The task force report & more...

The 1202 Task  Force presented its findings to the legislature's Join Education Committee last Wednesday. The full report can be read here.

This sentence really stood out to us:

[F]indings from research studies and public input made it clear that Colorado’s current system of State and local assessments has created far too many demands on time, logistics, and finances that are impacting the teaching and learning process in schools and undermining public support for the assessment system as a whole.

There are several positives that we take away from the report:

1) The Task Force recommended completely eliminating the state-mandated CMAS tests for 12th graders. They also recommended making the CMAS English and Math exams optional, to be decided upon by districts and schools.

2) Per the report, the Colorado legislature should "hold all schools and districts harmless from the consequences associated with School and District Performance accountability frameworks (including for low participation rates) through the 2015-2016 school year." Essentially, the Task Force recommends no punishment for schools and districts, such as our own, that failed to meet participation rates on standardized tests.

3) The Task Force recommends that schools be allowed  to administer paper-and-pencil versions of exams. This will help schools, such as our own, that find it difficult to have enough technology for every student.

However, the Task Force did not reach consensus on several key issues. In particular, they were split on whether state-mandated 9th grade Math and English exams and 4th and 7th grade Social Studies exams should be made optional.

We commend the Task Force for the work they have done, and we are thankful they have recognized the need to reduce standardized testing in Colorado.  That said, we believe there is more work to be done. The Task Force seemed to recognize this:

Task Force members recognize that the short-term actions recommended above neither fully address the depths of public concern about the current State and local assessment system nor fully capture the potential of a balanced and aligned system.

Testing, particularly in lower grades, it a still time-consuming and stressful process. Colorado students will still spend many days taking both the PARCC and CMAS exams in Math and English. School funding, including for technology, it still an issue at all levels.  We hope that education policymakers going forward will use the 1202 Task Force as a start point, but will also recognize that its recommendations are only a single step in the right direction to strike the balance between testing and education in Colorado.

Standardized testing, accountability, and student growth

As the Colorado legislature prepares to deal with standardized testing, questions arise surrounding the purpose of testing and its role in holding teachers, schools, and districts accountable.  This Sunday, the Denver Post editorial board presented their take on proposals that would reduce standardized testing:

Clearly, there are ways to slim down the testing volume for students, and such a task becomes less contentious and complex if those involved can agree on basic goals. 

One key goal should be the preservation of what is known as Colorado's growth model in assessing academic achievement. By measuring academic growth over time in addition to overall proficiency, the state can determine whether a district or school is moving students along as fast as their peers elsewhere in the state. 

It's a key measurement when it comes to questions of educational equity for low socio-economic students, and in measuring the relative success of schools in difficult environments. 

And while no one is talking about abolishing such a system — at least not publicly — that is what would happen if the state does not require a reasonable continuum of tests that can chart student progress over time.

Preserving Colorado's "Colorado's growth model in assessing academic achievement," sounds like an admirable goal, but as students who have supposedly been a part of this system, we question the idea that Colorado's current standardized testing system effectively monitors student growth.

Under the CSAP and TCAP testing system, students were monitored once per year, usually in March, in Reading, Writing, and Math.  Students also took science tests in 5th, 8th, and 10th grades.  Under the new PARCC system, students are tested in grades 3-11, with additional social studies and science tests in certain grades.  Furthermore, whereas students were previously tested solely in March, the PARCC tests occur in two separate segments, in March and in May. Proponents argue that this system ensures accountability: if students are tested every year, then the state should be able to track their progress. But we see several problems:

1) The standardized testing system doesn't provide feedback quickly enough for students, parents, or teachers. While school and district tests often provide immediate feedback, state-level testing does not. Students take standardized tests in March or May; schools don't receive the feedback until the next fall.  This gap makes it more difficult for schools and districts to utilize standardized testing.

2) Testing once per year doesn't measure progress in a manner which accounts for the income achievement gap.   Studies have repeatedly shown that the"achievement gap" that occurs as a result of socioeconomic differences is most pronounced over the summer. Consequently, a test designed to account for this gap would require testing students at the beginning and the end of the year.

3) The current standardized testing system doesn't always align with Colorado's curriculum. The high school CMAS science tests, for example, were aimed at 12th graders, but, per student testimony, required knowledge of physical and earth science, which are not  mandated high school courses.  This makes it difficult for schools to tell if students have fallen behind, or if they simply don't remember information from classes they haven't taken in years. 

4) The testing system takes too much time.  The PARCC testing requires students to take multiple math and English tests in both March and May; schools have to devote several weeks to administering these tests.  Are five English tests really better than one? From a student perspective, the answer is definitely no.

With so much focus on keeping teachers and schools accountable, we should make sure that Colorado's standardized tests are held accountable too.  And when the standardized system fails to account for "key goals," like measuring student growth, the state of Colorado owes it to the students to re-evaluate.  We hope this time they will.

Catching up on the 1202 Task Force and the 2015 Legislative Session

The Task Force created by House Bill 1202 has recommended reductions in standardized testing, particularly for high school students. According to the Denver Post:

Although it still must finalize a report to present to the legislature before month's end, the task force agreed to urge elimination of all testing for high school seniors and a reduction for juniors.

As high school seniors, we applaud this decision. We believe that the science and social studies testing that students face in eleventh in twelfth grade causes excessive stress for students, is expensive, and does not provide the state with valuable feedback.

Of course, the recommendations of the Task Force mean nothing if the Colorado legislature chooses not to act. That's why we were encouraged to see that standardized testing appears to be a core issue as the 2015 Colorado legislature session opens. Per Chalkbeat Colorado:

Senate Bill 15-073, sponsored by Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, would require the state to cut testing to the so-called federal minimums and to ask federal authorities for a waiver that would allow use of the ACT test as the only assessment in high school. While such a request was pending, the ACT test would temporarily be eliminated.

Senate Bill 15-056 is a repeat of Sen. Andy Kerr’s unsuccessful attempt to trim social studies from the closing days of the 2014 session.

Both these pieces of legislation are a step in the right direction. While the details still need to be ironed out, we are grateful that the Colorado legislature has recognized the need for reductions in standardized testing. Measures such as using exclusively the ACT would substantially reduce testing burden on high school students, while also aiding the college admissions process.

That said, legislation thus far only targets high school students, and we believe over-testing is a problem for all grades in Colorado. However, we also recognize that the Colorado legislature is somewhat hamstrung by federal requirements. Once again, per the Denver Post,

Beyond that, Colorado has little choice but to follow federal law mandating third- through eighth-grade math and reading tests, and that high schoolers be tested at least once. Students also must be tested in science once each in elementary, middle and high school.

Regardless, we hope that logic can prevail over partisan politics and the Colorado legislature can reduce standardized testing wherever possible.

Response to a recent Daily Camera article:

The Boulder Daily Camera recently ran an article relating to the potential consequences for school districts that did not achieve high enough participation rates on the CMAS tests this November.

In light of this, we thought it would be good to reiterate why we didn't participate. Rachel Perley wrote the following letter to the Daily Camera.


To the Editor:

I am one of a small group of Fairview High School seniors who organized the protest of the CMAS in mid-November. As you recently ran an article on the results and potential repercussions of only 16 percent of BVSD seniors taking the CMAS, I would like to clarify our main reasons behind our organized opt-out and protest. 

Our objective was to draw attention to the amount of time and money wasted in administering the CMAS. A state task force will review the CMAS this summer, so we found it necessary to act immediately and noticeably to induce change. 

During the protest, we collected 437 pounds of food to donate to Community Food Share and 20 boxes of school supplies to donate to the Family Learning Center. We did not sleep in; instead, we stood outside and demanded that we have a voice in our education while we worked to improve the Boulder community. 

As you can deduce from the student support of our opt-out, we students do believe that the perceived benefits of the test are not worth its cost. The state paid Pearson 36 million dollars to produce the CMAS. This same amount of money could have been used to pay 480 teachers’ salaries across the state.

In addition, the CMAS testing schedule interrupted our typical school schedule and caused us to lose almost two full days of instruction and learning time. 

The test also reflected material that is not required by the Colorado high school curriculum, including economics and geology. It is unreasonable to tie our teachers’ jobs to results from tests that cover material they are not required to teach.

We will not let the student voice die out of the discussion about using CMAS to measure student achievement in future years. We have been, and will continue, contacting our state and national legislators and school board with our perspective on this unnecessary standardized test.

Sincerely, 
Rachel Perley

Mary Beth Tinker's Letter of Support

Editor's note: Mary Beth Tinker, from the famous Supreme Court Case Tinker v. Des Moines that set the national precedence of students' First Amendment Rights, sent us a letter of support.

"I've been following and cheering the students of Fairview High School who are opting out of CMAS testing.  As a fan of students who put civics into action, it's heartening to see the students doing just that. 

When I was a thirteen, in 1965, I wanted to put civics into action, too, by wearing a black armband to school to mourn the dead in Vietnam. Administrators didn't like that, and I was suspended.  But if democracy means anything, it means that the people who are affected by decisions should have a say in the decisions. When the case went to the Supreme Court, we won by 7-2 in 1969.

As the students in Fairview articulate so well in their video, they did not have input into the house bill which requires the test. Instead, they were expected to passively sit by while the decision was made by legislators and for-profit testing companies.  With impressive investigative skill and critical thinking, the students decided that their time and resources could be better spent. And they went on to expose the fact that $36 million was being spent on the testing while funding for their schools has been cut by 6% since 2008.

The Fairview students are not alone. They are part of the growing voice of students, like those in Pennsylvania dressed up as rats and guinea pigs to testifying at hearings, saying, "We're not guinea pigs!"   And, there are many other students with the same feelings.

So, bravo to students who take their civics lessons to heart and put democracy into action! By standing up for themselves, they are standing up their democratic rights and for their education!

Thank you, Mary Beth Tinker"

John Merrow's take on the CMAS protests

John Merrow, education correspondent for PBS and president of Learning Matters, recently blogged about student opposition to CMAS.  He quotes several Fairview High School students about their views.  It's a great piece: http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=7361.

Testimony from a student who took CMAS.

Editor's note: The following comes from an email we received from a high school senior who took CMAS. At her request, her name, as well as the name of her school and district, are withheld. 

"I am a senior at [name of school], and did take the test today. Due to the reputation we have, we weren’t given the option to opt out, and if we weren’t there –for whatever reason- we would be required to make up the test on the day we get back.

"The science test included mostly Biology and Physical science topics, which we haven’t seen since freshman year (bio) or earlier (physical). The questions that didn't cover those topics, you would have had to take a specialized course, such as AP Chemistry, to fully understand. It was a fairly easy test with one or two harder questions: much like the ACT science section.

            "The social studies test consisted of various, unrelated, topics and some random questions about India, which we also haven’t seen since freshman year in AP Human Geo. The majority of the questions focused on insurance, bank statements, and mortgages. These topics are not only not required, but not always offered. I know I don’t go to a normal high school, but that isn't fair to give us a test on subjects that aren't offered. It will create a never ending loop. [name of high school] doesn't have the funds, resources, or space to create an economics class. Due to the fact that  [name of high school] doesn't offer these courses, we have a greater chance of not doing so well. By not doing well, we don’t get as much funding because we ‘aren't doing our job’. Not getting that funding re-starts the loop again.

            "The social studies topics are things that should start to be covered in middle school if not elementary school. They are important things to know, but because of this test, they will be crammed in the first few months of senior year, just so the school can get good scores. This means that schools will be teaching for the test, which already happens too much with ACT and SAT, rather than teaching for life- which is the ultimate test of what actually works.

            We have been promised since 3^rd grade that we can stop these tests in 10^th grade. There is a reason why the cut off was 10^th grade. ... People are also starting to realize that standardized tests don’t tell you about the student. That is why more and more colleges and universities are becoming test optional schools each year. Why should the school's funding be based off of a test when college admission isn't?

            "One of the worst parts of the test is that they didn't account for the mass of people on the server at once. Not only is the entirety of [name of school district] on ONE wifi, but with the amount of people taking it, the app kept crashing. I was in the lucky class that had to sit in a classroom for 2 hours while we were trying to log on. This error was because of the fact that there were about 120 other people at our school alone trying to access the test, let alone the rest of the district and state. I talked to a student from a school in a different district who also took the test and they had issues with this as well. The amount of problems that would have occurred had the rest of [name of school district] also taken this test is ridiculous. The app doesn't work for that many people and having a test on a computer is un-reliable. Many computers (we were mostly on Chrome books, again because of lack of funding and space) ran out of power and had many glitches. ...
            "I know none of the seniors at my school took this test seriously and we put random answers just to get [it] done. 
            "Thanks!"