A
REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ TESTING
PROGRAM ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Richmond Education Association, VEA/NEA
January 29, 2007
A
REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF
RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ TESTING
PROGRAM ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Acting out
of concern from the membership with the amount of time being
spent on testing and test preparation, Richmond Education
Association’s Representative Assembly directed the
organization to appoint a committee to study and determine
how teachers feel about the city’s testing program. The
Testing Committee was formed in January 2006, and started by
developing a plan to gather data and receive input from
teachers. In April and May 2006, the committee conducted a
survey of teachers on the effects that mandated tests and
test preparation methods have on teaching and learning in
Richmond Public Schools. The results of this survey are
described in this presentation.
Methodology
The survey,
developed by the REA Testing Committee, asked teachers to
respond to 21 statements concerning mandated tests, practice
tests, and test preparation methods, on a Likert scale
allowing for responses of Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither
Agree/Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The survey
asked the respondents to identify their discipline and grade
level. An open-ended response box concluded the survey
asking respondents to give their comments and/or suggested
statements for further study.
The survey
defined the term “mandated tests” as Standards of Learning
Assessments, the terms “test preparation” as the various
practice tests (Flanagan, Edutest, teacher-prepared tests,
etc.), and “test preparation methods” as the drills and
exercises used to prepare for tests. For this summary,
"testing" refers to these different test-related
activities. The terms “test” and “assessment” carry the
same meaning for the purpose of this document.
Association
representatives distributed the survey to 1,677 elementary,
middle, and high school teachers in Richmond Public
Schools. The survey was completed by 1,052 respondents for
a response rate of 62.8 percent. Many of the items on the
survey focused on testing and its impact on instruction.
Findings
The
following findings made by the committee generalize the
survey results into four broad groups of teacher concerns.
The concerns are supported by the responses given on the
survey with representative illustrative comments made by
individual teachers. The committee provides its
recommendations in response to the findings.
1.
Current mandated tests, practice tests, and test
preparation methods limit instruction, interfere with the
continuity of daily instruction, and affect teacher
enthusiasm.
Eighty-five percent of the teachers feel that current
mandated tests, practice tests, and test preparation methods
are limiting instructional time. Conversely, only 11
percent feel that the amount of time spent on testing and
test preparation allows enough time for effective
instruction.
“There is
simply too much testing, and not enough instructional time.
I became a teacher because I wanted to enrich my students
with knowledge and creativity. I did not become a teacher to
teach children how to take a test.”
“I feel I
am only teaching children what they need to know to pass a
test. That is not why I became a teacher. It was to open
young students’ eyes to new and exciting things.”
Over 75 percent of the teachers believe that current
mandated tests, practice tests, and test preparation are
limiting the development of essential student skills, and
interfere with the continuity of daily instruction.
“This
excessive testing environment disheartens the teacher and
robs the student of a valuable education. I personally
don’t have a problem with the SOL concept. There should be
a basic blue-print that assumes that all students in the
state have been exposed to the same information. However,
that concept has been swept away in a sea of testing that
takes the teacher’s passion and creativity (essentials) for
the job.”
Over 69 percent of the teachers said that current mandated
tests, practice tests, and test preparation methods hinder
effective instruction.
“Being
pushed so much to teach to the test, it is very difficult to
‘leave no child behind’ and teach in a developmentally
appropriate manner. It is disappointing to not be able to
use all the interesting, hands-on, proven techniques I
learned in school and at conferences because I have to
follow a certain pace and teach only what they’re going to
see on a test in June.”
Seventy-three percent of the teachers responded that the
current emphasis on testing and test preparation seriously
conflicts with their enthusiasm for teaching.
“The current emphasis on
testing and test preparation seriously conflicts with my
enthusiasm for teaching. I so strongly agree with this
statement that this is my last year of teaching. After only
three years, I am going back to school in the fall to enter
a totally unrelated field.”
Recommendations:
The stringent demand for frequent assessing and practice
testing diminishes instructional time and interrupts
essential learning processes. The committee believes
enacting the following can restore instructional time:
·
Eliminate mandatory bi-weekly assessments.
·
Allow teachers to have flexibility in
scheduling assessments and tests within each nine-week
period.
2.
Mandated
tests, practice tests, and test preparation methods limit
teacher creativity and enrichment learning activities.
More than 78 percent of the teachers feel that current
mandated tests, practice tests, and test preparation methods
excessively limit teacher creativity and enrichment learning
activities.
“Mandated
nine weeks and other tests not only take away from
instructional time but they limit enrichment opportunities
for those students that would benefit from them.”
“I
believe students would thrive in a more creative
environment. Students are complex individuals with a
variety of needs and intelligences. We need the freedom to
teach in a creative manner so our students’ desire to come
to school and learn increases. We need to reach out to our
students and embrace them with a love of learning.”
Eighty-three percent of the teachers did not agree that
current mandated tests, practice tests, and test preparation
methods improve students’ educational experiences.
“We are
teaching children to take a test and spit out information,
but they are not learning for the sake of learning. The joy
of learning is not where it should be for a student just
starting out in school. They are getting burned out!”
“The time
it takes to prepare for the test, teach test taking
strategies, grade tests and fill out data sheets could be
used to create enriching lessons for my students or to take
more accurate, higher-level thinking assessments. The
current time frame does not allow for that.”
Recommendation:
Creative and enrichment activities are essential to the
differentiated classroom and to developmentally appropriate
practices. They provide different pathways to learning and
empower teachers to reach students with diverse needs,
abilities, and preparedness. The committee recommends the
following:
·
Reduce the number and frequency of mandated
assessments to allow teachers time for creative and
enrichment activities.
3.
Too much time is spent on testing and test
preparation. When data results are disaggregated by grade
level, time issues are especially problematic for early
elementary grade levels.
Only 23 percent of the teachers believe that the amount of
time spent on testing and test preparation is appropriate.
This is especially true for early elementary grade levels.
Eighty-five percent of the early elementary grade teachers
are of the opinion that the amount of time spent on testing
is inappropriate.
“The
amount of testing done in the average kindergarten class in
RPS is both time consuming and not the best practice for a
child of that age. Best practices for young children are
developmental and integrated instruction. These practices
have been left behind. There is little time for anything but
test taking.”
Eighty-five percent of the teachers say that the time spent
on testing and test preparation does not allow enough time
for effective instruction. Ninety-two percent of the
elementary grade teachers agree there is not enough time for
effective instruction.
“As a first year teacher, I am surprised and overwhelmed by
the amount of time that I must put toward testing. It takes
away from the time that I have to actually teach the
children.”
A significant number, 77 percent of all teachers and 82
percent of early elementary grade teachers, responded that
the current mandated tests, practice tests, and test
preparation methods are limiting the development of
essential student skills.
“Stop the
madness---Our children need the basic, old-fashioned
teaching skills that taught how to spell, how to read, how
to do math without a calculator!”
“I feel
assessments are effective if results are a true measure of
student achievement. Teachers need time to reteach and
re-assess as needed. Right now it’s just ‘paperwork’ that
looks ‘good’ or ‘bad’ instead of teaching according to each
student’s individual needs because we have to ‘keep it
moving.’”
Recommendations:
The foundation of a child’s education occurs in the early
elementary grades. It requires an enormous amount of
instructional time to teach the emotional, physical, social
and intellectual skills that scaffold lifelong learning.
The amount of time required for testing and test preparation
diminishes time needed for instruction. The committee
recommends the following:
·
Conduct pre-screening of kindergarten
students prior to the beginning of the school year to assess
skills in order to provide information for possible early
intervention.
·
Limit mandated district-wide tests for
kindergarten and first grade to yearly pre-benchmark and
post-benchmark assessments.
·
Eliminate standardized multiple-choice
assessments for kindergarten and first grade.
·
Provide for second through twelfth grade
teachers nine-week benchmark assessments that are created
from a bank of questions, submitted by RPS teachers at each
grade level. To ensure test security, the questions would
be placed in a “bank” to be randomly selected by the
administration.
4.
Testing does not ensure students’ academic
achievement.
Eighty-seven percent of the teachers believe that scores on
current mandated tests are not accurate indicators of
student academic achievement. Only 11 percent feel the
current mandated tests are as accurate a measure of student
achievement as a teacher’s assessment.
“The
current mandated tests and test preparations are not
accurate indicators of students’ achievement especially if
it only deals with multiple choice (which is the
easiest type of exam). Statewide and district tests
(mandated tests) can be accurate indicators if students are
given essays or other types of exams. [For] ex.
Oral, written presentations, or the kind of tests
that makes them THINK (critical thinking/cognitive) and not
just by merely ‘guessing’ the answer especially if the
students wouldn’t like to read the given article.”
Ninety-one percent of the teachers believe that current
mandated test scores do not accurately reflect the quality
of teachers’ instruction.
Sixty-one percent of the teachers feel there are test-taking
strategies that can be taught that could raise the current
mandated test scores without improving student learning.
“Teachers
spend a lot of time and energy teaching students things like
certain words to look for and how to make good guesses on
multiple choice questions. This doesn’t further student
knowledge, but it might mean that they will pass the test.”
Ninety percent of the teachers do not believe that current
mandated tests assure students’ academic achievement.
“I feel
as though my job is no longer teaching. It is to (1) impart
information (2) test for short-term memory and report (3)
fill out data for someone to look at. I guess my job has
really nothing to do with educating/preparing students to be
unique, curious, lifelong learners.”
Recommendation:
Success on district mandated
tests does not reflect mastery of learning skills. It
measures acquired knowledge of selected facts through rote
memory that are transferred by pencil as answers on a
“bubble” response sheet. The committee recommends the
following:
·
Rely on
teacher expertise to administer authentic assessments that
inform instruction and address the differentiated needs of
the students.
Conclusion
The high
response to the testing survey is a powerful testament to
the teachers’ concerns with the current testing program, and
their written comments on the survey passionately support
the need for testing reform in Richmond Public Schools. The
concerns over the amount of mandated tests, frequency of
testing, and test preparation methods seriously conflict
with effective instruction and teachers’ enthusiasm for
teaching.
Teachers
across grade levels indicate testing is replacing
instructional time that is needed to fully develop students’
essential skills. This finding is particularly significant
for teachers in the lower elementary grades. Teachers
further stressed that testing is infringing on time for
creative and enrichment activities. They are
overwhelmingly of the opinion that testing does not ensure
students’ academic achievement.
In response
to the survey, the REA Testing Committee is making several
recommendations to reform the school district’s testing
program. While the administration has replaced Edutest and
Flanagan with other assessments, this action is inadequate
because it does not restore instructional time, which is a
major concern expressed in the survey. Any meaningful
reform must restore instructional time rather than simply
replace and modify existing tests. This, along with the
committee’s other recommendations contained in this
document, are critical to meaningful reform of the testing
program—reform that is necessary for effective teaching and
learning.
The
Survey
and
the
Survey Results
