“Real change in teaching and learning requires real change in assessment” – Justin Reich.
This arcsparks post is 100% inspired by EdWeek’s Justin Reich’s excellent post “Everything Hinges on Assessment“, which powerfully backs up, and shows examples in support of, his quote above. My post below was also left as a comment on Justin’s blog.
In other words one might say, to profoundly change the game we need to change the scoring. Then, how people play the game to win has to change too.
And the only scoring on K-12 frequent enough, direct, clear, important to all the players, and timely enough to matter to anyone at all is tests, whether in-course or end-of-course.
I”ve been with a non-profit working for 11 years to provide a digital tool for a changed game that very few if any are seriously playing yet.
Specifically math instructional software for blended learning to ensure that students deeply understand math concepts. In the absence of hard-edged assessment, that tests the highest-order conceptual student outcome results we’re spec’ing into our instructional design, we rely on the soft evaluations made by educators on a personal level – i.e. on specific visionary educators, whether at district, site, or class level, seriously insisting on more than is tested for.
Assuming that our program and the educator are actually successful together, this is still an unstable situation, susceptible to specific educators leaving the district/school, etc. to be replaced by another with de facto lower goals for student learning. To put it another way, sustained learning above a floor-level set by the assessments is an unstable exercise in defying gravity.
At my shop, our experience is that a good program will show results on any level of quality assessment of the content, and we are perfectly happy to see results show up (and they do) on fill-in-the-bubble assessments. Nonetheless our strategy is to design for max conceptual understanding, regardless of the assessment.
Quality in instructional materials and programs is extremely expensive – much more expensive than the market thinks it is. Economics alone would dictate designing as cheaply as possible, to the lowest quality required to meet the assessment spec: designed for the test. Fortunately for my shop, we’re a non-profit so our bottom line is learning, not earning and we avoid this temptation.
Bottom line: couldn’t agree more with the points in this post; dramatically raising the assessment’s requirements on student learning will be a profound, irresistable, stable game-changer for educators, students, parents, and all publishers.