I've been trying to focus on the positive the past month and so have done a lot less reading and writing about all that's wrong in my public education world. (The negative education news, together with the insanity of the current presidential election news, has worn me out...)
Today, I couldn't help myself, though. Below is my latest, written as a letter to the Board of Regents.
Suppose the war against excessive and inappropriate testing is "won," Computer-Based Testing looms on the not-very-distant horizon in New York State. Testing is not going going away no matter how many students refuse the tests. This may be the next battle...
Dear Board of Regents,
I'm an elementary teacher in New York State. I took a personal day in April and attended my first Board of Regents meeting. It was an amazing (and educational) day for me. I was thrilled to witness Dr. Rosa's first day as Chancellor of the Board of Regents, and to hear so many important and insightful discussions and questions on topics of great concern to me and my colleagues.
Among the many topics I found particularly interesting, was the discussion about Computer-Based Testing. I have to admit, even as a veteran teacher in a grade that tests both ELA and Math every year, I was unaware that computer-based testing was slated for implementation in NYS in the very near future. I discovered I wasn't the only surprised person, though, as Regent Cashin asked the question I had been wondering: "When was the decision made to actually move forward with CBT?" When I read the notes today from the April 18th meeting, I was surprised to see no indication of the conversation that ensued after the question was raised. Part of Regent Cashin's questioning included concern that she had not seen indication in previous meeting notes (September's, I believe) about a similar conversation regarding CBT. It seems that decisions about implementing CBT may have continued in the absence of an actual agreement of the full Board of Regents to do so. In the interest of creating greater trust between teachers, parents, the public at large, and the SED, a frequently mentioned priority at the April meetings, I hope this was merely an oversight, and that greater discussion and even investigation into the appropriateness of CBT at the elementary level will occur before a decision is made to definitely implement CBT in New York State. With new leadership and with a new sense of mission to truly serve the best interest of the State's students and teachers, I am hopeful this conversation remains open.
The public, and I presume the SED and the Board of Regents, are well-aware of the myriad technical problems CBT has faced across the country in recent years. From slow data loading times, to crashing servers, to lost data, students in many states who have already taken CBT have faced testing challenges above and beyond the challenges that testing, in general, may pose to students. (Questionable standards, test question construction, overly "challenging" reading passages and math problems, and problematic "un-timed" testing protocols, to name a few of those challenges.) But there is a far more troubling concern that has arisen, particularly at the elementary level. Students in grades K-5 learn best when reading and writing on paper. (If this is untrue, then research that proves otherwise should be cited and shared with the teaching community.) It's true that our society is moving towards an ever-increasing use of technology and our students spend a greater and greater amount of time "connected" and students in today's world are ever more proficient at many of the technological devices they use. But I strongly believe that developmentally speaking, at this time, it is still more appropriate for elementary students to be reading and writing with paper where they can easily flip back and forth between pages without delay, highlight and annotate on paper with accuracy, and avoid the challenges that computer-use skills will add to the reading/writing process. Another real fear is that if we move forward with CBT for assessment, then reading and writing instruction throughout the year at the elementary level will also move towards computer-based instruction. And then the computer-based instruction could start as young as Kindergarten or even Pre-K. While it may be appropriate to introduce young students to computer use in some way, using it exclusively or nearly so, for instruction in fundamental subjects such as reading, writing, and math remains a questionable teaching choice. (Again, I am hoping that the new Research Working Group will investigate these issues before making a decision about CBT.)
Another possible consequence of CBT and related computer-based instruction, although inadvertent, could be to widen the gap between student populations according to their family resources. Students have greatly varied access to computers and other forms of technology outside the classroom which certainly impacts their use of technology in the classroom, and thereby could further widen the gap in test scores.
In addition to these concerns, I wonder about the motor coordination challenge that effective/efficient keyboarding poses to elementary students. This, too, needs to be viewed through a developmental lens to ensure we are not expecting all students to achieve proficiency at a skill that not all are developmentally ready to achieve. Ease of texting does not equate to improved spelling and writing skills, just as increased presence of technology in the lives of today's students doesn't necessarily equate to CBT being the best nor most appropriate way to assess reading and writing skills in elementary students.
I'm hoping the current Board of Regents agrees that the issues I've raised cannot be overlooked when making the important decisions about how to most fairly and accurately assess student achievement and teacher effectiveness. I truly hope that the impact on all classroom instruction, down to the Kindergarten level, will be taken into consideration, as well. I further hope that the Board of Regents will utilize Chancellor Rosa's new initiative of the Research Working Group before making any permanent decisions about CBT.
I'd be happy to engage in further discussion, should you have questions or seek further clarification of my concerns.
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.
Most sincerely,
