decent supplemental aid.
.
But I’ll try anyway.
Start with the proposition that every one-percent increase in state school aid in Iowa means about $64 per student. (Derived from the numbers here.) Right now, the Governor is proposing an $80 per student increase for next year.
Then let’s look at what another state has done to prepare for using Smarter Balanced. California is a much bigger state than Iowa, but we can at least try to compare on a per-student basis. California approved $1.6 billion to “help” districts implement the Common Core, including the Smarter Balanced tests. California has about 6.2 million K-12 students. So that’s about $258 per student.
Now school districts in California are taking legal action to obtain an additional $1 billion that the Smarter Balanced tests are costing them. That’s another $161 per student. We’re up to $419 per student (though some portion of that is for other Common-Core-driven costs). And, as the California School Board Association advised the districts, “Remember that while the state has provided some one-time funding for SBA implementation, the expenses of SBA implementation will be ongoing.”
Is it a perfect comparison? No, because I’m a spare-time blogger Googling figures on the internet, as opposed to, say, a building full of state employees who are paid to figure things like this out.
But those are big numbers. More reason to think that if these tests are adopted, we can say goodbye to any hope of decent supplemental aid.
.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Superintendent, school board members want more cuts to school programs
What other conclusion can you reach from their utter silence on the proposal to spend uncounted millions on the Smarter Balanced standardized tests?
They know that the tests will cause cuts. If they didn’t know it already, their experience with the teacher leadership program would make it obvious. When the legislature debated the teacher leadership program last year, our superintendent and board members didn’t object. Then—surprise!—the teacher leadership program cost so much that there wasn’t enough left for supplemental aid. And now the district wants us all to lobby for more aid. Where were they when it mattered?
Now the same thing is happening again. The state wants an enormous increase in the amount spent on standardized testing. This will obviously divert money from supplemental aid; a 4% funding increase will be a pipe dream. You can have the tests or you can have decent supplemental aid; you can’t have both. How can our district ask us to lobby for more aid while not objecting at all to that huge expense, especially when a much cheaper alternative is available?
There’s only one way to interpret it: They want the cuts.
UPDATE 2/8/15: The Press-Citizen has an article this morning about the tests; the ICCSD curriculum director told the reporter that district leaders have “concern” about the tests. See the comments below. Still no indication that that concern is enough to make those leaders oppose adopting the tests, or that they are expressing any of those concerns to the legislators who will decide the issue. Still, it’s something. More please?
.
They know that the tests will cause cuts. If they didn’t know it already, their experience with the teacher leadership program would make it obvious. When the legislature debated the teacher leadership program last year, our superintendent and board members didn’t object. Then—surprise!—the teacher leadership program cost so much that there wasn’t enough left for supplemental aid. And now the district wants us all to lobby for more aid. Where were they when it mattered?
Now the same thing is happening again. The state wants an enormous increase in the amount spent on standardized testing. This will obviously divert money from supplemental aid; a 4% funding increase will be a pipe dream. You can have the tests or you can have decent supplemental aid; you can’t have both. How can our district ask us to lobby for more aid while not objecting at all to that huge expense, especially when a much cheaper alternative is available?
There’s only one way to interpret it: They want the cuts.
UPDATE 2/8/15: The Press-Citizen has an article this morning about the tests; the ICCSD curriculum director told the reporter that district leaders have “concern” about the tests. See the comments below. Still no indication that that concern is enough to make those leaders oppose adopting the tests, or that they are expressing any of those concerns to the legislators who will decide the issue. Still, it’s something. More please?
.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Do our district administrators support spending millions on Smarter Balanced standardized tests?
Parents at at least one elementary school in our district received an email from their Parent-Teacher Organization today designed to encourage them to advocate for the district’s legislative priorities. “This email contains legislative advocacy information to help you stay up to date with what is happening in Des Moines,” it said. “Superintendent Murley requested that this information be shared.”
The packet contained, among other things, two documents summarizing the state task force’s recommendation that the state adopt the very expensive Smarter Balanced standardized tests. Neither document makes any reference to the dissent that accompanied the task force’s report and that raised serious concerns about the substantial and unquantified tech-readiness costs of adopting those tests. It also omitted this memo, written by our own David Dude for the Urban Education Network of Iowa, raising serious questions about tech readiness and cost. Finally, the packet included a statement about assessments, issued by the Iowa Association of School Boards, that sounds like it could have been cut and pasted from a standardized testing industry press release.
The district included all of those materials in the advocacy packet without comment on whether it wants people to support or oppose the new tests. Omitting any information about the dissenting opinion and any contrary views, though, could certainly come across as an endorsement. What are parents supposed to make of this information?
We have no idea whether the ICCSD has adequate technology to administer these tests. Judging from Dude’s memo, there’s a very good chance that it doesn’t and that the technology costs alone (not to mention the cost of the tests themselves) will be, in the dissent’s words, “significant and ongoing.” The Governor’s school funding proposal isn’t even enough to maintain our current level of spending. Where will the money for these tests come from? Where will it come from the next year, and the year after that? What is our district going to cut to pay for these tests?
It’s at moments like this when I wonder who our administrators work for.
.
The packet contained, among other things, two documents summarizing the state task force’s recommendation that the state adopt the very expensive Smarter Balanced standardized tests. Neither document makes any reference to the dissent that accompanied the task force’s report and that raised serious concerns about the substantial and unquantified tech-readiness costs of adopting those tests. It also omitted this memo, written by our own David Dude for the Urban Education Network of Iowa, raising serious questions about tech readiness and cost. Finally, the packet included a statement about assessments, issued by the Iowa Association of School Boards, that sounds like it could have been cut and pasted from a standardized testing industry press release.
The district included all of those materials in the advocacy packet without comment on whether it wants people to support or oppose the new tests. Omitting any information about the dissenting opinion and any contrary views, though, could certainly come across as an endorsement. What are parents supposed to make of this information?
We have no idea whether the ICCSD has adequate technology to administer these tests. Judging from Dude’s memo, there’s a very good chance that it doesn’t and that the technology costs alone (not to mention the cost of the tests themselves) will be, in the dissent’s words, “significant and ongoing.” The Governor’s school funding proposal isn’t even enough to maintain our current level of spending. Where will the money for these tests come from? Where will it come from the next year, and the year after that? What is our district going to cut to pay for these tests?
It’s at moments like this when I wonder who our administrators work for.
.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Would you hire these people to use technology to teach your kids?
“The future of assessments is online, but so is the future of teaching and learning,” the state assessment task force declared. But our state education department’s use of technology is not exactly an advertisement for technology’s power to inform and instruct.
Yesterday the state Department of Education posted a website designed to rate all of the state’s schools against one another on reading and math test scores. Set aside for the moment whether that’s a good idea; after all, our legislators made them do it. But the site is a mess.
Here’s an example of a graph designed to show the reading proficiency of the kids at my local elementary school:
What are we to make of this graph? How is the green line (labeled “Students Meeting Proficiency”) different from the blue bar (labeled “Meeting Proficiency”)? Why is the green line a line at all? Does the x axis have any meaning whatsoever? If not, what do the dots on the lines mean? And why are the little informational boxes positioned to block the view of the orange and blue bars? (It gets worse.)
Meanwhile, see if you can find your school’s dot on this graph.
Meanwhile, see if you can find Iowa City’s West High School in the site’s drop-down menu. Not so easy.
You might try to figure out what’s going on by clicking on the “More Information” drop-down menu, which has links for “Website Introduction,” “FAQ,” and “Report Definition.” None of the links work.
The site worked even less well on a mobile device than on a desktop.
These are the people who are going to tell us how to improve our kids’ education through technology? These are the people who are going to implement the proposed high-tech (and debacle-prone) Smarter Balanced standardized tests?
More on the rankings here.
.
Yesterday the state Department of Education posted a website designed to rate all of the state’s schools against one another on reading and math test scores. Set aside for the moment whether that’s a good idea; after all, our legislators made them do it. But the site is a mess.
Here’s an example of a graph designed to show the reading proficiency of the kids at my local elementary school:
What are we to make of this graph? How is the green line (labeled “Students Meeting Proficiency”) different from the blue bar (labeled “Meeting Proficiency”)? Why is the green line a line at all? Does the x axis have any meaning whatsoever? If not, what do the dots on the lines mean? And why are the little informational boxes positioned to block the view of the orange and blue bars? (It gets worse.)
Meanwhile, see if you can find your school’s dot on this graph.
Meanwhile, see if you can find Iowa City’s West High School in the site’s drop-down menu. Not so easy.
You might try to figure out what’s going on by clicking on the “More Information” drop-down menu, which has links for “Website Introduction,” “FAQ,” and “Report Definition.” None of the links work.
The site worked even less well on a mobile device than on a desktop.
These are the people who are going to tell us how to improve our kids’ education through technology? These are the people who are going to implement the proposed high-tech (and debacle-prone) Smarter Balanced standardized tests?
More on the rankings here.
.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Is there an optimal squeakiness?
One thing I’ve enjoyed about the book critic James Wood is the way he sometimes soft-pedals his own criticism and lets the book he’s reviewing indict itself. He’ll write a careful, restrained, and reasonable-sounding critique of a book, but then quote passages that reveal the book to be egregiously awful. You walk away from his review thinking not only that the book is terrible but that it’s very decent of Wood not to criticize it more harshly.
Something similar happens, I think, over at Karen W.’s blog. Karen does the unglamorous work of actually reading the education proposals that come out of the legislature and the state Department of Education (so we don’t have to). She comments in a matter-of-fact way and raises a few good questions, but she mostly lets that parade of horribles speak for itself.
For example, you can read her recent posts on the anti-bullying bill that would authorize schools to monitor kids’ social media accounts (and maybe even demand their passwords?), about the state’s plan to rank Iowa’s schools against one another, and about the state’s rules about what counts as “evidence” against its tourism-driven plan to require later school start dates. Even her more extended critiques are written in the calm voice of reason.
Not all bloggers (ahem) can muster that kind of restraint. Maybe that explains how she got invited to be on the state assessment task force, despite her previously skeptical stance toward the Smarter Balanced Assessments. (Or maybe our twenty-first century education officials didn’t realize she had a blog.) She ended up in a minority of one, but her dissent may find an audience with the legislature—certainly more of an audience than a simple blog post would have found.
Meanwhile, over at Parenting is Political, NorthTOmom describes a meeting she and her husband had with the vice principal of their daughters’ school about the amount of homework that the teachers were assigning. NorthTOmom methodically explained to the vice principal how the school was violating the district’s homework policy. When the vice principal refused to acknowledge the problem, NorthTOmom’s husband snapped, “There’s too much fucking homework!” Whether either approach will get results remains to be seen.
Michael Tilley, another local school blogger, recently wondered aloud what it takes to be effective at “squeaky wheel politics.” Seems like no one has solved that puzzle yet.
.
Something similar happens, I think, over at Karen W.’s blog. Karen does the unglamorous work of actually reading the education proposals that come out of the legislature and the state Department of Education (so we don’t have to). She comments in a matter-of-fact way and raises a few good questions, but she mostly lets that parade of horribles speak for itself.
For example, you can read her recent posts on the anti-bullying bill that would authorize schools to monitor kids’ social media accounts (and maybe even demand their passwords?), about the state’s plan to rank Iowa’s schools against one another, and about the state’s rules about what counts as “evidence” against its tourism-driven plan to require later school start dates. Even her more extended critiques are written in the calm voice of reason.
Not all bloggers (ahem) can muster that kind of restraint. Maybe that explains how she got invited to be on the state assessment task force, despite her previously skeptical stance toward the Smarter Balanced Assessments. (Or maybe our twenty-first century education officials didn’t realize she had a blog.) She ended up in a minority of one, but her dissent may find an audience with the legislature—certainly more of an audience than a simple blog post would have found.
Meanwhile, over at Parenting is Political, NorthTOmom describes a meeting she and her husband had with the vice principal of their daughters’ school about the amount of homework that the teachers were assigning. NorthTOmom methodically explained to the vice principal how the school was violating the district’s homework policy. When the vice principal refused to acknowledge the problem, NorthTOmom’s husband snapped, “There’s too much fucking homework!” Whether either approach will get results remains to be seen.
Michael Tilley, another local school blogger, recently wondered aloud what it takes to be effective at “squeaky wheel politics.” Seems like no one has solved that puzzle yet.
.
Monday, January 19, 2015
School budget cuts will be (mostly) your legislators’ fault
It looks increasingly like we’re in for more school budget cuts. The Governor has proposed a paltry 1.25% increase in supplemental aid (formerly known as “allowable growth”) for next year. According to our superintendent, that’s well below what it will take to avoid another round of cuts like last year’s. If last year was any indication, the district will probably consider eliminating fifth grade orchestra and band and cutting foreign languages from junior high entirely, and that would only be the beginning.
The blame for this will fall mainly on the Governor and the state legislature. Not only are they failing to provide the needed funding, but they are funding education “reform” ideas like the “teacher leadership” program with money that otherwise could have been made available for supplemental aid. As Karen W. points out, supplemental aid for next year would have been almost 4% (and for the following year, 6%) if that “teacher leadership” money had been used for supplemental aid.
The Johnson County legislators who are complaining about the paltry supplemental aid increase all voted for the teacher leadership program. Did they not realize that it would come at the expense of other educational needs, like music, foreign languages, and smaller class sizes?
With higher supplemental aid, our school board could always have chosen to fund a teacher leadership program by cutting music and foreign languages, if they really thought it was worth it. Instead, our state legislators made that decision for us, without any consideration of the cuts it would cause.
Can’t you just feel your schools getting better?
And if the state Department of Education has its way, the legislature will divert even more funds next year to pay for the expensive new standardized teststhat the public is clamoring for. What will be left to cut?
So I have some sympathy for our school board members, who will have to decide where to make the cuts. But I do hope they look closely at how the district is spending its money, and not just at the usual targets. One thing they could do is to take a close look at how much the district is spending on standardized tests, above and beyond those that are required by the state. Here is a chart showing all the standardized tests that our district uses (click to enlarge):
That’s a lot of testing—and so, I assume, a lot of money. Some of it may be required because of strings attached to various revenue sources. Maybe some of it is even so beneficial that it’s worth cutting music, languages, and staff for. Is anyone asking?
.
The blame for this will fall mainly on the Governor and the state legislature. Not only are they failing to provide the needed funding, but they are funding education “reform” ideas like the “teacher leadership” program with money that otherwise could have been made available for supplemental aid. As Karen W. points out, supplemental aid for next year would have been almost 4% (and for the following year, 6%) if that “teacher leadership” money had been used for supplemental aid.
The Johnson County legislators who are complaining about the paltry supplemental aid increase all voted for the teacher leadership program. Did they not realize that it would come at the expense of other educational needs, like music, foreign languages, and smaller class sizes?
With higher supplemental aid, our school board could always have chosen to fund a teacher leadership program by cutting music and foreign languages, if they really thought it was worth it. Instead, our state legislators made that decision for us, without any consideration of the cuts it would cause.
Can’t you just feel your schools getting better?
And if the state Department of Education has its way, the legislature will divert even more funds next year to pay for the expensive new standardized tests
So I have some sympathy for our school board members, who will have to decide where to make the cuts. But I do hope they look closely at how the district is spending its money, and not just at the usual targets. One thing they could do is to take a close look at how much the district is spending on standardized tests, above and beyond those that are required by the state. Here is a chart showing all the standardized tests that our district uses (click to enlarge):
That’s a lot of testing—and so, I assume, a lot of money. Some of it may be required because of strings attached to various revenue sources. Maybe some of it is even so beneficial that it’s worth cutting music, languages, and staff for. Is anyone asking?
.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
How much are we paying for “face validity”?
I learned a new term this week: “face validity.” “Generally, face validity means that the test ‘looks like’ it will work, as opposed to ‘has been shown to work’.” “Some people use the term face validity only to refer to the validity of a test to observers who are not expert in testing methodologies.” Others have equated it with “pandering to stakeholders.”
The idea of “face validity” seems relevant to the state task force’s recommendation that we adopt the very expensive Smarter Balanced tests. The reason the Smarter Balanced tests cost so much more than the tests we’ve been using is that they use computer adaptive technology—varying the questions based on the student’s responses as the test goes along—and include time-consuming “performance tasks,” which purport to “require students to apply their learning to a real-world problem” (in a classroom, on a standardized test).
Not everyone agrees that expensive question types measure “higher-order thinking” and “real-world problem-solving” appreciably better than multiple-choice questions do. The task force’s dissenting member, Karen Woltman, examines some criticisms of performance task assessments here. Iowa City’s H.D. Hoover wrote twenty years ago that “People who think that multiple-choice tests measure trivial facts and performance assessments measure higher-order processes don’t know much about measurement.” I wonder how much has changed in the interim. His talk critiquing performance tasks is a great read.
One thing is true, though: “Performance tasks” and “computer-adaptivity” do sound so twenty-first century! Adding them to our tests enables the state to point to impressive-looking innovations in assessment. How much of the proposed eight-fold (or more) increase in cost is just paying for that kind of “face validity”?
.
The idea of “face validity” seems relevant to the state task force’s recommendation that we adopt the very expensive Smarter Balanced tests. The reason the Smarter Balanced tests cost so much more than the tests we’ve been using is that they use computer adaptive technology—varying the questions based on the student’s responses as the test goes along—and include time-consuming “performance tasks,” which purport to “require students to apply their learning to a real-world problem” (in a classroom, on a standardized test).
Not everyone agrees that expensive question types measure “higher-order thinking” and “real-world problem-solving” appreciably better than multiple-choice questions do. The task force’s dissenting member, Karen Woltman, examines some criticisms of performance task assessments here. Iowa City’s H.D. Hoover wrote twenty years ago that “People who think that multiple-choice tests measure trivial facts and performance assessments measure higher-order processes don’t know much about measurement.” I wonder how much has changed in the interim. His talk critiquing performance tasks is a great read.
One thing is true, though: “Performance tasks” and “computer-adaptivity” do sound so twenty-first century! Adding them to our tests enables the state to point to impressive-looking innovations in assessment. How much of the proposed eight-fold (or more) increase in cost is just paying for that kind of “face validity”?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)