Also in This Issue…
- Feature: Developing Personal Talent in Your Child
- The Editor's View: A Consistent Definition of Giftedness
- Consultant's Corner: Customizing a Gifted Education Program
- Connections: Knowledge is Key: Advocating for your Gifted Child
- The Emotional Edge: Lighting A Fire: Motivating Boys To Succeed
- Special Focus: Questions that Parents of Young Gifted Children Ask the Most
- Testing, Testing, 1,2,3: Benefits and Drawbacks of State-level Assessments for Gifted Students: NCLB and Standardized Testing
- Schoolhouse Options: Homeschooling Curriculum for the Gifted Child
- Currents: ACT and SAT: Optional?
- Currents: Rewarding Kids for Good Grades
- Currents: Helping Boys Succeed in School
Resources
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). NAEP Overview. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
- Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2005). Johnny can read...in some states. Education Next, 5(3), 52-53.
Testing, Testing, 1,2,3
Benefits and Drawbacks of State-level Assessments for Gifted Students: NCLB and Standardized Testing
Volume 7 / Issue 1 / Fall 2006
If it seems like students have a lot more standardized testing these days than when you were in school, you are absolutely right. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandates annual testing in math and reading for all students in grades 3-8 and, at least once more, in grades 9-12. In addition, many states are piloting standardized testing in science, because NCLB will begin to require such testing in the 2007-08 school year.
Rather than developing entirely new standardized tests, which can be expensive and time-consuming, many states contract with major testing companies to develop state-specific versions of existing tests. Generally, these modifications match the test questions more closely to state curriculum standards and frameworks. For example, CTB/McGraw Hill's Terra Nova test is the basis for the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT), given to approximately 1.8 million students annually in Florida. The FCAT questions are aligned with the Sunshine State Standards, Florida's K-12 educational framework.
NCLB requires all schools to make adequate yearly progress toward the goal of having all students proficient by 2014. The states themselves select the assessments, an arrangement that inadvertently offers them an incentive to select tests that demonstrate strong student performance. Although NCLB requires states to implement accountability systems, the act does not set national standards for student knowledge level at each grade. In response to these influences, some states have set demanding proficiency levels for their students while others have adopted lower standards that artificially inflate the performance of students in these states.
Concerns for Parents
The increased emphasis on standardized testing concerns parents of highly able students. Due to their design, paper and pencil tests emphasize memorization of facts at the expense of higher-level academic skills and competencies. Since these complex abilities are not being tested, classroom instruction in these competencies may be minimized. Schools may see little need to support academic acceleration or enrichment for the child who has been classified as meeting proficiency, a goal that many gifted students can achieve with limited effort. In addition, state funding for gifted programs has been reduced—in several states drastically—as schools reallocate their resources to focus on raising the competency of their lowest-performing students.
Criticism of mandatory high-stakes testing is by no means limited to concern about its effects on gifted students and programs. Observers note that when facing rewards or punishments based on test scores, many schools respond by devoting additional time to test-taking drills and basic skills development in core areas of reading and math. The time set aside for these efforts often comes at the expense of time formerly spent in academic and enrichment areas such as science, social studies, art, music, and even recess. Instruction in test-taking skills may be focused so narrowly on the requirements of one particular test that students are unable to apply these abilities to other related areas. Topics that are not on the test may never be covered in class, or may be limited to the few weeks of school that remain after annual testing has been completed. These troublesome effects are most evident at schools with lower scores, which often tend to be those schools located in low socio-economic areas or that have more students who are minorities or English language learners.
Connecting Testing to Performance
As a parent, how can you determine how rigorous your state's testing regimen is? One approach might involve examining the proportion of students who score at each level of performance on your state's accountability test. This information is usually available from your state's department of education Web site, or locally through your school or district officials. You can compare your child's performance to other students at the school, district, and state level to determine how your child compares to other students in these groups.
For example, you might find that 75 percent of the students at your child's school scored at the top level of performance on your state's assessment. This may indicate that the majority of students are performing well, as might be the case if your child attends a particularly effective school. However, it could also mean that the criteria established for this level of performance are not rigorous. In contrast, if only 6 percent of students score at the top level, the test may be more rigorous or, perhaps, the school is less effective. In either scenario, how can you determine whether it is primarily the quality of the school's instruction or the difficulty of the test that is producing the results you have observed?
In-State versus National Comparisons
As mentioned, the structure of NCLB requirements presents a strong temptation for states to water down their assessments. As someone who may not be an educator, how can you determine whether your state has strong or weak standards?
Fortunately there is a way to compare student achievement across states, albeit indirectly. The National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP, also referred to as the Nation's Report Card, is a nationally administered standardized test of student ability in various subject areas. The NAEP has been administered voluntarily to representative samples of students in both public and private schools since the program's inception in the late 1960s. Although your child's district or school may not participate in NAEP testing, the schools that do are selected in such a manner that the NAEP results can be generalized to other schools in the same state. The NCLB act now requires all states to participate in NAEP testing, so your state will have scores available for comparison.
Unfortunately, NAEP does not release scores for individual students or schools, so, these data cannot be used directly to evaluate your child or your child's school. However, the NAEP does provide scores aggregated by state and region, which can be used to evaluate the rigor of your state's testing program. If students from your state score approximately the same on the NAEP as on the state exam, this suggests that the questions on the state test are of approximately the same level of difficulty as the questions on the NAEP. Conversely, if their performance on the NAEP is substantially lower than that obtained on the state exam, this suggests either that the state exam is less rigorous or that the content of the two assessments is not comparable. Many experts believe that differences in rigor, rather than in content, are primarily responsible when performance differences between the NAEP and state tests are observed. This suggests that if you find performance differences, they are likely a reflection of actual differences in the difficulty level of the two measures. Such comparisons are reported on from time to time in local media. By keeping an eye out for this information, you can get a good sense of how your child's performance compares to other students around the country.
Discussing test comparisons with your child in a supportive manner can be beneficial, particularly for the child who wishes to pursue career interests in a nationally or internationally competitive field. Repeated exposure to tests that are too easy may lead students to adopt the mistaken belief that they do not need to study. Students with this mindset often experience a rude awakening upon entering a selective college, when their poor performance leads to the sudden realization that they should have studied harder when they were younger.
Explaining test scores from an early age and in a positive way can help your child to understand that their goals should be greater than simply being the best student on a test in their school. For the child who excels in test-taking skills, such comparisons also may help them to understand that there will always be a more rigorous test ahead. Being aware of how your state's tests compare to national standards can help you and your child to make informed educational decisions.
—Michael S. Matthews, PhD
Michael Matthews is an assistant professor in the gifted education program at the University of South Florida in Tampa.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://dukegiftedletter.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/53
Comments
Regarding the question of why NCLB would keep districts from accelerating students, it is simple -- we learned this after our recent move.
If a student is working high above grade level, but is kept in his/her proper grade, then the student's percentile test scores are high, and the school is rewarded, often monetarily. If that student is accelerated, he or she would take the test designated for the new grade, and his or her scores would be compared with those of other (older) students in that grade. While the student might still do well, the percentile scores might not be as high. Thus, it benefits the schools in the short run under NCLB to keep gifted students with their age mates, no matter how unhappy and unchallenged they might be.
The obvious solution would be to group gifted kids together, keep them at grade level, test them at grade level, but allow them to do advanced level work in the classroom. Thus, their performance would still be compared with age-mates, and they would score highly. Our children started in such a program, but left it when we moved to another state, and they (and we) miss it terribly.
Grade acceleration is cheaper for districts, but grouping gifted and high-achieving kids by grade level would solve some of the problem posed by NCLB rules and regs, if districts would just consider it.
Posted by: L jones | January 3, 2007 03:12 AM
After a year of getting straight A's in the "Challenge" program and rarely bringing any homework home, we looked into double promotion for my sons. They met the District's criteria, but skipping a grade is only allowed at the principal's discretion.
The principal at their charter school approved the double promotion. However when the school asked for help entering their student numbers with a grade level skip, the South Florida public school district my twins attend told them that no students had been double promoted since NCLB began! With over 43,000 students in this District, I was shocked.
My boys are doing very well after skipping and have a renewed enthusiasm for learning. I wonder if another public school principal, not at a charter school, would have had the independence to double promote? Why would NCLB cause a school district to stop using acceleration for bright, capable students?
Julia Brown
Naples, Fla.
Posted by: Julia Brown | October 16, 2006 10:56 AM
As a 5th grade regular education teacher, it saddens me to hear the negative instructional practices taking place because of end of grade testing. First, I think that testing is a valuable, necessary evil that must be in place in order to assess student learning and teacher proficiency. NC just moved to a growth-based model for testing so that we are looking at the child's growth over a span of years rather than from year to year. In addition, each child is expected to make yearly growth.
I just want to make it clear to parents and teachers who read this article that challenging students needs to happen regardless of gifted labels or learning disabilities. My students are pulled out for AG math, with me left to teach students who did not qualify. This is not to say that the students I teach are not gifted or just need test taking skills all year. Nevertheless, I challenge my regular ed math students daily. And, given end of grade testing, my students walked away telling me that the problems I presented them with were way harder than the problems on the test.
I feel that I am preparing students for the test all year long, without referring to it all the time. They know it is coming, but more importantly, I want them to know that they are expected to learn. My goal is that they have the skills necessary to be successful in society, and quite frankly, testing standards are low enough, that simply performing well on state tests is not the only indicator I use to inform my knowledge of student learning.
The moral: When teachers are teaching to the curriculum and assessing students' progress, students should be proficient on standard tests. As professionals, teachers need to be more confident in their teaching strategies and in believing that what they are doing for their students will result in student achievement. I make sure that my students know that I surely have not been teaching them all year just to pass a test. The skills I am providing them with will be necessary throughout their educational careers and their lives beyond. Teaching to the test is a result of teacher FEAR at the expense of student motivation to learn. Teaching for all students needs to be rigorous, challenging, with motivation to learn for authentic purposes at the heart, and based on state curriculum. If we challenge our students and lead them to successful experiences, they should walk away from state testing feeling relieved and proud.
Posted by: T Russell | October 14, 2006 02:52 PM
As a parent in Florida who has devoted the past three years to attempting to have the school district adopt an
acceleration policy, I can only encourage parents to do as suggested in the above article. I attracted much more attention when I had data to support my concerns.
It is my opinion that parents must become educated and demanding so the achievement gap is not allowed to appear to be closing by the lowering of the ceiling on student achievement rather than the raising of the floor.
Our children are worth the fight. They need our voice or they will remain left behind via the pressures of NCLB.
One old and tired advocate,
Diane Hanfmann
Posted by: Diane Hanfmann | October 7, 2006 09:01 AM
I also live in Texas and agree that there is too much emphasis on the TAKS test. Students are punished if they do not do well on this test. I have one child who fell into this area. All elective classes are taken away, and they have to take "TAKS enrichment classes" in the subject they did poorly on. By taking away an elective course, the student says why bother and does not try harder. When we were in school the standardized test were used to see how well teachers were doing their job, and I feel that it needs to go back to that standard.
Posted by: D Gray | September 29, 2006 09:01 PM
In Kansas, everything centers around standardized testing; for my son, classes seem to only focus on reviewing material learned 3 and 4 years ago, and on test-taking strategies. The 'gifted' program at the high school is a joke. Are students legally required to take NCLB tests? Has anyone tried getting a group of gifted students together to boycott taking standardized tests until the school provides challenging classes? I don't want to hurt my local school, but I'd be willing hold my kid's high test scores hostage until they respond to our needs.
Posted by: C. Drabkin | September 25, 2006 02:56 PM
I live in Texas and the TAKS tests have taken over the school curriculum. My 3 gifted students receive perfect scores or one wrong on all tests and all practice tests. There are an unbelievable amount of required meetings for parents related to these tests, and too much pressure is put on the kids. The students could learn so much more if they didn't have to spend time learning that "C" is usually a good guess. I wish they just took the test at the end of the year and didn't spend all year learning how to take it.
Posted by: Diane Linn | September 24, 2006 05:21 PM