Peter Greene Talks Test Scores and Baloney Slicing
Or, why we focus on the small things instead of the big picture
Peter Greene laments the perennial growth vs. proficiency debate and notes that this perpetual argument leads to a kind of policy stagnation - and a focus on what doesn’t really matter.
First, let me point out for the gazillionth time that we are not talking about student achievement and we are certainly not (as Barshay unfortunately does) talking about years of learning. A “year of learning” or “month of learning” or “fortnight of learning” or an “afternoon of learning” is just a journalist-friendly way of packaging test results.
On why the debate is a lose-lose:
Ultimately, schools can not win playing the growth measurement game because schools cannot raise student scores every year forever, as if somehow each cohort of students was smarter than their older siblings. Test scores are not a stock market ticker.
But schools also cannot win the proficiency game. BS Test scores and “grade levels” are scaled and normed (curved). If the BS Test were truly standards based, students taking the test could be scored instantly after they clicked the last answer. But the scores have to be computed and compared and scaled and then some state bureau sets the cut scores. But curves have to have a bottom. If, after years of intensive effort, every child tested above grade level for reading, we would not conclude that a reading education moonshot had occurred-- we would conclude that “grade level” had been set too low. If every child was rated “proficient,” we would conclude that the requirements for “proficient” had been made too easy (just check every piece complaining about grade inflation).
The baloney comparison:
The growth vs. proficiency debate is in many ways a debate about how to make the best use of a tiny, noisy slice of data. Instead, I wish we were talking about what we really should be measuring, how we can measure it, and how we are going to deal with the fact that there is much about educational quality that cannot be measured in any way that will satisfy our data overlords. Some days we are wasting way too much energy arguing about whether we should cut baloney into slices or cubes when we’d be better off figuring out how make a healthier meal.
Here’s the deal: If policymakers wanted to actually assess student learning, they’d engage in project-based learning and project-based “tests.”
Kentucky did this in the early days after the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). Students were given tasks/projects and a period of time to think about the project and then demonstrate a solution.
This type of testing is time-consuming and people-intensive. Students must be observed to demonstrate their ability to understand the core problem/challenge and DO something about it.
This does, however, demonstrate learning.
Alternatively, students are given a project assignment (individually or in small groups) and then demonstrate it at the end of a semester/year.
This mimics real-world problem-solving - the kind students will likely encounter later in life. And it also demonstrates whether or not students understand key concepts well enough to turn them into action.
For writing, a response to a prompt can provide insight - or, a longer-term written product can demonstrate capacity to turn ideas into an understandable and useful text.
These types of test, though, don’t fit neatly into policy discussions - there is not a 1-5 rating or a numerical score that represents a “median.”
This is, however, what we would be doing if we wanted to measure student learning. If we wanted to put students first - instead of putting the feelings of adults (especially policymaking adults) first.
The myth, of course, is that children and their education are a top priority. Years of policy focused on the baloney debate of growth vs. proficiency demonstrates that much of education policy is driven by what makes adults feel like they are doing something rather than by what would actually help kids understand and apply concepts.