Hi Dr. Sartre,

I would recommend that you check out the Kingsbury Institute  located in Portland, Oregon, founded by Gauge Kingsbury. It is an educational non-profit founded to answer all sorts of assessment related questions. The portion of their research that seems most applicable to K-12 education and standardized testing is to focus on measures of student growth instead of measures of student proficiency for the purpose of improving instruction and schools. Both types of measures are needed (proficiency and growth) but proficiency measures should be used on at an administrative level to check for consistency across schools, districts, counties, states etc. or races, socioeconomic classes, regions etc.

For the improvement of student learning (which is the purpose behind standardized testing), growth measures are much more meaningful than proficiency measures because  we all learn at variable paces. Our learning is not a steady climb but a twisty path with both inclines and declines. Comparing all 2nd graders to one another as though they're all supposed to know the same things by April of 2nd grade is pointless if our purpose is to improve instruction. Adaptive assessment, in-class formative assessments, standardized growth assessments, the careful triangulation of data for decision making, all of these practices are better than traditional standardized, non-adaptive, proficiency assessments.

Thank you for the interesting idea of using adaptive and growth assessments. However, arguments are made that everyone should meet a certain standard or reach a certain level of proficiency before they are able to graduate. If someone cannot attain proficiency in Algebra I (for example) then it is probable that they will not be ready for college or a career with a lack on a basic foundation of math. Therefore, I can see the argument on why standardized tests that measure proficiency also make sense. However this leads me to wonder if students with learning disabilities should receive accommodations and if they are currently already being accommodated in the U.S. Is it right to inhibit someone with a disability from graduating because of a bad graduation test score?

Yes exactly. Proficiency measures do have a place in assessment strategy, and as you say, an end of course assessment in a high school course is one appropriate use. However, what decisions does the school choose to make based on those scores? Are they looking for other data sources like classroom assessments to confirm or challenge results? A) let's lower the stress for a proficiency exam by making the score one piece of a student's overall grade. We can't rightly defend the test as the perfect measure of knowledge and skills so let's not apply it is though it is. B) let's use authentic, performance based assessment in the classroom to measure individual students ability to apply algebraic thinking and let these assessments also count as a component of the students' evaluation. C) let's not use evaluation results to shame or punish or reward good test taking skills. Let's create multifaceted student assessment strategy that reports, for the purpose of student growth, which specific skills the student demonstrates consistently and which continue to be a struggle. 

As to students receiving accommodations, the answer is yes. Students with diagnosed disabilities often receive extra time, a quiet testing space, and more opportunities to take breaks. But should one have to have a medical diagnosis to take stretch breaks during testing? How many adults sit at their desks for two or three hours at a time productively? For those concerned with cheating, if we lowered the stakes for one test and made assessment multifaceted, wouldn't that also lower the drive to cheat? 

Thank you, this is extremely helpful information. I agree on how we should make the assessments for graduation multifaceted, because standardized testing by itself cannot completely and accurately measure student capability.

Timon, you have indicated that this is to be regarded on a federal level. Until we prescribe and utilize a curriculum that is the same across the country we will not have standardized testing provided by the federal government that is fair for all students involved at any level. The students in one state have different learning environments and different presage factors than students of another state. There is also a difference in vocabulary understanding between ethnicities. How can you meet this on a federal level? Also, consider students with varying handicaps or special needs. How can you devise one test to accommodate all of these on a federal level? I aver you cannot. Even textbook publisher created tests only successfully evaluate about 50% of the standards they indicate (see Lebler, D., Burt-Perkins, R., & Carey, G. (2009). What the students bring: examining the attributes of commencing conservatoire students. International Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 232-249. doi:10.1177/0255761409335950). This is based upon the philosophy of a behaviorist tradition and leads to teaching to the test (see Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review Of Education, 38(3), 323-342. doi:10.1080/03054985.2012.689693) which is what we want to avoid (see U.S. Department of Education. (2015, October 24). Fact sheet: testing action plan. Retrieved March 06, 2017, from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-testing-action-plan).

The federal government should not be involved in summative or formative testing at all. These should be developed by each state according to the peculiarities of their particular state and educational environment including their presage factors. The states then have an obligation to answer to the colleges and whatever admission testing, if any, they utilize.

Thank you for this information and sources. I agree that each state should make their own individual test, however I believe that it such measures can be implemented at a federal level. In the No Child Left Behind Act, states were required to administer their own state standardized test. Although the federal government did not make the test, they required states to create one. Similarly, the federal government will inhibit states from only using standardized testing as a graduation requirement. States can achieve this goal set by the federal government by including formative assessments and/or taking various other factors into account such as grades. Correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding of what the federal government is allowed to do, I do not want them to provide a federal standardized test, I only want them to inhibit states from standardized testing to be a graduation requirement. 

Furthermore, on the U.S. Department of Education Fact Sheet it says, "For example, a consortium of states - through the Innovation Lab Network supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers - are working to develop and implement new formative and summative performance-based assessments that more effectively capture evidence of student mastery of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions students need to succeed." The fact sheet is in support of new innovative ways of assessment and uses formative testing as an example. 

What is needed at the federal level is not the test but the assessment strategy. Policies around the right balance of formative, summarize, classroom, and district wide assessment could help schools prioritize the right things, such as sound instructional design and innovative technology use instead of standardized test prep. Teacher evaluation strategy is another issue that could be handled federally with states left to devise specific policy. Let's make teachers aware of their students assessment results, and let's use the results to inform professional development. Failure to engage in professional development could result in negative consequences, but it is a misuse of summative assessment data to tie it to teacher compensation.

I have been teaching students for about seven years that mostly are products of our public education. I have significant concerns as for the ability of students of the test taking generation. As most teachers jobs are in contest for the performance of the students do in the testing. In my organization we refer to the millenials as the generation that we taught to pass the test, and nothing more. I have no data or scholarly sources, just experience.

The local state assessment chief let us know that by question number 8, the result of the assessment is close to accurate. Why add 47 more items?!?

Also, our Smarter Balanced Assessment in mathematics in the US tests language knowledge, not content knowledge. The Consortium has published so many pages about how it approaches item writing for maths. However, the fact is that the items show a lack of grammar information and language adaptation to make the content clear to language learners.