I thought I was done writing about State testing, but apparently, I'm not.
Ms. Elia's words just echoed in my head:
"Students who are productively working will be able to demonstrate what they know and are able to do, even if it takes more time. We're interested in what students know, not how fast they can go."
I wonder what impact this will have on every day classroom assessments...
Does this mean that unit tests, and mid-terms, and finals, and maybe even those weekly spelling tests should also be un-timed?
If the State has declared that they're "interested in what students know, not how fast they can go" then who are we at the local level to place time constraints on students during any test? Isn't the goal to always discover what our students know, not how fast they can go?
But that leads me to other questions.
One of the most common reasons given why parents should not let their children refuse the tests is because in real life, there are challenges. And just because the challenge is hard, doesn't mean you can "opt out."
Well, I don't do a lot of testing in my class. (I prefer essays where students really do get to show what they know.) But I do know that in real life, you don't get unlimited time on many things.
What life lesson are we teaching our children/students if we show them that this critically important State test does not require them to show what they know in any particular time frame? Does this set them up for failure later in life, certainly in their high school and college careers when assignments and tests most definitely have a timed component?
These are important questions to consider.
It's been clear that the NYSED doesn't do a lot of projecting into the future in regards to potential real-life impacts of policy on children.
So the questioning is left to us.
Please, ask the questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment