"Testing sucks"
This was the general consensus amongst our group, and based on the data from Johnson and Richer, the consensus amongst surveyed teachers and students. While Johnson and Richer did not use the above terminology in their surveys, most data reflected that the majority of students struggled with standardized testing (PARCC), especially those from marginalized groups. Testing affected students' confidence, took away from meaningful instruction time, and pressured teachers as well.
In our discussions, we spoke about how race and SES impact testing, and seemed to agree that standardized testing maintains the historic status quo for power and privilege. Marginalized groups perform poorly on these tests, and high-stakes tests will serve to ensure these groups remain marginalized. More affluent SCWAAMP groups perform better overall and continue to receive full federal funding, accreditation, etc.
Despite the overwhelmingly negative responses to testing, we also spoke about the positives and necessities of testing. Testing can be a useful assessment tool when used in a way that is appropriate to a given population of students. There are many innovative alternatives to traditional tests which provide a more genuine sampling of ability than bubbling responses on a Scantron sheet.
In facilitating our group's discussion, I found what worked best was having class members attempt an exam in a language they didn't fully understand. This, I felt, gave us an opportunity to empathize with our students, especially ELLs, as they attempt to tackle such assessments. I also was glad to be able to show "Immersion," the story of Moises and his testing experience. I felt like I had some difficulty with timing-- allowing the small groups to run longer and taking away from the whole-group discussion. I also did not feel that plotting discussion points on the board was as productive as I'd hoped it to be. Nevertheless, I thought the facilitation went well and was definitely rewarding.
No comments:
Post a Comment