Throughout classrooms in America, the term assessment can bring fear to students and teachers alike. For students, assessment means stressful testing. Whether a test to determine a grade in a course or a standardized test which may determine their ability to graduate, these assessments hold a lot of weight on the mind of the student. For teachers, assessments are a form of judging their ability to do their job. When students do well on in class tests, it can be a sign that the teacher effectively presented the information, validating their teaching style. Alternately, when students do not meet expectations parents and administrators question the placement of the teacher in the classroom. As new levels of nationwide assessments are utilized, the pressure to perform well closes in on educators and students alike creating a stressful classroom. Under the current standards, school assessments mean more than good grades for the students; assessments can be the difference in school funding, and teacher employment. With these high stakes placed on the current testing methods, the question must be asked; are American school underperforming, or are the current assessments failing to tell the entire story?
In many classrooms over the past several decades, tests were given to students at the end of a unit of study to evaluate the absorption of information. For example, if a class finished their study on the civil war, the students would take a test. After filling in answers telling who, when and where, grades were given and the class would move onto the next unit of study regardless of the overall grades of the class. These summative assessments would sum up the understanding of the classroom, ending the unit of study. This has now become known as an assessment of learning (Newman, 2013).
Newer assessment processes in classrooms rely on the assessment for learning. An assessment for learning does more than use testing to determine grades; instead these tests check on the learning of the students in order to match the curriculum to the needs of the students (Newman, 2013). In this way these formative assessments form the continuation of the lesson to meet the needs of the students. By using assessments to mold the classroom, teachers can have understanding and learning for all of the children in the classroom before finishing a study unit instead of accepting that a percentage of students will fail to comprehend.
In order to do this, teacher must utilize both summative and formative assessments. According to Wormeli, teachers make the planning of their summative assessments the majority of their focus, while they should be focusing more on the formative assessments (Wormeli, 2010). This logical critique of current assessment procedures in American classrooms may point to the largest problem in current assessment. The focus is on determining what students have learned, not on how they can learn more.
Nationwide summative assessments are an effect of the No Child Left Behind legislation. According to Benway, Jordan and Rosell, “Under NCLB, the relationship between accountability and student learning is determined by large-scale assessment. Assessment has been identified as one of the "big variables" that affect school improvement initiatives” (Benway, Jordan and Rosell, 2008, page 5, para 2, lines 3-6). These standardized tests are used to determine the effectiveness of the teachers and the curriculum. It is in essence a summative test for the teacher’s abilities. Instead of testing becoming the basis for new curriculum or teaching methods, these tests result in new
teachers.
Unfortunately, effective teachers can still run the risk of underperforming on exams. In an article in the Charleston Gazette, Robert Dodge reported the reactions of educators in Florida to their No Child Left Behind results. As he reported, “Educators said they are stunned by the number of schools failing under the criteria applied to last year's test results. And parents in districts coast to coast are professing concern and confusion as schools that got high marks under state standards are now branded as deficient” (Dodge, 2003 para 3). New assessment methods are receiving new results, forcing teachers in many areas to teach to the test to improve their results. This method of teaching leaves little room for student creativity or teacher freedom.
With this discrepancy between nationwide testing and classroom assessments, what can be done to ensure quality education for American students? Dr. Brian Stecher recommends a reevaluation of the current school assessment methods. Instead of rating a school on the reading and math scores as well as graduation rates, schools should be rated on if they have thriving students; students who know things, can do things, are healthy, can interact socially, have the self-confidence to face challenges and are good citizens of their community and the greater world (Stecher, 2011). These additional factors can reveal not only basic information the students are learning, but if the students are learning to function in the real world and become members of a global society. While high reading and math scores are useful, the world needs well rounded individuals to meet the diverse and changing needs of
society.
Unfortunately these factors are harder to evaluate by use of standardized tests. For these new criteria to be evaluated; there would need to be an assessment of the school itself as well as the students. Examining school records can reveal information of what classes are offered, and what students are learning in these classes. Evaluators could observe in classrooms and see the class participation and comprehension of the material. Additionally online surveys could be used to gather feedback from parents, sending their comments to the evaluation committee directly removing the concern for filtering by the school administrators.
While solutions are available to improve school assessments, educators must continue to work within the current confines of standardized testing. This does not make teachers powerless to teach in their own way and still receive positive results on nationwide assessments. As teachers, it becomes necessary to utilize formative assessments frequently, evolving the curriculum to teach more than facts but to increase understanding. Common Core State Standards can be used to demonstrate how in classroom formative assessments and activities can help students to master standards that can be later used on standardized tests.
One of the Kindergarten Common Core State Standard states, “When counting objects, say the number names in the standard order, pairing each object with one and only one number name and each number name with one and only
one object” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
This standard of one to one correspondence demands more than simple rote counting. Students will learn to count and understand that numbers have real life value that can be related to objects in their everyday life.
It is common practice to teach lessons such as this through the counting of real objects and actions, as done in the example used previously. Beginning with a specific goal, the teacher determines they would like their students to learn to count ten objects and understand each number represents a different value. The teacher can then incorporate counting into many activities the children already enjoy. Students can count steps as the walk across the room, count legos as they build a tower, or count crackers at snack time. After a time, the teacher must make a formative assessment, determining if the students can reach their goal. Working with individuals and small groups, the teacher observes how the students count, having them count real objects out loud touching each object as they count.
Once the formative assessment is made, the teacher moves onto the next phase. If the students need more work on their understanding of number representations, more activities are planned and more time is given. However, if the students demonstrate a mastery of the current goal, a new goal is made encouraging students to count to twenty instead of ten. Using formative assessment to guide the learning of the students, the Kindergarteners will master the mathematics standard and be ready for later math mastery and summative assessments.
Balancing the many assessments a class can take can be difficult for teachers, but it does not need to take over the classroom. Nationwide assessments may change their methods and requirements, but the knowledge remains the same. Utilizing a variety of small formative assessments on a regular basis in a classroom allows the curriculum to flow with the needs of the students, leading the class towards concept mastery instead of assessment mastery. Summative assessments can then act as a review of information before moving onto a new area of study, instead of the traditional test to determine understanding and grade.
In many classrooms over the past several decades, tests were given to students at the end of a unit of study to evaluate the absorption of information. For example, if a class finished their study on the civil war, the students would take a test. After filling in answers telling who, when and where, grades were given and the class would move onto the next unit of study regardless of the overall grades of the class. These summative assessments would sum up the understanding of the classroom, ending the unit of study. This has now become known as an assessment of learning (Newman, 2013).
Newer assessment processes in classrooms rely on the assessment for learning. An assessment for learning does more than use testing to determine grades; instead these tests check on the learning of the students in order to match the curriculum to the needs of the students (Newman, 2013). In this way these formative assessments form the continuation of the lesson to meet the needs of the students. By using assessments to mold the classroom, teachers can have understanding and learning for all of the children in the classroom before finishing a study unit instead of accepting that a percentage of students will fail to comprehend.
In order to do this, teacher must utilize both summative and formative assessments. According to Wormeli, teachers make the planning of their summative assessments the majority of their focus, while they should be focusing more on the formative assessments (Wormeli, 2010). This logical critique of current assessment procedures in American classrooms may point to the largest problem in current assessment. The focus is on determining what students have learned, not on how they can learn more.
Nationwide summative assessments are an effect of the No Child Left Behind legislation. According to Benway, Jordan and Rosell, “Under NCLB, the relationship between accountability and student learning is determined by large-scale assessment. Assessment has been identified as one of the "big variables" that affect school improvement initiatives” (Benway, Jordan and Rosell, 2008, page 5, para 2, lines 3-6). These standardized tests are used to determine the effectiveness of the teachers and the curriculum. It is in essence a summative test for the teacher’s abilities. Instead of testing becoming the basis for new curriculum or teaching methods, these tests result in new
teachers.
Unfortunately, effective teachers can still run the risk of underperforming on exams. In an article in the Charleston Gazette, Robert Dodge reported the reactions of educators in Florida to their No Child Left Behind results. As he reported, “Educators said they are stunned by the number of schools failing under the criteria applied to last year's test results. And parents in districts coast to coast are professing concern and confusion as schools that got high marks under state standards are now branded as deficient” (Dodge, 2003 para 3). New assessment methods are receiving new results, forcing teachers in many areas to teach to the test to improve their results. This method of teaching leaves little room for student creativity or teacher freedom.
With this discrepancy between nationwide testing and classroom assessments, what can be done to ensure quality education for American students? Dr. Brian Stecher recommends a reevaluation of the current school assessment methods. Instead of rating a school on the reading and math scores as well as graduation rates, schools should be rated on if they have thriving students; students who know things, can do things, are healthy, can interact socially, have the self-confidence to face challenges and are good citizens of their community and the greater world (Stecher, 2011). These additional factors can reveal not only basic information the students are learning, but if the students are learning to function in the real world and become members of a global society. While high reading and math scores are useful, the world needs well rounded individuals to meet the diverse and changing needs of
society.
Unfortunately these factors are harder to evaluate by use of standardized tests. For these new criteria to be evaluated; there would need to be an assessment of the school itself as well as the students. Examining school records can reveal information of what classes are offered, and what students are learning in these classes. Evaluators could observe in classrooms and see the class participation and comprehension of the material. Additionally online surveys could be used to gather feedback from parents, sending their comments to the evaluation committee directly removing the concern for filtering by the school administrators.
While solutions are available to improve school assessments, educators must continue to work within the current confines of standardized testing. This does not make teachers powerless to teach in their own way and still receive positive results on nationwide assessments. As teachers, it becomes necessary to utilize formative assessments frequently, evolving the curriculum to teach more than facts but to increase understanding. Common Core State Standards can be used to demonstrate how in classroom formative assessments and activities can help students to master standards that can be later used on standardized tests.
One of the Kindergarten Common Core State Standard states, “When counting objects, say the number names in the standard order, pairing each object with one and only one number name and each number name with one and only
one object” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
This standard of one to one correspondence demands more than simple rote counting. Students will learn to count and understand that numbers have real life value that can be related to objects in their everyday life.
It is common practice to teach lessons such as this through the counting of real objects and actions, as done in the example used previously. Beginning with a specific goal, the teacher determines they would like their students to learn to count ten objects and understand each number represents a different value. The teacher can then incorporate counting into many activities the children already enjoy. Students can count steps as the walk across the room, count legos as they build a tower, or count crackers at snack time. After a time, the teacher must make a formative assessment, determining if the students can reach their goal. Working with individuals and small groups, the teacher observes how the students count, having them count real objects out loud touching each object as they count.
Once the formative assessment is made, the teacher moves onto the next phase. If the students need more work on their understanding of number representations, more activities are planned and more time is given. However, if the students demonstrate a mastery of the current goal, a new goal is made encouraging students to count to twenty instead of ten. Using formative assessment to guide the learning of the students, the Kindergarteners will master the mathematics standard and be ready for later math mastery and summative assessments.
Balancing the many assessments a class can take can be difficult for teachers, but it does not need to take over the classroom. Nationwide assessments may change their methods and requirements, but the knowledge remains the same. Utilizing a variety of small formative assessments on a regular basis in a classroom allows the curriculum to flow with the needs of the students, leading the class towards concept mastery instead of assessment mastery. Summative assessments can then act as a review of information before moving onto a new area of study, instead of the traditional test to determine understanding and grade.