State’s school readiness test questioned
Wednesday, Dec 15, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Madhu Krishnamurthy at the Daily Herald…
Thirty-seven Illinois state lawmakers are asking the state education board to apply due diligence before voting on a new, multimillion-dollar standardized testing system.
In a letter to the Illinois State Board of Education, lawmakers question a $228 million proposal to replace the annual Illinois Assessment of Readiness, which tests students’ math and reading proficiency in third through eighth grades each spring, with an assessment that would be taken three times a year. The proposal includes optional testing for students in kindergarten through second grade three times yearly.
State Superintendent Carmen Ayala brought the proposal to the state board in April as part of her goal to overhaul the state’s standardized testing system. But a final vote has been pushed back. Some educators believe testing students multiple times during a school year is a better measure of growth and progress than a one-time test.
Lawmakers have raised concerns about over-testing students, particularly in low-income Black and brown communities, and expanding testing to the early grades. Their letter will be delivered to Ayala and the board ahead of its Wednesday meeting.
The full letter is here.
* Center Square…
The Illinois Assessment of Readiness Test that Illinois school districts give every spring is a mandate that takes up valuable classroom time, said Mark Klaisner, president of the Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools. Illinois is obligated to give a standard state-wide test because Illinois schools depend on the $1 billion in federal funding that goes with it. […]
“You can’t just not have a test because Illinois does not want to sacrifice that money. We should get better – not just eliminate the test,” Klaisner said.
Illinois State Schools Superintendent Carmen Ayala has been advocating for a new approach and a better statewide assessment package for years.
Testing gives teachers data to evaluate how each student is learning, Klaisner said. Some kids may already be ahead of the curve and need a more challenging curriculum. Some children may be behind. When the teacher finds that out, the teacher can pivot and make sure that the children who need to catch up can do that.
“WIthout good assessment data, it’s hard to know when to support struggling learners or whether to accelerate those who have already mastered the standards for that particular grade level,” Klaisner said.
The way Illinois testing is done now, the state-wide standardized test happens in March. In some districts, testing disrupts classroom routine for two weeks – a drain on time that teachers resent. The results don’t come back until the summer. By the time the data is distributed and evaluated, the student has moved on to the next grade.
“It’s almost borderline ridiculous,” Klaisner said. “What we really need is streamlined testing that is more useful,” he said.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* K-12 education panel to lawmakers: Increase annual spending to $527 million, not $300 million
* New program aimed at addressing shortage of early childhood workers
- Leigh John-Ella - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 10:38 am:
I don’t know about the frequency, but I’ve long thought that there needs to be an assessment of where kids are as they enter the education system.
By 3rd Grade student performance on tests is being used to determine/label successful and failing schools and teachers and students. But not everyone comes into the system at the same level.
A student with low scores in 3rd Grade could very well be one of your most improved students from kindergarten or 1st grade. But you don’t know that if you don’t assess where they are coming into the system. And that seems like something you would want to know/measure if you are in fact going to have these kinds of assessments.
- Joe Teacher - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 10:45 am:
$228m? Disruption of the classroom three times a year? I got news for ya. Teachers don’t want these tests. Administrators do. Teachers can assess how a student is learning without a $228m standardized test.
- Person 8 - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 10:47 am:
Some districts already do this in addition to the state test. Many use MAP or iReady or some other version that gives instant scores and feedback. That data is then used to make enrichment groups for specific topics and/or standards.
If they do it right this would level the playing field, as it’s mainly the more well off suburban districts that can afford and do this kind of testing.
As for the over testing. Computerize it, make it only one test per subject, and that will lead to fewer issues.
- Joe Teacher - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 10:55 am:
“False, many teachers do want these tests….If they get the results instantly.”
Even if you get them instantly why three days? It’s excessive and many kids check out while taking them.
- Nathan - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 10:59 am:
As a parent of 2 students in these grades, they already spend too much time doing standardized tests. I understand the need, but we should not get rid of one to replace it with three.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:06 am:
I would think that teachers, being experts in education, would know by about the 3rd week which students are woefully behind where they should be, which students are on track and which students are doing great. They would further know as the year wears on which students are falling behind etc. The once a year test is to provide a check for the teacher and the administrators that the teacher’s judgement is correct. I could accept a before school beings test as a growth indicator but 3 times seems excessive.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:21 am:
“many kids check out”
Fifty-five years ago, the results from my Iowa Basic Skills and Stanford Achievement tests were worthless. I filled in the answer sheet by what looked good in the pattern.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:26 am:
Standardized tests have been used for years. When I was in grade school, the districts used the Iowa Basic Skills and Stanford Achievement tests. In high school, it was the SAT and ACT tests. To get out of junior high, we had to pass a test on the US Constitution.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:36 am:
===Testing gives teachers data to evaluate how each student is learning, Klaisner said
Teachers know this in the vast majority of cases without a standardized test because they are professionals with skills of professionals. I’d be fine with offering funding to districts which do not have the resources for diagnostic tests, but another standardized test statewide is ridiculous at this point.
- Rayne of Terror - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:45 am:
My youngest has been doing COGNIA (though it used to have a different name) 3x a year since he began school since LeRoy is a lab for these tests. It’s treated as more low stakes than IAR testing. I don’t get any alert emails that COGNIA testing is happening, my kids just tell me. Oh, we had COGNIA today. So I find out in October that my kid already knew 90% of what will be taught that year in August and that there will be no enrichment for him and he will complete another year complaining of boredom. At least now that he’s in Jr High he gets band and theater and an independent project that he can put as much effort as he wants into.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:47 am:
=$228m? Disruption of the classroom three times a year? I got news for ya. Teachers don’t want these tests. Administrators do. Teachers can assess how a student is learning without a $228m standardized test.=
You do not know what you are talking about. I hope you are not a teacher in my district.
Assessment is an important part of the learning process and takes many forms. Best practice requires daily assessment, but that doesn’t mean lengthy tests every day. A 3-5 question “bell ringer” can tell a teacher if their students are ready to move on from the previous day’s learning or if they require more instruction on the skill/standard because they did not master the concept.
=they already spend too much time doing standardized tests.=
What does that even mean? How much time? I have heard that cliche thousands of times in my career, but people cannot really tell you what it means in terms of time.
Your schools probably are not spending as much time on standardized tests as you think.
I do agree with Klaisner in that the was the lower grade standardized tests are administered is not good practice. it does disrupt elementary schools for two weeks.
Better is a shorter assessment three times a year. An assessment that can be given in one day and for only an hour or two (with breaks) would be best and could measure student achievement and student growth.
For all the bad mouthing of standardized student achievement tests over the years, well constructed tests are valuable measures of student learning and readiness.we do have norms, conventions, and standards and it is good to know how our students are doing relative to their peers domestically and internationally.
- Leigh John-Ella - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 11:51 am:
Rayne of Terror, and that’s the flip side of these tests. Now you as a parent have information to go to the school district and say, OK, what are you doing to meet the academic needs of my child?
If schools/state are going to do these test, they need to be prepared to support what the results show across the spectrum. In other words, don’t test for the sake of testing. Test to get data to guide curriculum and resources.
And if you don’t have the resources to distribute, well, maybe you might wanna rethink the purpose of the testing.
- Rudy’s teeth - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 12:22 pm:
With the current teacher and substitute shortage in Illinois and other states, are the results of these tests remotely accurate.
Many superintendents and principals scramble to fill classrooms with individuals who will show up on a daily basis no matter their qualifications.
Extensive testing will never solve the teacher/substitute shortage.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 12:27 pm:
===Better is a shorter assessment three times a year. An assessment that can be given in one day and for only an hour or two (with breaks) would be best and could measure student achievement and student growth.
But is this needed given the daily assessments? This is where I find this frustrating is is a state level test going to meet the local needs? What you are describing in daily assessments seems more useful. Not that additional assessments could be useful, but is this sort of system useful across the board?
I also wonder whether this particular test gives the type of feedback to teachers to help them. One of the bigger complaints is that standardized testing provides little specific feedback that is useful to the classroom teacher.
- DTown Resident - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 12:33 pm:
Districts here already use MAPS or FastBridge testing which is administered three times a year. Ad a parent, we saw the results of each time those were taken. Teachers also get quick feedback each time for the kids in their classroom. It is a lot more useful than the IAR/Parcc. For districts already using a FastBridge, the targets are a lot more reasonable that IARs way above grade level “proficient”. If the IAR was eliminated and only a shorter FastBridge used those tree times a year…for districts already using such a test it is a pretty big reduction in the hours spent administering the tests too. I would see that as a win while still getting some helpful testing feedback.
- Captain Obvious - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 12:45 pm:
Data for teachers to assess how each student is learning? If a teacher is doing their job they should not need additional standardized testing to identify which students are ahead of the curve and which are struggling. One such test near the end of the school year is a sufficient measure of progress.
- EB - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 12:59 pm:
There’s assumptions that are perhaps incorrect. That learning is a known practice with distinct parameters. That there is a unified theory on what children should know. That standardized tests give insight into knowledge. None of these assumptions are likely true. There is no broad consensus on what we should teach, or how to teach effectively, or to measure knowledge, or even alignment between initiatives like this and actionable processes. It’s all a myth. We train teachers to do their best. We should trust them to do so. There is no reliable research that shows definitive cause/effect alignment between standardized test prep, scores and student success outcomes post graduation. I say do away with all standardized tests. They do nothing.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 1:15 pm:
=That standardized tests give insight into knowledge. None of these assumptions are likely true. There is no broad consensus on what we should teach, or how to teach effectively, or to measure knowledge, or even alignment between initiatives like this and actionable processes. =
Then explain standards.
The idea that is is luck, art, and random chance is absurd. There is a science to teaching much more so than an art. In the core disciplines, there is significant agreement as to what should be taught. Hence the standards adopted by most states are nearly identical.
Electives are a different animal.
Instructional practice is a different matter and there is no single right answer there. Same with content used to teach the standards.
=Districts here already use MAPS or FastBridge=
Not nearly all, and there is disagreement on the value of them.
=But is this needed given the daily assessments?=
The short answer is yes. Teachers don’t always retain data for those smaller daily assessments. Some have made the point about the timeliness and availability of data to inform instruction from these standardized tests. I agree, we need the data faster. But these tests are really there to assess our systems effectiveness as a whole. Identify trends and major deficiencies. They can do that for a building and a grade level as well.
Really, if we are to build a good assessment system, we should start with the end and work ourselves down so that the assessments are vertically articulated and equated. Unfortunately Illinois has never taken that approach.
- EB - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 1:58 pm:
“ Then explain standards”
Standards are what neoliberal entities use to justify bureaucracy. There is no consensus, even in core subjects. How many times has math ed changed in the last 40 years? Tons. Same with reading, writing, etc. They should change of course, that’s what education can be about. Nothing is forever static.
It’s not really sane to think that a standardized test, that is often culturally and socially biased, created without discipline consensus, by someone who didn’t have to endure the assessment (educated under different circumstances at a different time and culture) knows what is best for a student to be considered educated for an unknown future 20-25 years ahead. If we want to prepare students to be a meaningful part of an unknown and ever changing future, we don’t start by caging their minds to standardized thought from a prior generation. We start by opening their minds to difference. That’s where the real fun is anyway.
- aovermy@yahoo.com - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 2:23 pm:
EB,
Ways of teaching math have changed, but the math at the core of elementary and high school has not changed in the past 40 years. Core arithmetic remains the same and so do alegebra, geometry, calculus and Trig. Changes in mathematics tend to be seen in the post-grad theoretical space.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 2:27 pm:
I do not think it is unreasonable for the state and districts to have standards. They are paying the freight after all. And while I agree it’s impossible to determine everything they will need to know 25 years on, I think it is fairly reasonable to say they will need basics. The ability to add by grade x because they will need that to know how to multiply by grade x+1, the ability to subtract (because it’s really just like addition but with a negative number) at gade x and the ability to divide at grade x+1 (so they can check their own multiplication). The ability to speak standard English so others can understand them. The ability to speak another language. The ability to understand statistics and science so they don’t glomm onto every conspiracy theory out there.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 2:32 pm:
===The short answer is yes
Thanks JS. I appreciate your thoughtfulness here.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 3:39 pm:
=Standards are what neoliberal entities use to justify bureaucracy. There is no consensus, even in core subjects=
Shorter answer: I cannot explain. But I can yell at the clouds and use a lot of nonsense words.
Neoliberal? Lol. They did not invest standards. Maybe you think Eisenhower was a neoliberal?
I have fed you.
- EB - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 4:00 pm:
Cermak, you kind of illustrate my point. There is no consensus on “the basics”. Algebra is fine for those that will use it. Since h.s. decades ago, I’ve done algebra exactly 2 times, each for standardized assessments for graduate school entry. For many, algebra is just a waste of time. Also, there is no such thing as Standard English. Our language changes faster than we can effectively document. Foreign language, science, etc., sure. But there’s no consensus on those either, and any standardization is fraught with difficulty. It should be up to the teachers to do what they see best, within compliance to legal requirements (no religious indoctrination, no discrimination, etc.).
Again, it’s not logical for those that succeeded in an environment bereft of standardization dictate that increased standardization is the key to success. Honestly, what have standardized tests in k-12 ever accomplished?
- EB - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 4:01 pm:
JS, that wasn’t very nice and rather uncalled for.
- EB - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 4:08 pm:
JS, here’s a good primer on my prior statement, aberration the HE level:
Winslow, L. (2015). The Undeserving Professor: Neoliberalism and the Reinvention of Higher Education.. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 18(2), 201-245.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 6:23 pm:
EB,
Yes ENglish changes as far as adding and deleting words but the grammar does not. I has is wrong. A person who only spoke it that way (as opposed to code switching for different situations) would find it hard to be understood or taken seriously.
If the teachers were paying for the education sure, we could leave it up to them. But they are not the taxpayers are. The teachers are employees of the taxpayers and as such the taxpayers have a lot of say in what they do.
Consensus has been reached in IL via JS Mill’s aforementioned standards. They were hammered out by politicians elected by the citizens.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 6:51 pm:
=JS, that wasn’t very nice and rather uncalled for.=
Aww, so delicate. Why is it that neocons like to fire off the insults but cannot take it?
- EB - Wednesday, Dec 15, 21 @ 7:05 pm:
JS, I never insulted you. Nor would I do so. I’m glad that you are voicing your opinion and care for the well-being of the children in the state. Just because we disagree, doesn’t mean we can’t have a civil conversation. I hope you agree. Now, “neo-con”, frankly, that’s beyond the pale. My wounds still haven’t scarred over from battles with the r’s.