It’s that time of year again. Last Friday, the New York State Commissioner
of Education released the results of the annual English Language Arts (ELA) and
Math standardized tests. The results for Buffalo’s students showed an
increase in proficiency, 4.5 points in ELA over last year’s tests (11.9% to 16.4%)
and a 1 point increase in the Math proficiency (15.1% to 16.1%). These scores exceed those of Rochester and
Syracuse but they’re still low compared to our suburban counterparts. Buffalo’s scores also reflect a similar small
increase noted in the overall state numbers; ELA scores moved from 31.3 % to 37.9%, a 6.6% increase, while the State
Math scores increased by 1%, from 38.1% to 39.1%).
Aligned with the Common Core Learning Standards these tests
have been in place since the 2012-13 school year. A review of four years of test results shows
that only about a third, at its lowest 31.1% (both ELA and Math) to 37.9% and 39.1%,
of students this year have tested proficient.
Alterations in the 2016 tests such as a reduction in the number of
questions and removal of the time restriction on the testing session gave
students an unlimited time to complete the tests. Did these adjustments contribute to the
increase in scores? At this time the
State has not studied the impact of these significant changes on the overall test
results. In announcing this year’s results, the State Commissioner acknowledged
that State Ed could not determine reasons for the increase in test scores and
cautioned making comparisons to last year’s test. The reality
is that the State will have difficulty making valid comparisons between this
year’s tests and previous ones given the substantial modifications made to the
2016 testing cycle and the apparent failure to build in a method to determine
the influence of the changes. What else is there to learn about the validity
of these numbers?
However for those who profess belief in the sanctity of
these tests, Buffalo’s results demonstrate a positive trajectory, are better
than two of our Big 5 colleagues and in line with the statewide percentage increases. Nonetheless in many instances the response to
these numbers is the predictable labeling of our students, schools and District
as failing and in need of reform. Most
often these calls for reform propose more charter schools, school takeover,
e.g. receivership, parental choice strategies, or school closure. There is little understanding and less dialogue
about the substance of the standardized tests, the unfair weight, in the name
of accountability, assigned to test results or about the human toll associated
with standardized testing.
Opponents of the ELA/Math standardized tests, including
myself, have cited the recurring assessment problems of these high stakes
tests;
These tests: 1) are not
developmentally appropriate – reading levels are far above the grade level
being tested 2) are not diagnostic; they don’t provide information that helps
the teacher target individual student learning needs 3) are not differentiated
by student need as almost all children take the same test, regardless of their cognitive
ability or their English language proficiency; it’s a one size fits all
approach 4) encourage teaching to the
test at the expense of time for other subjects
5) demoralize and frustrate children.
This year, however, I also heard from parents and staff in
our District about other ways in which these tests negatively impacted our
students’ sense of well-being and self-esteem and contributed to a culture that
could impugn the integrity of our District.
I heard of students who were anxious about the tests to the point of
getting sick in their classrooms; children who were crying, demoralized and frightened;
and children who sat for these tests for
6-8 hours! As alarming, I also heard
stories about administrators and teachers who sent subtle and not too subtle messages
about the critical importance of these tests, not just to the student but to
the school: who convinced parents who
were thinking of refusing the tests to change their decision to opt out; who
planned school activities that either rewarded students who tested or punished
those who didn’t. To their credit when I
brought these incidents to the attention of the administration, these
situations were quickly rectified. Yet,
that these incidents occurred at all is disturbing and the ones I heard about
were not likely the only ones of this kind.
The 2016 testing cycle is a pivotal one, not just because of
changes made in the testing conditions by the Commissioner but also because these
are the first tests given since the Governor’s Common Core Task Force issued its
report. The Report judged the Common
Core implementation along with its aligned curricula and tests as flawed. In an over-due official
statement the Report also agreed with many of the concerns expressed by test
opponents, e.g. that the “one size fits all” standardized testing system is
unfair and in need of an over-haul. The
Task Force recommended more “flexibility for assessments of Students with
Disabilities” and the elimination of “double testing for English Language Learners”. Importantly,
the
Task Force’s final recommendation proposed that “the results from assessments
aligned to the current Common Core Standards…. shall only be advisory and not be used to
evaluate the performance of individual teachers or students.” The State Board of Regents
accepted the Report findings and recommendations.
I offer this information as backdrop because rarely does the
public discourse include or acknowledge the full scope of the data and
information on the subject of the New York State ELA and Math standardized tests. Too often the dialog remains fixed at the
level of the “numbers” and what they purportedly convey about the academic
health of our schools. The Common Core
Task Force’s recommendations have not taken effect at this time, so in addition
to all of the points I’ve made, the 2016 test results still reflect the high
stakes “one size fits all assessment” that the Task Force cited as unfair. Let’s talk, but when we do come prepared to
discuss all aspects of the issue.
This article reflects the views of the author and does not represent a
formal statement on the behalf of the Buffalo Board of Education or any other
organization.
