In today's Seattle Times, columnist Jerry Large interviews University of California education professor W. Norton Grubb. Grubb, an economist and author of The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity, notes that although a variety of factors—such as money, class size, and teacher experience—can have small effects on academic achievement, family is a strong predictor of outcome. This finding, Large reports, points to "a need for more emphasis on early education and parent education" and for "shifting focus from what's easy to count to what really counts."
That parental involvement is important to children's educational achievement has, for many parents, long seemed self-evident. It makes sense intuitively that children who have parents actively supporting and helping to foster their educational progress would have better outcomes.
Exactly why parents have such a big effect, however, isn't as simple as it might seem. New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, for instance, argues compellingly in his book Outliers: The Story of Success that who one's parents (and grandparents) are has a huge effect on achievement (as do one's birthdate, culture, and class). Success is not, as we like to think, simply a product of an individual's effort; rather, it is largely determined by factors beyond a person's control.
So although focusing on early education and parental education is certainly, as Large says, "a good first step," we must also recognize that any widespread change will likely take years—even generations—to effect and, consequently, to measure.
Showing posts with label Testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Testing. Show all posts
TIMSS: Math Scores Up, But What Does This Mean?
According to results of the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) survey recently reported in the New York Times, math scores of fourth- and eighth-grade students in the United States have risen but still fall short of those in some Asian and other countries. Science scores have not increased, and educators are concerned that U.S. students will not be competitive with those from higher-scoring nations.
But what does it mean when students do better than average on a test? It could mean several things. Perhaps these students learned certain math facts that enabled them to solve problems that students without those facts couldn't solve. Maybe teachers in higher-scoring countries (and states) "taught to the test" more so than did teachers elsewhere. Perhaps the textbooks were better at conveying concepts clearly and providing opportunities to consolidate learning.
Whatever the reason (or reasons) behind the improvement, whether scoring well on a test will ultimately translate into making U.S. students more economically competitive is unclear. These sorts of tests don't measure students' feelings about math or motivation to do it.
Yes, students can spend hours drilling basic math facts, completing repetitive worksheets, and otherwise "getting ahead" in math. But even if they "like" the subject because (at least for the time being) they appear to be better at it than their peers who haven't trained so rigorously, there's little point if the work doesn't ultimately inspire them.
Rather than seeing a major increase in math scores so that U.S. students are on a par with those in Singapore and Taiwan, it would be far better to witness a big jump in the percentage of students who decide to become mathematicians or scientists. Better still would be if those same students made that decision out of a love for the subject matter.
But what does it mean when students do better than average on a test? It could mean several things. Perhaps these students learned certain math facts that enabled them to solve problems that students without those facts couldn't solve. Maybe teachers in higher-scoring countries (and states) "taught to the test" more so than did teachers elsewhere. Perhaps the textbooks were better at conveying concepts clearly and providing opportunities to consolidate learning.
Whatever the reason (or reasons) behind the improvement, whether scoring well on a test will ultimately translate into making U.S. students more economically competitive is unclear. These sorts of tests don't measure students' feelings about math or motivation to do it.
Yes, students can spend hours drilling basic math facts, completing repetitive worksheets, and otherwise "getting ahead" in math. But even if they "like" the subject because (at least for the time being) they appear to be better at it than their peers who haven't trained so rigorously, there's little point if the work doesn't ultimately inspire them.
Rather than seeing a major increase in math scores so that U.S. students are on a par with those in Singapore and Taiwan, it would be far better to witness a big jump in the percentage of students who decide to become mathematicians or scientists. Better still would be if those same students made that decision out of a love for the subject matter.
The Problem with High School Rankings
U.S. News & World Report has just come out with its latest rankings of America's high schools, along with a description of the three-step process researchers used to arrive at the top-100 list. Schools were ranked according to whether:
Although this methodology has some problems, such as that state standardized test scores are often more reflective of parental educational level (and the degree to which parents operationalize the value they place on education) than of how good any particular school is, a bigger issue is the entire notion of ranking schools.
Regardless of methodology, when schools are ranked, it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that schools higher up on the list are "better" than ones lower down (or absent altogether). The problem is, the rankings are grossly oversimplified measures of schools' quality. Ranking processes differ, but all use only a limited number of variables (such as reading and math test scores) to arrive at their conclusions.
Unfortunately, many parents take these rankings very seriously and use them, sometimes exclusively, to choose their children's schools. Doing so, however, ignores or downplays many other factors that comprise a school's quality—and suitability.
A far better use of the rankings (if they're to be used at all) is as a starting point for researching schools. By viewing them in conjunction with academic offerings, teacher ratings on such sites as ratemyteachers.com, student and parent reviews on greatschools.net, college placement statistics, and in-person visits, parents can obtain a much fuller picture of a school than is revealed by its standing on a ranking of high schools. The most important factor, however, will always be one that no report or website can tell you, and that's which school will be a good fit for your particular child.
- Students performed "better than statistically expected for the average school in the state," based on the state's standardized tests for reading and math (and given the percentage of "economically disadvantaged" students);
- A school's "least advantaged" students performed better than similar students in the state;
- Students were "college ready," as measured by an index of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) test data.
Although this methodology has some problems, such as that state standardized test scores are often more reflective of parental educational level (and the degree to which parents operationalize the value they place on education) than of how good any particular school is, a bigger issue is the entire notion of ranking schools.
Regardless of methodology, when schools are ranked, it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that schools higher up on the list are "better" than ones lower down (or absent altogether). The problem is, the rankings are grossly oversimplified measures of schools' quality. Ranking processes differ, but all use only a limited number of variables (such as reading and math test scores) to arrive at their conclusions.
Unfortunately, many parents take these rankings very seriously and use them, sometimes exclusively, to choose their children's schools. Doing so, however, ignores or downplays many other factors that comprise a school's quality—and suitability.
A far better use of the rankings (if they're to be used at all) is as a starting point for researching schools. By viewing them in conjunction with academic offerings, teacher ratings on such sites as ratemyteachers.com, student and parent reviews on greatschools.net, college placement statistics, and in-person visits, parents can obtain a much fuller picture of a school than is revealed by its standing on a ranking of high schools. The most important factor, however, will always be one that no report or website can tell you, and that's which school will be a good fit for your particular child.
ReadiStep—or ReadiStumble?
As if there weren't already enough standardized testing in schools, the College Board has come up with another assessment tool—the ReadiStep—which will be available to schools next fall. Designed to "provide information about students' strengths and weaknesses," the test will be optional and given to eighth graders. According to the College Board, schools had been seeking a way of assessing students before high school to make sure they were "on the path to being college ready."
Some critics have already dubbed the new test a "pre-pre-pre SAT," and not without reason. Even as an optional tool, it will create an awareness among teachers, parents, and, most important, middle-schoolers themselves of where students stand in the precollege academic hierarchy.
For teachers who may already inadvertently focus more attention and effort on higher-performing students, additional information about lower-performing students' academic deficits—at least as measured by one new test—could further marginalize such students in the classroom.
For parents, many of whom have been keenly aware of their children's spots in the educational pecking order since preschool, the ReadiStep will be another source of anxiety potentially leading to increased pressure on their kids. Few parents will likely react to a low score on the ReadiStep with equanimity.
Finally, for students who, even in the middle school years, understand that their academic performance and choice of extracurricular activities will become critically important in high school, having to begin that process in a formal way a year earlier will foster premature stress and competition. More important, it will shift the emphasis in middle school from what should be an introduction to a lifelong love of learning to the beginning of a joyless academic grind.
The ReadiStep appears to be a big ReadiStumble in the wrong direction.
Some critics have already dubbed the new test a "pre-pre-pre SAT," and not without reason. Even as an optional tool, it will create an awareness among teachers, parents, and, most important, middle-schoolers themselves of where students stand in the precollege academic hierarchy.
For teachers who may already inadvertently focus more attention and effort on higher-performing students, additional information about lower-performing students' academic deficits—at least as measured by one new test—could further marginalize such students in the classroom.
For parents, many of whom have been keenly aware of their children's spots in the educational pecking order since preschool, the ReadiStep will be another source of anxiety potentially leading to increased pressure on their kids. Few parents will likely react to a low score on the ReadiStep with equanimity.
Finally, for students who, even in the middle school years, understand that their academic performance and choice of extracurricular activities will become critically important in high school, having to begin that process in a formal way a year earlier will foster premature stress and competition. More important, it will shift the emphasis in middle school from what should be an introduction to a lifelong love of learning to the beginning of a joyless academic grind.
The ReadiStep appears to be a big ReadiStumble in the wrong direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
