I think common sense says that any single measure that claims to assess something is always enhanced by a different kind of measure that attempts to corroborate its claims.
So if I want to know if my kid knows something about the Revolutionary War, I might give her a multiple-choice test. But I'd also want her write a 3-page paper on the cause of the war, give a presentation on the Battle of Bunker Hill, and write and act in a skit about George Washington. At the end of the unit, I'd want her to select items she worked on and place them in her portfolio and then write a meta-cognitive summary of what she learned, the challenges she faced in learning them, and how she overcame them.
Duh, right? Most good teachers do these sorts of things all the time. All of these assessments/measures focus on the question of what my kid knows. But each produces different information in different ways. And each involves different skills.
So go tell that to your state DOE. What will they say? Something like, "These classroom-based assessments are very nice, but they're certainly not reliable. We can't possibly accept your judgement about what students in your classroom know and can do."
THAT'S the problem.
Of course you can't accept the teacher's judgment if punitive high stakes are associated with the assessment, e.g., the teacher getting fired (thanks NCLB!) or the school getting shut down (thanks again, NCLB!) So there's an incentive (thanks Campbell's Law!) to cook the books and make things seem what they aren't.
It doesn't have to be this way. Ultimately, what we're really concerned about is (1) what do kids know? and (2) what can kids do? A single measure (usually a norm-referenced, multiple-choice test) that tells me if my kid is "at grade level" does not tell me what my kid knows and what my kid can do. It tells me if my kid's score is the same as her peers, below her peers, or above her peers. In short, it tells me zippety-doo-dah.
Multiple measures (such as the ones I mentioned above) are the evidence we need to answer the questions (1) what do kids know? and (2) what can kids do? These measures reveal nothing about "grade level," i.e., where these kids are "supposed" to be in relation to each other. Rather, these measures give a very real sense of where these kids ARE. Once we know where they are, we can help them get to the next place. How they get there and when they get there is an open question. But in the best circumstances, getting there is kind of fun. Anyone remember teaching and learning is supposed to be fun? It's different for each kid and for each teacher. It's what learning is all about, and what makes teaching a thrill.
2 comments:
Here's the NEA's new belief statment on grade level. This is extremely encouraging.
B-62. Individual Learning, Growth, and Development*
The National Education Association believes that learners grow and develop at different rates and in different ways. Individual learning progresses in a highly complex manner that includes periods of rapid growth and periods of intellectual consolidation.
The Association also believes that [human beings] individuals learn best in caring, challenging, and inclusive environments that support and engage each learner. Individual students require learning opportunities that are differentiated and responsive to
their needs, interests, and learning styles.
The Association further believes in the use of developmentally appropriate instructional practices. Grade level labels do not accurately define our
students. Such labels misinterpret student learning as primarily linear, sequential, and easily standardized. (2008, 2009)
At the school where I teach, we wouldn't be learning about the Revolutionary War at all, since social studies isn't part of state testing. The only way kids learn any history content at all is incidentally as part of a reading skil lesson on how to read works of non-fiction. I used to teach engaging content-area topics and assess them in a multitude of authentic ways, but not anymore.
Post a Comment