As you can see, I'm not anti-testing. But I do care that it's done right. It's not sufficient for me that a teacher says, "Oh, your kid is doing fine." In fact, I spent $$$ recently for an independent evaluator to administer a bunch of standardized assessments to confirm and more specifically zero in on what I had suspected all along was a learning challenge that the classroom teachers and school instructional support staff had pooh-poohed.

Can you explain your story in greater detail. Who was the independent evaluator and what school does your child attend? Which standardized tests were used at the school that your child attends?

Any good educator needs to be constantly assessing what he/she is teaching and what his/her students know. The question is, how do they do that? How are they communicating their results to others (because parents, other teachers, and administrators need to be certain kids are learning, too)? There has to be some level of consistency in the system so the stakeholders can understand and trust each other.

This idea that teachers have to be constantly explaining how they assess and what each student knows to others (parents, other teachers, administrators, etc.) has left them no time to do anything BUT assess, analyze, write reports and "goals", and communicate to all the supposed stakeholders (which seems to include everyone except the student). Without trust, there is all of this and no time to do the real job of planning creative lessons and interacting with the students. It is very demoralizing for teachers.

And test prep is all we did - that means that when we did reading, we used test passages, not books. When we did math, we used test questions from old SOL's, not any kind of innovative math instruction. In art kid couldn't be creative, they had to make a collage of images that related to some SOL standards in social studies, .

I can only speak to this and say that this isn't what is happening now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be really curious to dig into the data to understand exactly what they're describing as standardized/mandated testing. For instance, the chart shows that the average number of mandated tests in kindergarten is 6. Sure, my child probably did around that last year, if you count every single reading and math assessment done at the beginning, middle and end of the year to find out where the child was starting from (essential for differentiated instruction, which everyone seems to love), and to confirm how he was progressing. They were barely a blip for him, and I can't imagine how a teacher could feasibly determine everyone's skill level at the beginning of the year, and then provide parents with concrete feedback on how their kids were doing at the end of the year, without doing *something*.

I want to know this, too.

And I also want to know what prepping for the test means. If a test covers the curriculum in a meaningful way, you teach to the curriculum which is teaching to the test. In theory, I see no problem with this. If, however, the tests, curriculum, and teaching are not aligned, or if the curriculum or tests are not addressing the key knowledge and skills we value, and if teachers then "teach to the test/curriculum" then, yup, a waste of time.

Any good educator needs to be constantly assessing what he/she is teaching and what his/her students know. The question is, how do they do that? How are they communicating their results to others (because parents, other teachers, and administrators need to be certain kids are learning, too)? There has to be some level of consistency in the system so the stakeholders can understand and trust each other.

As you can see, I'm not anti-testing. But I do care that it's done right. It's not sufficient for me that a teacher says, "Oh, your kid is doing fine." In fact, I spent $$$ recently for an independent evaluator to administer a bunch of standardized assessments to confirm and more specifically zero in on what I had suspected all along was a learning challenge that the classroom teachers and school instructional support staff had pooh-poohed.

I can't speak about all schools, but in the Title I school where I worked a few years ago, kids in grades 3 took SOL tests in 4 subjects, grade 4 took 3, and 5 took 2, and I think 6 took 3. At the beginning of the year, two weeks were dedicated to school-wide practice SOL tests in each subject. That meant grade 3 students spend 4 complete days testing, grade 4 spend 3 days, and so on. Of course, during those 2 weeks, special ed teachers, counselors, and ESL teachers were forced to proctor the practice tests and couldn't teach. Specials were canceled, the library closed, and so on.

Then mid-year, the same thing happened again. Another 10 days lost to "practice" testing.

Then again at the end of the year.

So that's a total of 12 days spent testing for 3rd graders, for example. But that's just the SOL tests.

ESL students had an additional 2 days of testing each in each grade level (which meant another 2 weeks of testing and not proctoring exams for the ESL teachers).

There are other tests as well, in other grades, and they varied from year to year. But 12 full days of testing for an 8 year old, plus 6 weeks of disrupted instruction and facilities usage for the entire school, 2-3 months total of administering tests instead of teaching for numerous specialists, and a host of miscellaneous things that go along with that, and the process has completely taken over education. By the time I quit, I felt like a tester, not a teacher.

And test prep is all we did - that means that when we did reading, we used test passages, not books. When we did math, we used test questions from old SOL's, not any kind of innovative math instruction. In art kid couldn't be creative, they had to make a collage of images that related to some SOL standards in social studies, and in music they sang songs about what the native americans ate. The quality of this "education" was absolutely pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:I'd be really curious to dig into the data to understand exactly what they're describing as standardized/mandated testing. For instance, the chart shows that the average number of mandated tests in kindergarten is 6. Sure, my child probably did around that last year, if you count every single reading and math assessment done at the beginning, middle and end of the year to find out where the child was starting from (essential for differentiated instruction, which everyone seems to love), and to confirm how he was progressing. They were barely a blip for him, and I can't imagine how a teacher could feasibly determine everyone's skill level at the beginning of the year, and then provide parents with concrete feedback on how their kids were doing at the end of the year, without doing *something*.

I want to know this, too.

And I also want to know what prepping for the test means. If a test covers the curriculum in a meaningful way, you teach to the curriculum which is teaching to the test. In theory, I see no problem with this. If, however, the tests, curriculum, and teaching are not aligned, or if the curriculum or tests are not addressing the key knowledge and skills we value, and if teachers then "teach to the test/curriculum" then, yup, a waste of time.

Any good educator needs to be constantly assessing what he/she is teaching and what his/her students know. The question is, how do they do that? How are they communicating their results to others (because parents, other teachers, and administrators need to be certain kids are learning, too)? There has to be some level of consistency in the system so the stakeholders can understand and trust each other.

As you can see, I'm not anti-testing. But I do care that it's done right. It's not sufficient for me that a teacher says, "Oh, your kid is doing fine." In fact, I spent $$$ recently for an independent evaluator to administer a bunch of standardized assessments to confirm and more specifically zero in on what I had suspected all along was a learning challenge that the classroom teachers and school instructional support staff had pooh-poohed.

Anonymous wrote:Smart kids have no problems with the tests and enjoy them

I loved taking the old CAT test and got high scores every time so that must have made me smart. But then I ended up becoming a public school teacher and according to DCUM, that means I'm a dumb as a can of paint.

Plenty of "smart" kids in my W feeder MS struggled to understand what the tests were asking of them and had test-related stress for days before each round last spring. Others seemed to breeze through, but were resentful at what they perceived as a waste of their time --particularly during the second round which came just weeks after the first.

As a parent, I "opted out" DC by selecting an excellent private school. No high stakes standardized testing until HS. Lots of authentic assessments. Happy child with measurable progress.

NCS PEARSON INC 23062740 5/29/2015 Management Services $2,416,849.76
NCS PEARSON INC 23061703 12/4/2014 Management Services $4,469,086.23
NCS PEARSON INC 2361278N 8/25/2014 Management Services $2,520,756.00
NCS PEARSON INC 23062852 6/19/2015 Management Services $1,865,114.00
PEARSON NCS INC 23062941 6/25/2015 Computer Software Development Costs $117,174.93
NCS PEARSON INC 23062949 6/29/2015 Management Services $177,139.00
NCS PEARSON INC 23062550 4/27/2015 Management Services $2,828,135.86
NCS PEARSON INC 23062215 3/5/2015 Management Services $3,943,026.30
NCS PEARSON INC 23062385 3/31/2015 Management Services $3,699,914.00
NCS PEARSON INC 23061706 12/3/2014 Computer Software Maintenance Services $39,313.20
NCS PEARSON INC 23061444 10/24/2014 Management Services $1,750,808.00
NCS PEARSON INC 23061352 9/22/2014 Management Services $2,359,887.12
NCS PEARSON INC 23061591 11/19/2014 Management Services $2,032,314.54
NCS PEARSON INC 2361277N 8/25/2014 Management Services $1,709,763.62
PEARSON NCS INC 23062108 2/3/2015 Management Services $3,701,325.00
NCS PEARSON INC 23061863 12/22/2014 Management Services $258,049.52

Total: $33,888,657.08 and that is just Pearson in Virginia. What contractor wouldn't want a part of that? I'm sure I've missed some, but this was a quick grab.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Taxpayers are throwing away a lot of money on testing. Have we closed the achievement gap? No, why are schools throwing a lot of $ into testing? Wouldn't $ be better spent on reducing class size, enrichment learning, field trips, more books for the libraries, more IAs in classes?

+1000 As we become more pinched for money in this country, we cannot afford this nonsense. We know we have achievement gaps . . . this is not some news flash for educators. We need to move students forward as individuals in meaningful ways. The tests are not helping us to do that.

These testing companies have lobbied for this. They're enjoying dipping into the till. It's so hard to stop it once it stops. People making a buck will always trump what is best for kid's education.

Can you please post the numbers for how much VA contributes to these SOL testing services?

You have to look on the VA Dept. of Education website. It is buried. You have to look at the budget. Specifically, you need to look at the line item for Pearson. Pearson is the testing company that writes the SOLs. I've seen numbers quotes between $46 million to $37 million. However, those numbers don't include staffing that supports testing in each school division. Almost every school now has a testing coordinator. THis is a former classroom teacher whose job is to schedule the tests and keep data on the tests. THis salary is not under payment to Pearson, but it nevertheless takes money away from instruction. Another example, the principal at local elementary school spends half the day looking at data with the instructional coach. THe instructional coaches are, also, former classroom teachers whose job is to look at data from tests and support regular classroom teachers in their efforst to help the struggling students pass state tests. THese salaries are, also, not listed under testing, but this expense takes away from funding from classroom funding. Then each school division has one or several central staff members whose job it is to analyze data from the tests and put the positive spin on their school website. Again these salary numbers are taking away from funding additional teaching positions and lowering class size.

Start looking around your individual schools and see, how many staff members are devoted to data and testing. It's eye opening.

Since it's so buried, I'd appreciate it if you could provide the actual link. Thanks.

Here is one place you can start looking: http://datapoint.apa.virginia.gov/exp/exp_checkbook_voucher.cfm?ShowAll=Yes&FY=2015&AGY=228