After completing the assessment readings for this part of the module, the underlying theme that stood out to me was a lack of teacher input in regards to assessment planning and development. This is concerning for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that many "test creators" and "policy makes" are completely out of touch with the reality of full-time classroom teaching.
In their 2005 article "Towards the Peaceful Coexistence of Test Developers, Policy Makers, and Teachers In an Era of Accountability," authors Invernizzi, Landrum, Howell, and Warley assert that it is important to clarify that a focus on the empirical base in designing literacy assessment and instruction is long overdue and is clearly an essential foundational step toward improved literacy —to ignore the empirical base is little short of nonsensical. Moreover, a focus on science finds generally widespread support among those concerned with enhancing the literacy development of U.S. schoolchildren. But an unintended side effect of a headlong rush toward science and accountability in assessment that does not take into account the practicalities of everyday teaching may create a disconnect between what assessments tell us about students’ performance and what teachers need to know to instruct them" (p. 610). While I agree that the assessment we use must be empirical, it is important to note that there is so much about teaching literacy that though vital, is also inherently subjective--how do we reconcile the two?
Although acknowledging this dichotomy and the incredible workload combining the two presents, Invernizzi et al. seeming to place the blame on the teachers: "Rather than give up what they consider to be valid, instructionally useful assessment practices such as running records of students’ oral reading, most teachers have continued with their own procedures while “adding on” what is externally imposed" (2005 p.617). If the authors use running records as an example of a redundant assessment that teachers refuse to give up, thus creating more work for themselves, I shudder to think about what else they suggest we do away with. The authors continue by noting that "our current concern with policy compliance and the identification of at-risk students must be tempered with a more wholesome attempt to illustrate opportunities to help children in specific areas of literacy need" (p. 617). Unfortunately, the stop at acknowledging such a need rather than lay out a practical way to address it.
In contrast, Caldwell does not seem to find assessments such as running records redundant, contending that the answer to raising the validity and reliability of assessment lies in tying good reading behaviors to assessment and recognizing "the skill and knowledge of teachers, and use their judgement to provide additional information on student progress" (2008 p. 255). This rarely happens. A perfect example of this are the new Florida Standard Assessments. It is well known that the "test creators" and "policy makers" were not comprised of, nor did they consult with any teachers for the creation of these assessments--literacy included, and our other state mandated options are rife with problems as well: The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) focuses on phonemics and fluency through third grade, and though it has it expanded through sixth grade, it continues in its narrow focus--what about comprehension, and interpretation? It is also noted that very little information is provided in the test materials or on the website about the development of items and stimulus materials, not to mention it's writers nor the sources used to generate items on the actual test (Buros Center for Testing Fair Report).
The Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) is not much better. Even when it works (it was not operational in our county for K-2 this entire school year). The test is clearly inaccurate. Based on a student's ability to read a list of words, a passage is selected for reading. This pays no heed to the child's ability to comprehend the passage (or indeed, read it accurately), and it is often necessary to pause, and move to a lower text or vise versa. The picture cards are frustrating as well, because the images are illustrations rather than actual photos, they are often unclear or ambiguous, frustrating the reader as they try to tell you what is depicted. Furthermore, the test doesn't change in the lower grades, so the student takes the exact same test in the beginning and end of the school year which affects validity.
As Afflerbach notes in the 2004 NRC policy brief, high stakes testing is accompanied by "numerous liabilities," not the least of which are their limited ability to portray a student's reading ability, and their negative effect on students' self-esteem and motivation (p. 2-3). I understand that assessment is necessary, and often the information gained, valuable, but educators must be involved in their creation and logistics on a wider scale. We must remember that the goal of literacy assessment is to target our instruction and track the growth of students. As far as state mandated testing goes, we have yet to accomplish this.
In their 2005 article "Towards the Peaceful Coexistence of Test Developers, Policy Makers, and Teachers In an Era of Accountability," authors Invernizzi, Landrum, Howell, and Warley assert that it is important to clarify that a focus on the empirical base in designing literacy assessment and instruction is long overdue and is clearly an essential foundational step toward improved literacy —to ignore the empirical base is little short of nonsensical. Moreover, a focus on science finds generally widespread support among those concerned with enhancing the literacy development of U.S. schoolchildren. But an unintended side effect of a headlong rush toward science and accountability in assessment that does not take into account the practicalities of everyday teaching may create a disconnect between what assessments tell us about students’ performance and what teachers need to know to instruct them" (p. 610). While I agree that the assessment we use must be empirical, it is important to note that there is so much about teaching literacy that though vital, is also inherently subjective--how do we reconcile the two?
Although acknowledging this dichotomy and the incredible workload combining the two presents, Invernizzi et al. seeming to place the blame on the teachers: "Rather than give up what they consider to be valid, instructionally useful assessment practices such as running records of students’ oral reading, most teachers have continued with their own procedures while “adding on” what is externally imposed" (2005 p.617). If the authors use running records as an example of a redundant assessment that teachers refuse to give up, thus creating more work for themselves, I shudder to think about what else they suggest we do away with. The authors continue by noting that "our current concern with policy compliance and the identification of at-risk students must be tempered with a more wholesome attempt to illustrate opportunities to help children in specific areas of literacy need" (p. 617). Unfortunately, the stop at acknowledging such a need rather than lay out a practical way to address it.
In contrast, Caldwell does not seem to find assessments such as running records redundant, contending that the answer to raising the validity and reliability of assessment lies in tying good reading behaviors to assessment and recognizing "the skill and knowledge of teachers, and use their judgement to provide additional information on student progress" (2008 p. 255). This rarely happens. A perfect example of this are the new Florida Standard Assessments. It is well known that the "test creators" and "policy makers" were not comprised of, nor did they consult with any teachers for the creation of these assessments--literacy included, and our other state mandated options are rife with problems as well: The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) focuses on phonemics and fluency through third grade, and though it has it expanded through sixth grade, it continues in its narrow focus--what about comprehension, and interpretation? It is also noted that very little information is provided in the test materials or on the website about the development of items and stimulus materials, not to mention it's writers nor the sources used to generate items on the actual test (Buros Center for Testing Fair Report).
The Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR) is not much better. Even when it works (it was not operational in our county for K-2 this entire school year). The test is clearly inaccurate. Based on a student's ability to read a list of words, a passage is selected for reading. This pays no heed to the child's ability to comprehend the passage (or indeed, read it accurately), and it is often necessary to pause, and move to a lower text or vise versa. The picture cards are frustrating as well, because the images are illustrations rather than actual photos, they are often unclear or ambiguous, frustrating the reader as they try to tell you what is depicted. Furthermore, the test doesn't change in the lower grades, so the student takes the exact same test in the beginning and end of the school year which affects validity.
As Afflerbach notes in the 2004 NRC policy brief, high stakes testing is accompanied by "numerous liabilities," not the least of which are their limited ability to portray a student's reading ability, and their negative effect on students' self-esteem and motivation (p. 2-3). I understand that assessment is necessary, and often the information gained, valuable, but educators must be involved in their creation and logistics on a wider scale. We must remember that the goal of literacy assessment is to target our instruction and track the growth of students. As far as state mandated testing goes, we have yet to accomplish this.