<http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010501/cgtu050.html> Tuesday May 1, 11:32 am Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: Designs for Change National Test Experts Find Basic Flaws in Chicago's Use of Iowa Tests To Make Critical Decisions About Students and Schools As Chicago Testing Begins, Experts Question Repeated Use of The Same Test Questions CHICAGO, May 1 /PRNewswire/ -- On the first day of Iowa reading and math testing in the Chicago Public Schools, nine nationally recognized test experts issued a statement concluding that Chicago's use of the Iowa Test to make critical decisions about students and schools is fundamentally flawed. Their statement concluded that this spring's Iowa Test results cannot be used fairly to make critical decisions about (1) whether students should be promoted or sent to summer school and (2) whether year-to-year variations in school test averages should be used for sanctioning schools. While Chicago's Mayor has called for larger gains on the Iowa reading test as evidence that Chicago's children are learning to read, the test experts called the Iowa Test, as it is now being used in Chicago, ``a broken thermometer.'' The nine experts on how tests are constructed and how they impact schools and students are Gene Glass of Arizona State University; Clifford Hill of Columbia University; Richard Figeuroa of University of California; Robert Sternberg of Yale University; Walter Haney of Boston College; Gary Orfield of Harvard University; Ernest House of University of Colorado; Gerald Bracey, the former director of testing for the state of Virginia; and Donald Moore of Designs for Change in Chicago. The experts' statement cites two major related reasons why this spring's Iowa testing procedure in Chicago is fundamentally flawed: (1) The version of the Iowa test being used in Chicago in spring 2001 (CPS 94 or Form L) is the same identical test that has been administered six times before in the last six years in spring, summer, and mid-year testings. This version of the test has the same reading passages and math problems that teachers have seen six times before. These repeated opportunities for school staff to learn the exact questions on the test while administering the test in past years fundamentally undermine the accuracy of important decisions about students or schools that rely primarily or significantly on spring 2001 Iowa reading and math test results. (2) The Iowa Test is not systematically focused on the learning standards required by the Illinois State Board of Education and the Chicago Public Schools in such subjects as reading. Thus, school or student scores on this spring's Iowa Test are not appropriate measures for judging school or student progress in order to make "high stakes" decisions. For example, in the critical area of third grade reading ability, the Iowa Test reading passages are too limited to judge whether third graders can read competently, argued Donald Moore of Designs for Change, one of the statement's signers. The third grade Iowa Test in reading consists of reading passages 150 to 200 words long, followed by an average of four questions. However, the level of reading that is needed to meet state and national standards for third graders requires that children understand the plot of a story, understand how characters in stories change, and understand texts that describe complex processes, such as ``how dolphins communicate.'' In contrast to the Iowa reading test, the reading passages for third graders on the Illinois reading test average about 500-600 words, and each passage is followed by about 17 questions. The reading passages on the Illinois reading test are two to three pages long and include pictures and diagrams with captions. Such reading passages require the more complex reading skills that a third grader needs to become a competent reader, Moore argued. Chicago's third graders are being drilled to pass the Iowa reading test, because their Iowa score will be decisive in determining whether they are promoted to the next grade, what job rating their principal gets, and whether their school is put on a list of sanctioned schools whose tests scores have dropped a few percentage points over one or two years (so-called ``B'' and ``C'' schools). Thus, Chicago's principals and teachers are being sent two contradictory messages, Moore argued. They are told to teach students to meet high reading standards, but the real pressure is to raise scores on the Iowa reading test. This tremendous pressure to improve Iowa Test scores has, according to extensive classroom observations by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, turned many Chicago schools into Iowa Test preparation factories from March until testing begins. The Consortium researchers, who observed a cross section of Chicago classrooms, concluded that: > Students often spend a considerable chunk of their day working in test > preparation workbooks and taking practice tests [that reflect the types > of questions on the Iowa test]. They are often moved back into single > row seating to get comfortable with how they will sit during the tests > .... The American Educational Research Association recently highlighted the dangers of exactly the testing practices that Chicago is carrying out this spring: > "Because high-stakes testing inevitably creates incentives for inappropriate > methods of test preparation, multiple test forms should be used or new test > forms should be introduced on an regular basis, to avoid a narrowing of the > curriculum toward the content sampled on a particular form`` (Position > Statement Concerning High Stakes Testing in PreK-12 Education). Ironically, another recent study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research showed that Chicago students who are taught more challenging lessons and given less test preparation score higher on the Iowa Test. Further, this pattern holds true for both low-scoring and high-scoring students (Fred Newman. Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: Conflict or Coexistence? January 2001). The statement by the national testing experts concerning Chicago's testing program that is being released today underscores the fact that that one minimum requirement for the type of ``high stakes'' testing that Chicago is carrying out is test security. For example, the ACT college admission testing organization constantly changes the specific questions on their tests. No student competing for college admission would believe it was fair if they were judged by a test that had been given six times before. Because of fundamental flaws in Chicago's Iowa testing program, the national experts concluded that this spring's Iowa Test results are inappropriate as ``the primary factor or as a significant factor'' in determining (1) ``whether students are promoted to the next grade or retained after summer school and required to repeat a grade'' and (2) ``whether schools will be sanctioned, based on average school-wide gains or losses on the Iowa Test over one or two years'' (for example, whether they are classified as ``B'' or ``C'' schools. The experts' conclusions echo the consensus statement made by the Steering Committee of the Consortium on Chicago School Research in March 1998: > The Consortium Steering Committee concludes that CPS needs a new > standardized testing and reporting system in reading and mathematics, in > order to have a more reliable basis for judging school and system > improvement in these key areas (Anthony Bryk. Academic Productivity of > Chicago Elementary Schools. March 1998). One proposed alternative to the current high stakes Iowa testing process is the ``New ERA Plan,'' prepared by a coalition of Chicago educators and school reform groups (the LSC Summit Coalition). Under the New ERA plan, the Iowa Test would be eliminated, and the Illinois achievement tests (which are focused on the Illinois learning standards) would become one of a set of tools for assessing the progress of students and schools. However, the Illinois tests themselves would not play the same high stakes role that the Iowa Test now plays, and a key to success would be to successfully implement classroom-based assessments in addition to standardized tests. MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X34343641 SOURCE: Designs for Change -- This is the CPS Science Teacher List. To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For more information: <http://home.sprintmail.com/~mikelach/subscribe.html>. To search the archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/science%40lists.csi.cps.k12.il.us/>
