# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our goal with this post is to convince you that continuing to use status measures like proficiency rates to grade schools is misleading and irresponsible-so much so that the results from growth measures ought to count much more-three, five, maybe even nine times more-than proficiency when determining school performance under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). We draw upon our experience with our home state of Ohio and its current accountability system, which currently generates separate school grades for proficiency and for growth.

We argue three points:

1. In an era of high standards and tough tests, proficiency rates are correlated with student demographics and prior achievement. If schools are judged predominantly on these rates, almost every high-poverty school will be labeled a failure. That is not only inaccurate and unfair, but it will also demoralize educators and/or hurt the credibility of school accountability systems. In turn, states will be pressured to lower their proficiency standards.

2. Growth measures-like "value added" or "student growth percentiles"-are a much fairer way to evaluate schools, since they can control for prior achievement and can ascertain progress over the course of the school year. They can also differentiate between high-poverty schools where kids are making steady progress and those where they are not.

3. In contrast with conventional wisdom, growth models don't let too many poor-performing schools "off the hook." Failure rates for high-poverty schools are still high when judged by "value added" or "student growth percentiles"-they just aren't as ridiculously high as with proficiency rates.

Finally, we tackle a fourth point, addressing the most compelling argument against growth measures:

That schools can score well on growth measures even if their low-income students and/or students of color don't close gaps in achievement and college-and-career readiness.

(And these arguments are on top of one of the best reasons to support growth models: Because they encourage schools to pay attention to all students, including their high achievers.)
Point #1: Proficiency rates are poor measures of school quality.
States should use proficiency rates cautiously because of their correlation with student demographics and prior achievement-factors that are outside of schools' control. Let's illustrate what this looks like in the Buckeye State. One of Ohio's primary school-quality indicators is its performance index (PI)-essentially, a weighted proficiency measure that awards more credit when students achieve at higher levels. Decades of research have shown the existence of a link between student proficiency and student demographics, and that unfortunate relationship persists today. Chart 1 displays the correlation between PI scores and a school's proportion of economically disadvantaged (ED) pupils. Schools with more ED students tend to post lower PI scores-and vice-versa.

Chart 1: Relationship between performance index scores and percent economically disadvantaged, Ohio schools, 2015-16

Data source: Ohio Department of Education Notes: Each point represents a school's performance index score and its percentage of economically disadvantaged students. The red line displays the linear relationship between the variables. Several high-poverty districts in Ohio participate in the Community Eligibility Provision program; in turn, all of their students are reported as economically disadvantaged. As a result, some less impoverished schools (in high-poverty districts) are reported as enrolling all ED students, explaining some of the high PI scores in the top right portion of the chart.

Given this strong correlation, it's not surprising that almost all high-poverty urban schools in Ohio get failing grades on the performance index. In 2015-16, a staggering 93 percent of public schools in Ohio's eight major cities received a D or F on this measure, including several well-regarded schools (more on those below). Adding to their misery, urban schools received even worse ratings on a couple of Ohio's other proficiency-based measures, such as its indicators met and annual measureable objectives components. Parents and students should absolutely know whether they are proficient in key subjects-and on track for future success. But that's a different question from whether their schools should be judged by this standard.
Point #2: Growth measures are truer indicators of school quality.
Because they account for prior achievement, ratings based on student growth are largely independent of demographics. This helps us make better distinctions in the performance of high-poverty schools. Like several other states, Ohio uses a value-added measure developed by the analytics firm SAS. (Other states utilize a similar type of measure called " student growth percentiles.") When we look at the value-added ratings from Ohio's urban schools, we see differentiation in performance. Chart 2 below shows a fairer balance across the A-F categories on this measure: 22 percent received an A or B rating; 15 percent received C's; and 63 percent were assigned a D or F rating.*

Chart 2: Rating distribution of Ohio's urban schools, performance index versus "value added," 2015-16

*Due to transitions in state tests, Ohio rated schools on just one year of value-added results in 2014-15 and 2015-16 leading to some swings in ratings. In previous years and starting again in 2016-17, the state will use a multi-year average which helps to improve the stability of these ratings.

We suppose one could argue that the performance-index distribution more accurately depicts what is going on in Ohio's urban schools: Nearly every school, whether district or charter, is failing. Yet we know from experience that this simply isn't true. Yes, terrible schools exist, but there are also terrific ones whose efforts are best reflected in student growth. In fact, we proudly serve as the charter authorizer for KIPP Columbus and Columbus Collegiate Academy-Main. Both schools have earned an impressive three straight years of value-added ratings of "A," indicating sustained excellence that is making a big impact in their students' lives. Yet both of these high-poverty charter schools were assigned Ds on the performance index for 2015-16. That is to say, their students are making impressive gains-catching up, even-but not yet at "grade level" in terms of meeting academic standards. If we as an authorizer relied solely or primarily on PI ratings, these great schools might be shut-wrongly.
Point #3: Growth measures don't let too many bad schools "off the hook."
One worry about a growth-centered approach is that it might award honors grades to mediocre or dismal schools. But how often does this occur in the real world? As chart 2 indicates, 63 percent of urban public schools in Ohio received Ds or Fs on the state's value-added measure last year. In the two previous years, 46 and 39 percent of urban schools were rated D or F. To be sure, fewer high-poverty schools will flunk under value-added as under a proficiency measure. But a well-designed growth-centered system will identify a considerable number of chronically underperforming schools, as indeed it should.
Point #4: It's true that schools can score well on growth measures even if their low-income students and/or students of color don't close gaps in achievement and college-and-career readiness. But let's not shoot the messenger.
Probably the strongest argument against using growth models as the centerpiece of accountability systems is that they don't expect "enough" growth, especially for poor kids and kids of color. The Education Trust, for example, is urging states to use caution in choosing "comparative" growth models, including growth percentiles and value-added measures, because they don't tell us whether students are making enough progress to hit the college-ready target by the end of high school, or whether low-performing subgroups are making fast enough gains to close achievement gaps. And that much is true. But let's keep this in mind: Closing the achievement gap, or readying disadvantaged students for college, is not a one-year "fix." It takes steady progress-and gains accumulated over time-for lower-achieving students to draw even with their peers. An analysis of Colorado's highest-performing schools, for example, found that the trajectory of learning gains for the lowest-performing students simply wasn't fast enough to reach the high standard of college readiness. An article by Harvard's Tom Kane reports that the wildly successful Boston charter schools cut the black-white achievement gap by roughly one-fifth each year in reading and one-third in math. So even in the most extraordinary academic environments, disadvantaged students may need many years to draw even with their peers (and perhaps longer to meet a high college-ready bar). That is sobering indeed.

We should certainly encourage innovation in growth modelling-and state accountability-that can generate more transparent results on "how much" growth is happening in a school and whether such growth is "enough." But the first step is accepting that student growth is the right yardstick, not status measures. And the second step is to be realistic about how much growth on an annual basis is humanly possible, even in the very best schools.

***

Using proficiency rates to rate high-poverty schools is an unfair practice to schools that has real-world consequences. Not only does this policy give the false impression that practically all high-poverty schools are ineffective, but it also demeans educators in high-needs schools who are working hard to advance student learning. Plus, it actually weakens the accountability spotlight on the truly bad high-poverty schools, since they cannot be distinguished from the strong ones. Moreover, it can lead to unintended consequences such as shutting schools that are actually benefitting students (as measured by growth), discouraging new-school startups in needy communities (if social entrepreneurs believe that "failure" is inevitable), or thwarting the replication of high-performing urban schools. Lastly, assigning universally low ratings to virtually all high-poverty schools could breed resentment and pushback, pressuring policy makers to water down proficiency standards or easing up on accountability as a whole.

Growth measures won't magically ensure that all students reach college and career readiness by the end of high school, or close our yawning achievement gaps. But they do offer a clearer picture of which schools are making a difference in their students' academic lives, allowing policy makers and families to better distinguish the school lemons from peaches. If this information is put to use, students should have more opportunities to reach their lofty goals. Measures of school quality should be challenging, yes, but also fair and credible. Growth percentiles and value-added measures meet those standards. Proficiency rates simply do not. And states should keep that in mind when deciding how much weight to give to these various indicators when determining school grades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why states should use student growth, and not proficiency rates, when gauging school effectiveness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our goal with this post is to convince you that continuing to use status measures like proficiency rates to grade schools is misleading and irresponsible-so much so that the results from growth measures ought to count much more-three, five, maybe even nine times more-than proficiency when determining school performance under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dan Rather Reports, "Teaching to the Test" Excerpt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Saying it's a waste of time, teachers in Seattle are refusing to give standardized tests to high schoolers because the tests don't effectively assess students and educators don't want their evaluations tied to a faulty test. The move is receiving widespread support across the nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, policymakers across the U.S. make life-changing decisions based on the results of standardized tests.

These high-stakes decisions include, but are not limited to, student promotion to the next grade level, student eligibility to participate in advanced coursework, eligibility to graduate high school, and teacher tenure. In 40 states, teachers are evaluated in part based on the results from student standardized tests as are school administrators in almost 30 states.

Whether you're trying to measure proficiency or growth, standardized tests are not the answer.

However, research shows that the outcomes of standardized tests don't reflect the quality of instruction as they're intended to. Colleagues and I have conducted studies in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Michigan.

The results show that it's possible to predict the percentages of students who will score proficient or above on some standardized tests. We can do this just by looking at some of the important characteristics of the community rather than factors related to the schools themselves, like student-teacher ratios or teacher quality.

This raises the possibility that there are serious flaws built into education accountability systems and the decisions about educators and students made within those systems.

Standardized tests

Students' scores on mandated standardized tests have been used to evaluate U.S. educators, students, and schools since President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002.

Although more than 20 states had previously instituted state testing in some grade levels by the late 1990s, NCLB mandated annual standardized testing in all 50 states. It required standardized mathematics and English language arts tests in grades three through eight and once in high school. State education officials also had to administer a standardized science test in fourth grade, eighth grade, and once in high school.

The Obama administration expanded standardized testing through requirements in the Race to the Top grant program and by funding the development of two national standardized tests related to Common Core State Standards: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC).

45 states initially adopted Common Core in some form. Approximately 20 are currently part of the PARCC or SBAC consortia. Key portions of Race to the Top applications required states use student test results to evaluate teachers and principals.

Predicting scores

It's already well-established that out-of-school, community demographic, and family-level variables strongly influence student achievement on large-scale standardized tests.

For example, median family income is a strong predictor of SAT results. Other factors strongly linked to achievement on state standardized tests include parental education levels, percentage of lone parents in the school community, and percentage of families living in poverty in the community.

We decided to see if we could predict standardized test scores based on demographic factors related to the community where a student lived. By looking at three to five community and family demographic variables from U.S. Census data, we have been able to accurately predict the percentages of students who score proficient or above on standardized test scores for grades three through 12. These predictions are made without looking at school district data factors such as school size, teacher experience, or per-pupil spending.

Our models can identify how much a particular variable affects students' scores. That allows us to identify the most important demographic characteristics as they relate to the test results. For example, by looking at just one characteristic - the percentage of families in a given community living in poverty - we can explain almost 58% of the test's score in eighth-grade English language arts.

High school GPA is a better predictor of student success in the first year of college than the SAT.

Our most recent study explored three years of test scores from grades six through eight in more than 300 New Jersey schools. We looked at the percentage of families in the community with income over $200,000 a year, the percentage of people in a community in poverty, and the percentage of people in a community with bachelor's degrees. We found that we could predict the percent of students who scored proficient or above in 75% of the schools we sampled.

An earlier study that focused on fifth-grade test scores in New Jersey predicted the results accurately for 84% of schools over a three-year period.

Smarter assessments

To be clear, this doesn't mean that money determines how much students can learn. That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, our results demonstrate that standardized tests don't really measure how much students learn or how well teachers teach or how effective school leaders lead their schools. Such tests are blunt instruments that are highly susceptible to measuring out-of-school factors.

The results tell more about the community in which a student lives than the amount the student has learned.

Though some proponents of standardized assessment claim that scores can be used to measure improvement, we've found that there's simply too much noise. Changes in test scores from year to year can be attributed to normal growth over the school year, whether the student had a bad day or feels sick or tired, computer malfunctions, or other unrelated factors.

According to the technical manuals published by the creators of standardized assessments, none of the tests currently in use to judge teacher or school administrator effectiveness or student achievement have been validated for those uses. For example, none of the PARCC research, as provided by PARCC, addresses these issues directly. The tests are simply not designed to diagnose learning. They are simply monitoring devices, as evidenced by their technical reports.

The bottom line is this: Whether you're trying to measure proficiency or growth, standardized tests are not the answer.

Though our results in several states have been compelling, we need more research on a national level to determine just how much test scores are influenced by out-of-school factors.

If these standardized test results can be predicted with a high level of accuracy by community and family factors, it would have major policy implications. In my opinion, it suggests we should jettison the entire policy foundation that uses such test results to make important decisions about school personnel and students. After all, these factors are outside the control of students and school personnel.

Although there are ideological disputes about the merits of standardized tests results, the science has become clearer. The results suggest standardized test results tell more about the community in which a student lives than the amount the student has learned or the academic, social, and emotional growth of the student during a school year.

Although some might not want to accept it, over time, assessments made by teachers are better indicators of student achievement than standardized tests. For example, high school GPA, which is based on classroom assessments, is a better predictor of student success in the first year of college than the SAT.

This change would go a long way to providing important information about effective teaching, compared with a test score that has little to do with the teacher.

Christopher Tienken is an associate professor of education leadership management and policy at Seton Hall University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Image via Flickr user U.S. Department of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standardized Tests Don't Show What Kids Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, policymakers across the U.S. make life-changing decisions based on the results of standardized tests. These high-stakes decisions include, but are not limited to, student promotion to the next grade level, student eligibility to participate in advanced coursework, eligibility to graduate high school, and teacher tenure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These two essays were written by students in Katherine Cohen's 7th-grade English class at Greenberg Elementary in Northeast Philadelphia. The students were assigned the task of writing a persuasive letter. Some of those letters have been revised by the students and submitted to be published in various Philadelphia media outlets.
These two essays were written by students in Katherine Cohen's 7th-grade English class at Greenberg Elementary in Northeast Philadelphia. The students were assigned the task of writing a persuasive letter. Some of those letters have been revised by the students and submitted to be published in various Philadelphia media outlets.
Samantha McIver: Standardized tests are a fair assessment of student achievement

Do you like standardized tests? Your answer is probably no. However, your answer should be yes, and here is why. Standardized tests are assessments that are made by testing companies to tell what students in different school districts know. Standardized tests should be kept in schools.

One reason why standardized tests should be kept in schools is because they are a good measure of a student's achievement. For example, if we did not have standardized tests, policy makers would have to rely on tests that have been made and scored by teachers and individual schools that have favorite students. Also, multiple choice questions on standardized tests are graded by a machine so it is more fair than a test graded by a teacher. This evidence shows that standardized tests give more reliable results.

Another reason why standardized tests should be kept in schools is because the increased testing along with stricter standards are a better preparation for students who want to go to college. For instance, in January 1998, " Public Agenda found that 66% of college professors said that 'elementary and high schools expect students to learn too little.'"

Furthermore, by March 2002, "after a surge in testing and the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), an act that allows several federal education programs that are administered by the states, was passed that figure dropped to 47% 'in direct support of higher expectations, strengthened standards and better tests.'"

This proves that standardized tests are important because they help students learn what they need to in order to get into college.

Lastly, standardized tests should be kept in schools because students do not get too stressed out over standardized tests. To illustrate, "although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned," the U.S. Department of Education said. In addition, the University of Arkansas, in a November 2001 study, found that "the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudestowards standardized testing programs." This shows that standardized tests are not too stressful for students.

To conclude, standardized tests need to be kept in schools. Again, standardized tests are a good measure of a student's achievement, the standardized tests and increased testing are a better college preparation, and the testing is not too stressful for students. Immediately, we need to call the United States Department of Education and tell them that standardized tests should be kept in schools.
Sources
" Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education In America? " at ProCon.org

Joshua Palackal: Are standardized tests really improving education in America?

Hey kids! There's no reason to worry about standardized tests!

No! There are plenty of reasons to worry! In case you did not know, standardized tests are exams created by testing companies. These tests are used to evaluate what students in different states and school districts have learned. However, these exams are not as innocent as they seem. Before, these tests, such as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), were not as important as they are now. Now, these tests have the power to destroy entire school buildings. We must get rid of standardized tests.

First of all, learning time is being replaced with test preparation. For example, 44 percent of schools in the United States are spending more time on reading and math. Sounds good, right? Wrong! Although students do spend more time on math and reading, less time is spent on other subjects, such as science, social studies, and the arts. Furthermore, playtime for kindergarten students has decreased and has been replaced with lessons to prepare for high-stakes testing. These are children no more than the age of 6 preparing for an assessment they will start taking three years later in the third grade! Our children deserve to learn, not to prepare for a standardized test.

We also need standardized tests to be outlawed because they give students anxiety. Standardized tests can give even the brightest of students the worst anxiety. In fact, test anxiety is so common that, according to the Sacramento Bee, "The Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it." Why should our children face this kind of apprehension due to a test?

Lastly, standardized tests need to be no more because they encourage teachers to cheat. As you may or may not know, teachers can be punished or rewarded depending on the test scores of the students they teach. This persuades teachers to cheat the system. For instance, in January 2009, a memo revealed that a total of 191 teachers in Washington, D.C., had cheated the system of education. Moreover, teachers at a school in Atlanta, Georgia held "parties" over the weekends to correct test answers. This was shown by ABC News. Are we going to stand and let standardized tests persuade our educators to cheat the system of education?

As you can now clearly see, we must end standardized tests. Students are currently spending less time learning and more time preparing for a test. In addition, standardized tests give test-takers anxiety. Finally, teachers are tempted to cheat the system. To all readers, we need to put a stop to standardized tests. A petition could be the answer. With enough signatures and enough people to support this cause, standardized tests can be no more!
Sources
" Is the Use of Standardized Test Improving Education in America?" Procon.org
" The rise of the anti-standardized testing movement," by Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post
" Problems With Standardized Testing," by Jasmine Evans, Education.com
" Test-cheating trial delayed for ill former Atlanta school chief," by David Beasley, The Chicago Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For and against standardized tests: Two student perspectives : Speak Easy : Education : WHYY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These two essays were written by students in Katherine Cohen's 7th-grade English class at Greenberg Elementary in Northeast Philadelphia. The students were assigned the task of writing a persuasive letter. Some of those letters have been revised by the students and submitted to be published in various Philadelphia media outlets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standardized Testing: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Standardized testing is examined and analyzed through its pros and cons. Standardized testing has its place in education, and that cannot be argued. However, along with the good of standardized testing, comes many negative effects. There is not doubt that standardized testing is a necessary component to improving education and closing the achievement gap for all students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teachers teach content then test students. This cycle of teaching and testing is familiar to anyone who has been a student. Tests seek to see what students have learned. However, there can be other more complicated reasons as to why schools use tests.

At the school level, educators create tests to measure their students' understanding of specific content or the effective application of critical thinking skills. Such tests are used to evaluate student learning, skill level growth and academic achievements at the end of an instructional period, such as the end of a project, unit, course, semester, program or school year.

These tests are designed as summative assessments.

Summative Tests

According to the Glossary for Educational Reform, summative assessments are defined by three criteria:

They are used to determine whether students have learned what they were expected to learn or to level or degree to which students have learned the material.

They may be used to measure learning progress and achievement and to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs. Tests may also measure student progress toward stated improvement goals or to determine student placement in programs.

They are recorded as scores or grades for a student's academic record for a report card or for admission to higher education.

At the district, state, or national level, standardized tests are an additional form of summative assessments. The legislation passed in 2002 known as the No Child Left Behind Act mandated annual testing in every state. This testing was linked to federal funding of public schools.

The arrival of the Common Core State Standards in 2009 continued state-by-state testing through different testing groups (PARCC and SBAC) to determine student readiness for college and career. Many states have since developed their standardized tests. Examples of standardized tests include the ITBS for elementary students; and for secondary schools the PSAT, SAT, ACT as well as Advanced Placement exams.

Standardized Testing Pros and Cons

Those who support standardized tests see them as an objective measure of student performance. They support standardized testing as a way to hold public schools accountable to the taxpayers who fund the school or as a means to improve the curriculum in the future.

Those opposed to standardized testing see them as excessive. They dislike tests because tests demand time that could be used for instruction and innovation. They claim that schools are under pressure to "teach to the test," a practice that could limit the curricula. Moreover, they argue that non-English speakers and students with special needs may be at a disadvantage when they take standardized tests.

Finally, testing can increase anxiety in some, if not all, students. Dreading a test may be connected to the idea that a test can be a trial by fire: Indeed, the meaning of the word test came from the 14th-century practice of using fire to heat a small earthen pot-called testum in Latin-to determine the quality of precious metal. In this way, the process of testing uncovers the quality of a student's academic achievement.

There are a number of reasons that teachers and school districts administer tests to students.

Testing Assesses What students Have Learned

The obvious point of classroom testing is to assess what students have learned after the completion of a lesson or unit. When the classroom tests are tied to well-written lesson objectives, a teacher can analyze the results to see where the majority of students did well or need more work. This information may help the teacher create small groups or to use differentiated instructional strategies.

Educators can also use tests as teaching tools, especially if a student did not understand the questions or directions. Teachers may also use tests when they are discussing student progress at team meetings, during student assistance programs or at parent-teacher conferences.

Testing Identifies Student Strengths and Weaknesses

Another use of tests at the school level is to determine student strengths and weaknesses. One effective example of this is when teachers use pretests at the beginning of units to find out what students already know and figure out where to focus the lesson. There is an assortment of literacy tests that can help target a weakness in decoding or accuracy as well as learning style and multiple intelligences tests to help teachers learn how to meet the needs of their students through instructional techniques.

Testing Measures Effectiveness

Until 2016, school funding had been determined by student performance on state exams. In a memo in December of 2016, the U.S. Department of Education explained that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) would require fewer tests. Along with this requirement came a recommendation for the use of tests, which read in part:

"To support State and local efforts to reduce testing time, section 1111(b)(2)(L) of the ESEA allows each State, at its discretion, the option to set a limit on the aggregate amount of time devoted to the administration of assessments during a school year."

This shift in attitude by the federal government came as a response to concerns over the number of hours schools use to specifically teach to the test as they prepare students to take these exams.

Some states already use or plan to use the results of state tests when they evaluate and give merit raises to teachers. This use of high-stakes testing can be contentious with educators who believe they cannot control the many factors (such as poverty, race, language or gender) that can influence a student's grade on an exam.

Additionally, a national test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the "largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas," according to the NAEP, which tracks the progress of U.S. students annually and compares the results with international tests.

Testing Determines Recipients of Awards and Recognition

Tests can be used as a way to determine who will receive awards and recognition. For example, the PSAT/NMSQT is given in the 10th grade to students across the nation. When students become National Merit Scholars due to their results on this test, they are offered scholarships. There are an anticipated 7,500 scholarship winners who may receive $2,500 scholarships, corporate-sponsored awards or college-sponsored scholarships.

The Presidential Youth Fitness Awards Program allows educators to celebrate students for reaching their physical activity and fitness goals.

Testing Can Provide College Credit

Advanced Placement exams provide students with the opportunity to earn college credit after successfully completing a course and passing the exam with high marks. While every university has its own rules on what scores to accept, they may give credit for these exams. In many cases, students can begin college with a semester or even a year's worth of credits under their belts.

Many colleges offer a dual-enrollment program to high school students who enroll in college courses and receive credit when they pass the exit test or pass the class. According to the Department of Education, dual enrollment is defined as "...students (who) enroll in postsecondary coursework while also enrolled in high school." When students are juniors or seniors, they may have the opportunity to enroll in college courses that are not part of their high school curriculum. Other terms used could be "early college" or "dual credit."

Meanwhile, programs such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) "assess student work as direct evidence of achievement" that students may use in college applications.

Testing Judges Student Merit for an Internship, Program or College

Tests have traditionally been used as a way to judge a student based on merit. The SAT and ACT are two common tests that form part of a student's entrance application to colleges. Additionally, students might be required to take additional exams to get into special programs or be placed properly in classes. For example, a student who has taken a few years of high school French might be required to pass an exam to be placed in the correct year of French instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers teach content then test students. This cycle of teaching and testing is familiar to anyone who has been a student. Tests seek to see what students have learned. However, there can be other more complicated reasons as to why schools use tests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Close your eyes for a minute and daydream about a world without bubble tests.

Education Week recently reported that some Republican Senate aides are doing more than dreaming - they're drafting a bill that would eliminate the federal mandate on standardized testing.

Annual tests for every child in reading and math in grades 3 through 8, plus one in high school, have been a centerpiece of federal education law since 2002. No Child Left Behind, the current incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, requires them.

But this law has been overdue for reauthorization since before President Obama took office. The Senate plans to take the matter up early this year.

Discussions about cutting back on these requirements comes at a time of growing concern about the number of tests kids take and the time they spend taking them. Parents in some communities have formed "opt out" groups and removed their children not only from federally mandated tests but also the legions of state- and district-required tests that have followed.

The Council of Chief State School Officers and the country's largest school districts have spoken out in favor of reducing the number of standardized tests students take. The national teachers unions and other traditionally Democratic groups are on board with the idea too.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he is concerned about testing too, but he has written he " strongly believes" in annual tests as an educational tool.

Missing from this debate, however, is a sense of what could replace annual tests. What would the nation do to monitor learning and ensure equity and accountability if states didn't have to test every child every year?

Here are four possible answers. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, they could all happen at the same time, as different states and districts make different decisions.

1) Sampling. A simple approach. The same tests, just fewer of 'em. Accountability could be achieved at the district level by administering traditional standardized tests to a statistically representative sampling of students, rather than to every student every year.

That's how the "Nation's Report Card" works. Formally known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, it's one of the longest-running and most trusted tests in the U.S. education arsenal, even though it's not attached to high stakes. It's given to a different sample of students each year, in grades 4, 8 and 12. The widely respected international test PISA is given to a sample of students too.

2) Stealth assessment. Similar math and reading data, but collected differently.

The major textbook publishers, plus companies like Dreambox, Scholastic and the nonprofit Khan Academy, all sell software for students to practice math and English. These programs register every single answer a student gives.

The companies that develop this software argue that it presents the opportunity to eliminate the time, cost and anxiety of "stop and test" in favor of passively collecting data on students' knowledge over a semester, year or entire school career. Valerie Shute, a professor at Florida State University and former principal research scientist at ETS, coined the term "stealth assessment" to describe this approach.

Stealth assessment doesn't just show which skills a student has mastered at a given moment. The pattern of answers potentially offers insights into how quickly students learn, how diligent they are and other big-picture factors.

"Invisible, integrated assessment, to me, is the future," Kimberly O'Malley, the senior vice president of school research at Pearson Education, told me. "We can monitor students' learning day to day in a digital scenario. Ultimately, if we're successful, the need for, and the activity of, stopping and testing will go away in many cases."

Applying this approach on a national scale using scientific methods has never been done, in part because the products are still new. It would probably require a large outlay in terms of software, professional training and computer equipment - and would result in a corresponding windfall for companies like Pearson.

3) Multiple measures. Incorporate more, and different, kinds of data on student progress and school performance into accountability measures.

Statewide longitudinal data systems now track students in most states from pre-K all the way through high school (and in some states, college). That means accountability measures and interventions don't have to depend on the outcome of just one test. They could take a big-data approach, combining information from a number of different sources - graduation rates, discipline outcomes, demographic information, teacher-created assessments and, eventually, workforce outcomes. This information, in turn, could be used to gauge the performance of students, schools and teachers over time.

As part of a multiple-measures approach, some districts are also collecting different kinds of information about students.

3a) Social and emotional skills surveys. Research shows that at least half of long-term chances of success are determined by nonacademic qualities like grit, perseverance and curiosity. As states expand access to pre-K, they are including social and emotional measures in their definitions of "high quality" preschool. As one component of a multiple-measures system, all schools could be held accountable for cultivating this half of the picture.

The Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland survey both students and teachers on social and emotional factors and use the results to guide internal decision-making. The district uses the Gallup student poll, a 20-question survey that seeks to measure levels of hope, engagement and well-being.

"Engagement" is basically a measure of how excited students are to be in the building. Last year, 875,000 students took the Gallup poll nationwide, in grades 5-12. According to one study, student hope scores on this poll do a better job of predicting college persistence and GPA than do high school GPA, SATs or ACT scores.
3b) Game-based assessments.
Video-game-like assessments, such as those created by GlassLab and the AAA lab at Stanford, are designed to get at higher-order thinking skills. These games are designed to test things like systems thinking or the ability to take feedback - measures that traditional tests don't get at. Of course, they are still in their infancy.
3c) Performance or portfolio-based assessments.
Schools around the country are incorporating direct demonstrations of student learning into their assessment programs. These include projects, individual and group presentations, reports and papers and portfolios of work collected over time. The New York Performance Standards Consortium consists of 28 schools, grades 6-12, throughout New York State that rely on these teacher-created assessments to the exclusion of standardized tests. These public schools tend to show higher graduation rates and better college-retention rates, while serving a population similar to that of other urban schools.

Scotland is a place where you can see many of the approaches above in action. Unlike the rest of the U.K., it has no specifically government-mandated school tests. Schools do administer a sampling survey of math and literacy, and there is a series of high-school-exit/college-entrance exams that are high stakes for students. But national education policy emphasizes a wide range of approaches to assessment, including presentations, performances and reports. These are designed to measure higher-order skills like creativity, students' well-being and technological literacy as well as traditional academics. Schools and teachers have a lot of control over the methods of evaluation.

At the school level, Scotland maintains accountability through a system of government inspections that has been in place in the U.K. since 1833. Inspectors observe lessons, look at student work and interview both students and staff members.

This piece is adapted in part from The Test: Why Our Schools Are Obsessed With Standardized Testing, But You Don't Have To Be (PublicAffairs, 2015).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Schools Could Use Instead Of Standardized Tests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bill is being drafted that would end annual testing requirements. What would schools do without them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether it's used as a tool to measure student progress or evaluate teachers, standardized testing continues to fall out of favor with the majority of the American public. According to the 2015 PDK/Gallup Survey of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, 64 percent of Americans (and 67 percent of public school parents) say there is "too much emphasis on testing." Only 14 percent rated standardized testing as a "very important " factor in measuring school effectiveness, and 55 percent (66 percent of parents) oppose test scores being used to evaluate teacher performance.

The results reflect the growing momentum in communities across the nation as parents and educators have joined forces to demand less testing and more time to learn. And lawmakers at every level of government are finally getting the message.

"The high stakes obsession of test and punish has only served to widen the gap between the schools in the wealthiest districts and those in the poorest," says NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. "We must reduce the emphasis on standardized tests that have corrupted the quality of the education children receive. The pressure placed on students and educators is enormous."

"When you send your child to school, your expectation is that the school is going to teach the whole child," Chiquikta Fountain, a public school parent in Cleveland, MS. told PDK International. "But there's so much funding attached to testing. if we don't do well on testing, then we're going to lose funding, which means we're going to lose teachers. So teachers are being pressured to teach the children to pass the test. Everything has just spiraled out of control."

One of the biggest education stories of 2015 has been the burgeoning "Opt-Out" movement of parents who want the right to pull their children out of state mandated standardized testing. It was recently reported, for example, that 200,000 grade 3-8 students in New York state refused to take statewide tests in Reading and Math for the 2014-15 school year. According to the PDK/Gallup survey, however, the public is split on this issue. Forty-one percent said parents should be allowed to excuse their child from standardized testing, while 44 percent said they should not be allowed. (Fifty-nine percent of Americans said they would not excuse their own child.)

"NEA fully supports parents and supports our affiliates who take a stand against tests that serve no educational purpose," says García. "But making it easier for parents to opt out is not the end game. The end game is designing a system where parents and educators don't even consider opting out of assessments because they trust that assessments make sense, guide instruction, and help children advance in learning."

The public named lack of financial support as the biggest problem facing local public schools and rated school funding as "somewhat" or "very" important to their success. Lack of parental involvement and overcrowding were second and third, respectively.

What factors are very important in choosing a local public school? Americans identified teacher quality, curriculum, and maintaining student discipline as the most important factors, and proximity to the workplace, success of athletic programs, and student achievement on standardized tests as the least important factors.

Generally, people are very happy with their local schools but take a dim view of schools nationally. Fifty-one percent gave the schools in their community an 'A' or 'B'; only 4 percent have them a failing grade. Seventy-two percent of parents rated the school their oldest child attends an 'A' or 'B.' Only 20 percent, however, believe that schools nationwide deserve those high marks.

The PDK/Gallup survey also covered the public's attitudes toward school choice. A majority of Americans (64 percent) continue to support charter schools - similar to 63 percent in 2014 - but not voucher programs. 57 percent oppose using public taxpayer dollars for private school tuition. Regarding charter schools, it's perhaps worth noting that the survey question asked about support or opposition to the "idea" of charter schools. To parent Lisa Litvin of New York, the original purpose behind charters was a good idea.

"Charter schools have become something that wasn't really intended. They were supposed to be incubators for new ideas in teaching, with successful ideas being brought back to the traditional schools," Litvin told PDK International. "But, instead, in our state, they're becoming a permanent alternative to public schools."

PDK International is a global network of education professionals and has conducted a poll on attitudes toward public education with the Gallup organization every year since 1969. The 2015 PDK/Gallup survey results are based on a web survey of 3,499 adults plus telephone interviews with an additional 1,001 adults.

"The results make clear what the public wants; the question is whether policymakers and leaders will respond accordingly," said Joshua Starr, CEO of PDK International.
Read the full PDK/Gallup survey Photo: Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poll: Americans Want Less Standardized Testing and More School Funding - NEA Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether it's used as a tool to measure student progress or evaluate teachers, standardized testing continues to fall out of favor with the majority of the American public. According to the 2015 PDK/Gallup Survey of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, 64 percent of Americans (and 67 percent of public school parents) say there is "too much emphasis on testing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teachers at Seattle's Garfield High School voted unanimously earlier this year not to give the district's required reading and math test. They encountered predictable resistance from district officials and harsh criticism from outside observers. Many students and parents, however, sided with the teachers.

The PTA and student government leaders voted in support of the teachers, and many parents sent in "opt-out" letters to exempt their children from testing that they viewed as an inappropriate measure of teachers' effectiveness. And so when administrators came to class with lists of kids who needed to take the tests during the spring testing period, many students were exempted and others students simply refused to go with the administrators.

There was "the most incredible sense of solidarity in the building," recalls Garfield history teacher Jesse Hagopian.

Pulling a child from standardized test can be quite simple for individual parents. Some places, it involves little more than a signed permission form downloaded from a state or district website. In other places, parents have cobbled together their own letters or simply handwritten a note. "That's all you need," says Tulsa parent Deedra Barnes, who drafted a opt-out letter for parents to use at her son's Tulsa middle school. "It doesn't have to be an official form."

Related Story

When Memorization Gets in the Way of Learning
On testing days, students do other homework, or read or draw in the classroom or somewhere else, depending on district and state policies. "Last year [my son] stayed home during testing time," says Denver parent and public school teacher Peggy Robertson, one of the founders of United Opt Out National. "This year he will stay at school and do alternative activities."

The process isn't necessarily even controversial. There is usually no immediate impact for the kids whose parents opt them out, except in the relatively unusual situation where the tests are being used to determine whether a student is promoted to the next grade or graduates from high school. "[School administrators] were more than happy to accommodate me and actually asked if there were any other tests we would be refusing, such as ACT," reports Robertson. Her son-now in high school-has never taken a standardized test of any kind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Parents Yank Their Kids Out of Standardized Tests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers at Seattle's Garfield High School voted unanimously earlier this year not to give the district's required reading and math test. They encountered predictable resistance from district officials and harsh criticism from outside observers. Many students and parents, however, sided with the teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Overcome Test Anxiety When Taking Schools Test and Final Exams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
http://Kantissimmons.com I share the symptoms of test anxiety and the one question to ask yourself when dealing with it. So many students deal with this on school test, final exams; both in highschool and in college.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing Intelligence with Standardized Testing Has a Limited Purpose, with Howard Gardner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read more at BigThink.com: http://bigthink.com/videos/howard-gardner-on-standardized-testing Follow Big Think here: YouTube: http://goo.gl/CPTsV5 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom Twitter: https://twitter.com/bigthink Transcript - I am certainly very much in favor of assessment. I think anybody who's at all serious needs to know how he or she is doing. And as you become more of a professional you do more of the assessment yourself.

# data[].attributes.headline
Biggest Argument against Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.subject
Biggest Argument against Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the increasing use of standardized tests to assess students and schools, some critics have begun to speak out about flaws that they see in the hope that they can stimulate a discussion which may result in reform. These tests can be a valuable education tool, providing a basic yardstick to see how children are performing in relation to their peers, but some people have raised concerns about how heavily they are relied on for feedback about student performance. Most critics care very much about children and the education that they receive, but feel that testing alone cannot accurately convey whether or not a child is learning and progressing. These critics have taken their complaints to a wide variety of forums, and they include parents, teachers, and education professionals who are concerned about the well being of children.

One of the most frequently stated criticisms of standardized tests is that they do not measure creativity and problem solving ability. Because they are typically presented in a multiple choice format, a teacher cannot, for example, see where a child went wrong when he or she failed to solve a math problem correctly, because no work is shown. In addition, critics feel that the questions are often too simplistic for children to fully demonstrate reading comprehension, critical thinking, and problem solving. Especially in the case of reading selections, there may not be a single "right" answer to a question, and learning why children pick the answers that they do might help educators to provide better support.

Critics who feel that tests are too simplistic believe that knowing information by rote does not always mean that information has been digested. For example, a student might be able to answer a question asking when Columbus came to the Americas, but may not understand the cultural and historical implications of the Age of Exploration, and the profound impact that Columbus had on global history. Test takers are not provided with space to process and explore issues because it would make them prohibitively expensive to administer and score.

Many critics are also concerned about bias in test taking. Certain cultural and language biases may be impossible to eradicate entirely from standardized tests, critics believe, meaning that some populations such as girls and minorities may be at a disadvantage. While test writing companies do their best to eliminate obvious bias and offensive language, it is a difficult thing to correct for entirely.

Educators are concerned about these tests because many of them feel that they encourage teachers to teach students test taking strategies, and to "teach to the test," which may have a negative impact on the quality of education that these teachers can offer. Critics are worried that students may be forced to study a narrow range of topics, rather than exploring a wide variety of issues, and they will not learn valuable life skills as a result of stress about standardized test performance. Many teachers believe that standardized tests restrict the curricula that they can teach, because they want their students to succeed on important and sometimes life-changing tests.

This is also a concern for some critics, who believe that the practice of high-stakes testing is potentially harmful for children. Some children exhibit extreme emotional and physical stress when confronted with standardized tests, and educators have recorded children crying, vomiting, or acting out aggressively due to the pressure that high-stakes testing creates. Some educational assessors are also concerned that such testing may bring about cheating, because students are anxious to perform well and teachers want to see their students scoring well.

Critics of standardized testing believe that children should be evaluated in a number of ways, rather than by using only one system to assess the needs and learning of students. Teachers play an important role, because they interact with children on a daily basis in the classroom and can speak out about potential problems that they see, as well as providing educational enrichment and support. Outside observers can also participate in evaluations by holding interviews with teachers and students, sitting in on active classes, and considering other evaluation methods to supplement testing.

Ever since she began contributing to the site several years ago, Mary has embraced the exciting challenge of being a InfoBloom researcher and writer. Mary has a liberal arts degree from Goddard College and spends her free time reading, cooking, and exploring the great outdoors.

Ever since she began contributing to the site several years ago, Mary has embraced the exciting challenge of being a InfoBloom researcher and writer. Mary has a liberal arts degree from Goddard College and spends her free time reading, cooking, and exploring the great outdoors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are Some Criticisms of Standardized Tests? (with pictures)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the increasing use of standardized tests to assess students and schools, some critics have begun to speak out about flaws that they see in the hope that they can stimulate a discussion which may result in reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don't seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.

In the United States, both public and private schools use standardized assessments each school year. In public schools, students must undergo many tests to ensure they are meeting state or federal standards. Private schools have more leeway, although at Whitby we do require our students from Grade 2 on to complete the Comprehensive Testing Program from the Educational Records Bureau and the International Schools Assessment from the Australian Council for Educational Research.

At Whitby, we believe that standardized testing can benefit students-as long as it's looked at in the right light. Below we'll discuss some of the benefits of standardized assessments, as well as some of the ways standardised assessments can be negative for students.

The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

Pro # 1. Standardized testing is a metric for learning

When Whitby students are assessed through standardized testing, we gain a valuable metric we can use to check the quality of our curriculum. With exams created and given by an independent organization, standardized test scores are useful because they come from a neutral source and give us data that we can compare to other independent schools across the United States and with other international schools across the globe.

Pro # 2. Standardized testing helps pinpoint areas for improvement

When we receive standardized test data at Whitby, we use it to evaluate the effectiveness of our education program. We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance , but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum. When we look at Whitby's assessment data, we can compare our students to their peers at other schools to determine what we're doing well within our educational continuum and where we need to invest more time and resources.

Pro # 3. Standardized tests can help schools evaluate progress

Assessment data is also useful for year-over-year internal comparisons. We compare data over a number of years to find trends-and then trace any changes back to their source. If the math scores of our fourth grade students suddenly jump, we want to identify what change led to the improved performance, and how we can continue to implement this within our curriculum. We're also able to use a student's historical assessment data to monitor their progress and uncover any challenges they may need to overcome (as well as identifying places where they have already improved and excelled.)
Now let's take a look at what we view as the most concerning aspects of standardized assessment:
Con #1. Test scores can impact confidence

A big disadvantage of standardized testing is that it's easy to interpret a student's score as the sole judgement of that student's ability. We're constantly emphasizing at Whitby that the number is only one point of data within an array of internal assessments across many subject areas that provide us with information on a student's learning progress. There are many cases where students have demonstrated clear understanding within a subject or concept through various assessments, but aren't as skilled at taking multiple choice tests. Nevertheless, it can be hard on a student if they feel that they didn't perform as well as they'd like. In worst case scenarios, instead of determining the entire picture of learning through a review of all assessment data with their teachers, a student might determine their success based on a standardized test score that is taken once a year..

Con #2. There's pressure to "teach to the test"

When standardized exams become all important in a school or district, it has a massive impact on teaching and learning. Educators frequently start "teaching to the test" if they feel that their evaluations (and jobs) solely depend on how well students perform. Educators may also stop trying new techniques and teaching methods in the classroom. With every minute counting on the way to their students' next exam, teachers will worry that an untested method will backfire and their students will score worse than before. This comes at the cost of inquiry, engagement, creativity and risk taking in student learning.

Con #3. Scores don't provide a true picture of a student's ability

Far too many people wrongly assume that standardized testing data provides a neutral authoritative assessment of a child's intellectual ability. Cultural factors, unfamiliarity with testing methods, test anxiety, and illness can wreak havoc with how well a student performs. For that reason, it's important to dig deeper when looking at a student's test scores. Does a low score indicate a lack of knowledge about the subject or a problem with taking the standardized test? For example, an excellent writer could struggle with picking out the right answer in a multiple choice grammar and punctuation test. Yet that same student could excel at composing well-thought out, logical essays about the literature they read and enjoyed in class.

It's also easy to assume that students who score high in math are good at processing information and reasoning abstractly, but that's not always the case. In fact, researchers have found that high standardized scores have little correlation with memory, attention and processing speed. High test scores could simply mean a student excels at rote memorization and multiple choice test taking.

Our Final Assessment

Standardized testing is truthfully a very difficult issue, because we do need internal and external assessments to measure student success. Assessments are useful when they're used as data to help schools improve the quality of the teaching and learning. They become harmful, however, when tests are used to judge students' natural abilities and when educators are put under pressure to "teach to the test." Schools and parents should always look at standardized tests not as a value judgement on the student, but as an additional data point that can provide some perspective on student learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don't seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.