Monthly Archives: July 2009

Raising Test Scores

4 Replies

With so much emphasis on standardized test scores, I wonder: what is the goal of the classroom teacher? I get the impression–based on the public outcry, the constant refrain from the superintendents of my district, and the questions of my administrators–that my objective should solely focus on raising the state test scores.

In fact, at the PLC conference I attended this last week, one speaker (Richard DuFour) listed the proven and undesirable ways we can raise standardized test scores:

  • increase drop-out rates (to reduce the number of kids taking the test),
  • send more kids to special education (to allow for more accommodations and possibly exceptions),
  • eliminate electives (to reduce the students’ focus),
  • redraw attendance boundaries (to ensure certain students go to specific schools),
  • warehouse low performing students (to create a sacrificial school), and
  • focus on the “bubble kids” (to try and just raise the scores for certain kids).

Now I can tell you my school/district has definitely implemented three of these sad strategies. Some of the decision-makers even seem proud of these decisions.

However, I come back to student capacity; this is what our classroom focus should be. If we overshoot the standards and refrain from just adding more to do, then we have a good shot at raising scores. But more importantly, we can increase student abilities.

My standardized test scores skyrocketed with two simple tactics: I simply reworded my questions to match the state test (took old esential questions and reworded them) and used the state test expectations to be the introductory exercises to more difficult concepts and skills. For example, I taught the summary and thesis paragraph explicitly en route to teaching the literary analysis paper. I basically reviewed old skills as I taught the new ones. When asked by my principal what I did to raise test scores, I basically said “nothing really.” I don’t think she believed me, but it’s true. I just reorganized and reworded what I did before.

Anyway, how many of the tactics listed above has your school used to raise test scores?

I Hate To Say I Told You So, But…

1 Reply

“California could lose out on millions of federal education dollars unless legislators change a law that prevents it from using student test scores to measure teachers’ performance, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is expected to announce in a speech today.”

Besides the numerous arguments about how test scores as an evaluative measure are short-sighted and erroneous, this type of federal mandate, in my opinion, goes too far. The States themselves are supposed to be in charge of their own educational systems, and this type of declaration threatens local control of education.

How sad that a cash-strapped and already struggling education system is now being potentially coerced into an evaluative measure that the educators know is flawed and could fundamentally change education in the state.

FYI: Here are the points Duncan says States need to adhere to in order to gain the federal funds:

  • “Lift restrictions on the growth of charter schools;”
  • “build data systems that show individual student progress under specific teachers and principals;”
  • “seek out new ways to turn around perennially struggling schools; and”
  • “sign on to efforts to develop common academic standards that are tough enough to withstand international scrutiny.”

Side note: When discussing data systems no one in charge talks about student capacity, only test scores.

Reading Makes You Smarter!

1 Reply

I know. At first glance this seems to be a “no, duh” statement, but how many students have asked you “why do I need to read?” or ” If I need to know stuff I can just look it up”? While the movie Idiocracy may spring to mind upon hearing this, I think the article I read by Martha Brockenbrough simply clarifies what we, as teachers, have always known: reading makes us smarter.

The first section of Brockenbrouhg’s article details how reading improves people’s vocabularies. She notes how the word frequency of speech is about 400 words versus the 627 words of children’s books. This means that “the language in a children’s book is likely to be more sophisticated than your average conversation.”

Brockenbrough also notes the rarity of words in print. She reveals how reading exposes people to more words (meaning more thoughts and ideas too if extrapolated out) using the following interesting stats:

  • In newspapers “68.3 words per 1,000 are ‘rare.’”
  • “In children’s literature, 30.9 words per 1,000 are rare.”
  • “On prime-time TV, it sinks to 22.7.”
  • “In conversations between college graduates, it’s even lower–17.3 words per 1,000.”

Does this mean reading a child’s book provides more benefits than watching TV or talking with a college graduate? Maybe. Still, the idea is an interesting one.

Brockenbrough then goes on to discuss how reading affects what we can do. She notes that when factors are adjusted (people of the same abilities being compared), readers can just do more than non-readers. Besides having the ability to perform more actions than non-readers, readers were much “less likely to be sucked in by misinformation,” a skill, in my opinion, more important nowadays than ever before.

Lastly, according to Brockenbrough, reading can also help to “compensate for the wear and tear time can put on a mind.”

While this article may not have any huge “a-ha” moments, it does provide some interesting statistics about reading in general. These are the types of stats I sometimes put on my white boards every couple weeks just to remind my students of the value of reading.

Even though some reading stats scare me, I always hold out hope that the right book or the right piece of information will inspire my students. Maybe one of Brockenbrough’s stats will inspire even one student to pick up a book and put down the remote or controller.