This post is in response to a letter from Deputy
Commissioner of Education, Angelica Infante, dated January, 2016:
Subject: “Changes for the 2016 Grades
3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Tests
The
letter includes the following, in response to widespread concerns about grades
3-8 testing in New York State:
The New York State
Education Department (NYSED) is making significant changes to the 2016 Grades
3-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Tests…These changes will
improve the testing experience for students and the validity of the
assessments.
This memo outlines changes
made as a result of feedback from the field:
- · Greater involvement of
educators in the test development process,
- · Decrease in the number of
test questions, and
- · A shift to untimed testing.
The letter goes on to detail each of
these bullet points.
But sadly, these responses appear to be
nothing more than superficial responses to very serious, substantive concerns.
The “greater
involvement of educators” has yielded no real changes to date. The standards remain developmentally
inappropriate; the tests remain too long, cover too many days, and continue to
be developmentally inappropriate in both scope and complexity.
The “decrease
in the number of test questions” is misleading – almost laughable,
actually. The number of reading passages
over the three days of ELA testing (for Grades 5-8) will be reduced by exactly
one. The
number of questions will be reduced by the accompanying 7 questions. On Day 2,
exactly one short answer question will be removed. Math tests will be shortened by exactly two multiple choice
questions on Day 1. No changes are
scheduled for Days 2 and 3.
Are we really expected to accept these
minor changes as anything more than editing? Surely no one seriously thinks these minor changes really
address concerns about length of testing, developmental appropriateness, or
stress caused by testing?!
And finally, “a
shift to untimed testing.”
What can that possibly mean and what
concern does the SED hope such a change will address? To date, my district administrators, and therefore all
teachers in my district grades 3-8, have yet to be instructed on how an
un-timed test will be administered.
This is all they’ve said so far: “This change will
provide students further opportunity to demonstrate what they know and can do
by allowing them to work at their own pace. In general, this will mean that as
long as students are productively working they will be allowed as much time as
they need to complete the ELA and Mathematics tests. Additionally, this change
in policy may help alleviate the pressures that some students may experience as
a result of taking an assessment they must complete during a limited amount of
time. “
But exactly how long do we let children
“work at their own pace?” How do we determine if a student is “productively working?” What do we do when some
students finish in fifteen minutes and others “choose” to work for two or three
hours?
Does anyone really believe this change
of policy will actually “help alleviate the pressures”
of testing????
Okay, call me naïve, unknowing of so
much. But I believe those who make
such policy decisions really suffer from a lack of “Intelligent Disobedience”
skills. They know what they
propose has no real value in addressing the serious concerns that have been
raised about over-testing. But they’ve been given a job to do – “address the
concerns.” And so they make a random list of changes that superficially could
seem to respond to the concerns.
But they are counting on no one using their own critical thinking skills
to analyze what the “changes” really amount to (or don’t amount to.)
When what they should really be doing is saying “Wait a second, parents, teachers, administrators, citizens – stakeholders with significant things to lose – are asking for change. I need to ensure I propose real change. I need to make sure I contribute to solutions and not perpetuate the problems. I need to make sure my superiors don’t co-opt me to further their own political agenda which is hurting children and our schools.”
When what they should really be doing is saying “Wait a second, parents, teachers, administrators, citizens – stakeholders with significant things to lose – are asking for change. I need to ensure I propose real change. I need to make sure I contribute to solutions and not perpetuate the problems. I need to make sure my superiors don’t co-opt me to further their own political agenda which is hurting children and our schools.”
But that is but a dream I have. I know human nature keeps most from thinking critically when it may be in opposition to directives from above.
So again, I recommend “Intelligent Disobedience – Doing Right
When What You’re Told to do is Wrong” by Ira Chaleff. Please check it out. Pass it
on. Share the message.
And then find your own inner “intelligent
disobedient” self. And start
asking questions. Refuse to be a
pawn in someone else’s terrible game.
Is anyone else with me on this?
No comments:
Post a Comment