This differentiation plan is based on a word-choice unit.
Based on responsed to the following Kahoot! quiz:
https://play.kahoot.it/#/k/a9f417c3-a6bb-49be-bcd6-1c4395ad4b61
Students will be differentiated according to this mindmap:
http://www.xmind.net/m/Rfa9/
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
High-Stakes Testing
I'm a bit torn on the idea of high-stakes testing. I have the normal, high-school teacher hatred of anything that provides a biased picture of a student's learning, especially for a student who I know is capable of more than her scores reflect, but I also embrace the more controversial (and interesting) opinion that high-stakes testing is both a necessary and in the end positive part of our educational culture.
First, high-stakes testing is built on the concept of benchmarking, which is the belief that students should be able to accomplish a certain type and number of tasks by the time they reach a certain level of schooling. Without this idea in place, there is no real way to ensure accountability in schools.
At the high school level, a principal decides, based on reports from the teacher and sometimes other sources, if the student deserves to have graduated high school. Based on that one person's decision, the student is judged to be ready for college and/or the workforce and sent on her way. The reports from the teachers are based on course grades, which often have little or no relationship to a single standard, and are determined differently by each teacher. For example, a student might pass one teacher's English class with less functional knowledge of English than one who has passed another teacher's English class; or worse, a student who would've failed one English class might pass another with a "B."
Required grades to pass are generally pretty low (a high 70% at my school), which means two students who "pass" high school can have as much as a 30% difference in functional knowledge, or even more depending on the effectiveness of the teachers and the rigor of their classes.
Add to this grade inflation, a situation wherein the grade of 'A' has gone from meaning "excellent" to "functional", and the grade of 'C', which used to mean "average" is a badge of shame for well-meaning parents, who tend to take umbrage with the teacher who "gave" the grade instead of the student who earned it.
In such a system, high-stakes standardized testing is intended to place all students on a single scale of achievement, based on independent benchmarks. These tests are meant to show how the reasoning processes of two students, maybe from different schools or even states, compare directly. Colleges can use these tests, along with other factors, to determine which students are more likely to be successful with their curriculum, and which should look elsewhere.
Other types of high-stakes testing are useful as well. Some schools require exit exams, which students must pass in order to graduate. This helps to normalizes the functional knowledge of exiting students, so that only students who meet the school's benchmarks are able to graduate. This helps schools to establish and advertise a standard that makes the school seem more legitimate to hiring and college recruiting organizations. It also helps to point out which teachers are not teaching effectively, since those teachers' students score predictably lower than other students in the same subject areas.
The biggest argument against standardized testing regards test anxiety, a phenomenon in which students who are otherwise very capable seem less capable in testing situations. (Fairtest, 2007) This is a very real phenomenon, and one I have witnessed firsthand on a number of occasions, but it also transferable to many real-world situations. For example, a student with test anxiety might grow up to be an adult with interview anxiety or presentation anxiety, conditions that might limit their ability to find work or achieve promotions. Therefore, students with test anxiety must seek help with this debilitating problem rather than avoiding the thing they fear. It is a function of the student's ability, rather than of the test's evil.
Our school doesn't do much high-stakes testing, but most of our students participate either in the ACT or SAT, both of which are useful, controlled measures of a student's general ability (Popham, 1999). The SAT in particular doesn't so much test knowledge, as functional reasoning ability, and it is often a good predictor of performance at the college level. This testing has little to no effect on class time, since it is done on the weekends and prep classes take place in the evenings; nor does it effect teachers much, except that teachers have the opportunity to teach prep classes to earn extra pay. Most of our students are college-bound, so they feel as though these tests are a necessary part of their college application process.
I spoke with a teacher at another high school that participates in various AP exams. She teaches AP English, and often feels as though she has to "teach to the test". She doesn't necessarily, however, feel that doing so is a bad thing, since the AP English class is rigorous and curriculum heavy, and though it essentially functions as a test preparation class, compares favorably to other English classes. At her school, AP teachers are given bonuses based on student test scores, and could conceivably be replaced if student scores aren't high enough. She has mixed feelings about this, since it puts the teachers under a great deal of pressure, but she believes it keeps standards and rigor high, and gives teachers incentive to work more closely with struggling students.
I personally believe that the current state of education makes the most of the high-stakes testing model by setting standards for curriculum that directly influence the skills that are taught in classes, and provide a benchmark that tests can target. Therefore, teachers can teach what students need to know to be ready for college and/or the workplace, and tests can test those specific skills.
References:
Center for Public Education (February 15, 2006). A Guide to Standardized Testing: The Nature of Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluating-performance/A-guide-to-standardized-testing-The-nature-of-assessment
Fairtest (December 17, 2007). The Dangerous Consequences of High-Stakes Standardized Testing. Retrieved from: http://www.fairtest.org/dangerous-consequences-highstakes-standardized-tes
Popham, W. J. (March, 1999). Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. Educational Leadership, Vol. 56. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don't-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx
First, high-stakes testing is built on the concept of benchmarking, which is the belief that students should be able to accomplish a certain type and number of tasks by the time they reach a certain level of schooling. Without this idea in place, there is no real way to ensure accountability in schools.
At the high school level, a principal decides, based on reports from the teacher and sometimes other sources, if the student deserves to have graduated high school. Based on that one person's decision, the student is judged to be ready for college and/or the workforce and sent on her way. The reports from the teachers are based on course grades, which often have little or no relationship to a single standard, and are determined differently by each teacher. For example, a student might pass one teacher's English class with less functional knowledge of English than one who has passed another teacher's English class; or worse, a student who would've failed one English class might pass another with a "B."
Required grades to pass are generally pretty low (a high 70% at my school), which means two students who "pass" high school can have as much as a 30% difference in functional knowledge, or even more depending on the effectiveness of the teachers and the rigor of their classes.
Add to this grade inflation, a situation wherein the grade of 'A' has gone from meaning "excellent" to "functional", and the grade of 'C', which used to mean "average" is a badge of shame for well-meaning parents, who tend to take umbrage with the teacher who "gave" the grade instead of the student who earned it.
In such a system, high-stakes standardized testing is intended to place all students on a single scale of achievement, based on independent benchmarks. These tests are meant to show how the reasoning processes of two students, maybe from different schools or even states, compare directly. Colleges can use these tests, along with other factors, to determine which students are more likely to be successful with their curriculum, and which should look elsewhere.
Other types of high-stakes testing are useful as well. Some schools require exit exams, which students must pass in order to graduate. This helps to normalizes the functional knowledge of exiting students, so that only students who meet the school's benchmarks are able to graduate. This helps schools to establish and advertise a standard that makes the school seem more legitimate to hiring and college recruiting organizations. It also helps to point out which teachers are not teaching effectively, since those teachers' students score predictably lower than other students in the same subject areas.
The biggest argument against standardized testing regards test anxiety, a phenomenon in which students who are otherwise very capable seem less capable in testing situations. (Fairtest, 2007) This is a very real phenomenon, and one I have witnessed firsthand on a number of occasions, but it also transferable to many real-world situations. For example, a student with test anxiety might grow up to be an adult with interview anxiety or presentation anxiety, conditions that might limit their ability to find work or achieve promotions. Therefore, students with test anxiety must seek help with this debilitating problem rather than avoiding the thing they fear. It is a function of the student's ability, rather than of the test's evil.
Our school doesn't do much high-stakes testing, but most of our students participate either in the ACT or SAT, both of which are useful, controlled measures of a student's general ability (Popham, 1999). The SAT in particular doesn't so much test knowledge, as functional reasoning ability, and it is often a good predictor of performance at the college level. This testing has little to no effect on class time, since it is done on the weekends and prep classes take place in the evenings; nor does it effect teachers much, except that teachers have the opportunity to teach prep classes to earn extra pay. Most of our students are college-bound, so they feel as though these tests are a necessary part of their college application process.
I spoke with a teacher at another high school that participates in various AP exams. She teaches AP English, and often feels as though she has to "teach to the test". She doesn't necessarily, however, feel that doing so is a bad thing, since the AP English class is rigorous and curriculum heavy, and though it essentially functions as a test preparation class, compares favorably to other English classes. At her school, AP teachers are given bonuses based on student test scores, and could conceivably be replaced if student scores aren't high enough. She has mixed feelings about this, since it puts the teachers under a great deal of pressure, but she believes it keeps standards and rigor high, and gives teachers incentive to work more closely with struggling students.
I personally believe that the current state of education makes the most of the high-stakes testing model by setting standards for curriculum that directly influence the skills that are taught in classes, and provide a benchmark that tests can target. Therefore, teachers can teach what students need to know to be ready for college and/or the workplace, and tests can test those specific skills.
References:
Center for Public Education (February 15, 2006). A Guide to Standardized Testing: The Nature of Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluating-performance/A-guide-to-standardized-testing-The-nature-of-assessment
Fairtest (December 17, 2007). The Dangerous Consequences of High-Stakes Standardized Testing. Retrieved from: http://www.fairtest.org/dangerous-consequences-highstakes-standardized-tes
Popham, W. J. (March, 1999). Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. Educational Leadership, Vol. 56. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don't-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)