By: Mery Tellez
Assessment should be given to serve at least 3 different
purposes: First, and foremost to provide feedback to the learner on their level
of achievement and growth towards their goals, as well as next steps for improvement. Secondly, evaluation should also inform the teacher about their students’
progress and needs, and about the modifications and direction that instruction
should be taking in order to continue assisting their students towards growth.
A third and what probably should be the least important, but yet necessary
component is to measure the capabilities of a learner against set standards,
this with the intention to inform about the general progress made by a
particular student, and in general by a class to measure the quality of
instruction provided, and to make decision in the big picture of the school, district or even wider area.
High stakes assessment refers precisely to the examinations provided to students world wide with this last purpose in mind, program evaluation, teacher evaluation, grade level achievement, school and university admissions, budget allocation, etc.
There is plenty of research pointing to the negative effects of high stakes examinations over the actual learning of students. Parents are creating opt-out movements, and demanding action by schools all over United States, precisely because they are starting to see the effects on students, the emotional components, and most importantly, the effect on how instruction is addressed, and how the teaching becomes a matter of test preparation course, which is concerned with a score in a specific type of questions, more than it is about the student actually understanding and more importantly being able to use the knowledge they are acquiring.
High stakes exams have a good intention behind, they are
made to inform students, parents, teachers and administrators about how students are doing compared against other students in similar conditions. They are meant to compare with the purpose of
measure quality and to direct next steps.
Data in mind, they are supposed to be an objective tool for decision
making, but unfortunately and as with everything the problem comes when these results start being used for purposes different than the ones they were created for, and then when in turn, those taking and preparing for the test, have ended up modifying their behaviours and even beliefs about education based on what they need to comply with.
Let me illustrate what I am referring to, by presenting the reality of high stakes evaluations and its impact on students and teachers in the last two different schools that I have worked for.
Both schools have similarities and differences that I believe influence the way they handle high stakes examinations as well.
The first school, lets call it A, is located in Colombia. It is a K-12 international school, with a majority of Colombian nationals from a high socio economical background in its population. The school prides itself in being inclusive and in offering opportunities for ALL students to succeed.
The second school, lets call it B, is located in China. It is a K-12 international school (this year we will have our first graduates), with a majority of Chinese nationals from a high socio economical background in its population.
School A, has to comply with both Colombian and American requirements to be able to grant their students with both diplomas on graduation. Given those needs, this school requires its students to take the national high stakes exam ICFES as a graduation requirement. This exam is used in Colombia as a university admission measure (mainly). Additionally, students are allowed to be part of the AP program and in that case they require to take the AP examinations for every subject they take. A great majority of students, takes also the SAT and other high stakes tests with the purpose of entering universities outside the country. Students take MAP testing 3 times a year, as a checkpoint for teachers to evaluate instruction and progress towards goals. The need for the MAP exam has been questioned many times, as it doesn't necessarily align with what is being taught in class, and it is not relevant to the students and the community needs and reality.
School B, has to comply with both Chinese and International requirements to be able to operate in China and provide an IB diploma to its students upon graduation. Based on their needs, students are not require to take any national mandated high stakes exam. The students do put a lot of effort and stress on MAP examination which happens twice a year, mainly by those students looking to apply to other High School, who require these results as admission examination.
Additionally, the school offers the IGCSE program to students in 9 and 10 grade. It is not optional, and students are required to test on each one of the subjects at the end of their 10 grade year. After that, students enter the IBDP program (not optional), and therefore are required to comply with the numerous high stakes examinations contemplated by the program.
The negative effects of high stakes examinations are present in both schools, but in different ways. Both schools are private, international schools, and in some ways they do have the autonomy to decide whether or not to offer these tests. Most of them are decisions of the schools and the board, and not a mandate from the government.
The culture of the school and of its population, certainly has an important effect on the way these exams affect the instruction. School B, is located in a country in which results are important, the population is big, and therefore measuring and assigning value and achieving and classifying is important. It is a highly competitive culture, and students who are aiming for universities outside of the country are aware of their chances, and the need for high achievement. This is evident in the reactions of parents and students towards exams, they do stress about the smallest of the differences in grade points, and they compare themselves constantly against their peers, and other schools in the area.
This translates to the school, and the decisions made by the administration. A lot of time is allocated at school B on "preparing" for high stakes examinations. Students in grade 10 spend a total of 2 months testing constantly last year due to this. No instructional time, no interaction with the student, just testing. They went from semester exams, to mock exams, to MAP exams, to IGCSE exams. This is a sad reality that did affect the morale of the students, the learning continuum, the logistics of the school, and ironically the results of the exams.
School A portraits a very different scenario. As an inclusive school, AP is optional, and most of the testing is really not for everybody other than the national ICFES mentioned before. Because the only mandated examination is aimed for students interested in local universities, which is not the case of most of the students, then this high stakes exams, ends up being not so high stakes after all. This is great for the students and the classroom, but not so much for the school, as the results on this exam do get affected by the lack of interest on it. This affects in time the "classification" of the school in the national level, and therefore the administration has made great efforts towards preparing students for it, and translating more "ICFES type" instruction into the classroom, in an effort to protect the school classifications and why not to say it, its reputation. Please notice, that none of the rationale behind this has anything to do with the learning that the school considers essential for students; the school is not putting resources and effort into improving instruction for students to get a better education, but for the school to get a better classification.
I believe these two different but very familiar scenarios, represent in a way the reality of schools everywhere. High stakes examinations have the tendency to make students, parents, teachers, administrators and even policy makers, forget about the importance and the real aim of education and of our schools: Student learning. And sadly, like in the two cases presented above, student learning gets moved to last in the priorities list of schools' decision makers, when they were originally designed for precisely the opposite.
But as it was stated before, high stakes testing is a necessary evil, that cannot simply be dismissed and forgotten. The needs behind its purpose are still there. The alternatives, or solutions in the horizon seem to be many, there are a variety or proposals being made everywhere. From switching to a sampling approach in which testing is not necessarily mandated for everybody, to switching to a variety of innovative assessment techniques, to passive collection of data rather than the one snapshot approach of high stakes; the possibilities are out there, and hopefully will be embraced soon enough.
From my perspective, the first and foremost important step is to re evaluate our priorities, and give education its place in the decision making process. The way we measure our students is definitively wrong, and admitting it, is always a good first step.
Sources:
High-Stakes Test Definition. (2014, August 18). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved January 29, 2017 from http://edglossary.org/high-stakes-testing/
Popham, W. J. (2005, March 23). Standardized Testing Fails the Exam. Retrieved January 29, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/standardized-testing-evaluation-reform
