This discussion has centered around an assumption that is, in my view, flawed–the view that kids require sufficient external motivation to perform well on standardized tests. In other words, the tests have to “matter” to the kids, whatever that means. I disagree.

For the past several years I have worked with very low performing students, who each year show marked improvements on their standardized tests (CST’s for Algebra 1). My perspective is formed by many hours of reading Alfie Kohn (Punished by Rewards, and No Contest) and I find the following to be true:

One. Nothing is worse that being bored. Something to do is better than nothing, and the CST tests are something.

Two. Kids will do what they feel they are prepared for and they feel they are able to do well. For example, kids like doing math and math stops sucking when it starts making sense. They don’t need to know how it will benefit them, and they don’t need to be bribed. They just need to feel good about their prospects for success and they will strive to succeed because it feels good. Likewise, tests are cool when they stop being a two-hour beatdown for kids, and the kids feel they might do well. It is our job to nurture their confidence and they will perform.

I know this seems a bit polly-anna, but in my experience I have found it to be true.

Also, connecting to comments seen in other parts of this blog I just want to say that merit pay is the worst idea EVER, even tough it seems unfair that some of us bust our asses while others sit on them. Merit pay will cause a wholesale flight from inner city/poor schools because transience is a huge problem (40% turn-over in a year) and poor kids present more challenges educationally than their wealthier counterparts–challenges that lie outside the sphere of control for the teacher yet adversely affect student performance.

Eagerly awaiting a retort.

A: Nothing. There aren’t any content standards for Japanese.

(whispered to seatmate: Is the answer “Nothing”?)

Todd and I have had these discussions before, and many others besides. Dan, I have one question for you:

I teach Japanese. Tell me in your own words how the CST’s reflect ANYTHING about the quality of my classroom instruction.

Matt

You’ve assessed my hypothetical perfectly. Yet you still believe that this coloring assignment can lead to reliable data about attainment of standards? You really think that all it takes is a teacher pep talk to get those kids to color seriously? Maybe that’s why we are so far off from each other on this. It takes more than words, to quote that thankfully long-lost 90s hair band.

I believe that if students don’t have any tangible reason to do well on something, they won’t (except a small handful). I see evidence of that every day. So do you. Look at your grade book and see the amount of effort put in to work that *does* have meaning. Or maybe 100% of your students faithfully attempt every single assignment. I envy you if that’s the case. Do you honestly think the amount of effort is going to increase if we take that meaning away, as is the case for the CSTs at my school?

More realistically, they’re an in-class coloring assignment because you can do as half-assed a job as you want and still stay invisible. It’s a situation that’s eager for a small amount of give-a-damn to bring every student on board. We’re on diff. planets on that assertion, though.

Yeah, I can’t get down with you on that one at all. Sounds good, I suppose, but it jibes only with how my cynicism wants the world to be, not how it actually is.

I put in ten minutes a week to show my kids some interesting multiple-choice problems. I talk positively about the CSTs. I suppress the cynicism in front of my kids. I know the days of kids bubbling doodles or profanity or their names into their scantrons are over for me.

I agree that motivation is unfortunately factored into testing, but a majority measurement? That all depends on the teacher, I guess.

For the past 2 years, from the beginning of the year, I’ve been telling administrators that we need to start talking to the kids about STAR now; it’s never too early; let’s discuss the scores with parents at back-to-school-night; let’s mention that if we meet our API, we’ll revoke the no-hat policy, but let’s mention that now so students are thinking about it all year. It’s January and we’re just now getting started in pimping this test.

We’re looking into gift certificates and an iPod giveaway, but you’re right about the ROI on that one. Plus, I don’t know how long we’ll be able to keep that up nor how long it will actually interest the kids. But if that’s all it takes to see a big leap in scores, what’s that say about test? The system that demanded we give these tests needs to come up with a way to hold the kids accountable for doing well (or you may choose to call that giving kids an incentive for strong performance; six of one, half a dozen of another). That message needs to be loud and clear.

In the meantime, however, school sites need to get creative and figure out ways to let students know that it’s an important test for us and get those carrots out in front of the students. But then that means these tests are more a measure of how well we motivate our kids, not how well we teach them standards. And you (heart) these tests? To me, these are just another flaw in a horribly flawed system. Yeah, the tests are here and we have to make the best of them, but let’s not gloss over the fact that these tests don’t quite test what they should. If motivation equals better performance, the tests don’t measure skill; they measure motivation.

I don’t have hard data but I’m pretty sure it got a few kids interested in testing who wouldn’t have been. Considering the administrative and financial cost, however, I don’t think the return on investment was all that high.

My grade inflation scheme fares a little better by that measure since it costs me neither time or money. I’ve vetted it through my administration who approved and cautioned me not to announce it until STAR season for the same reason you cite, that kids might sandbag until the STAR and then start praying. Frankly, I haven’t met a kid yet with that kind of risk addiction, but I play along.

These case studies you bring up, though, they’re such outliers it’s hard for me to imagine them. Like the F student who pulls an Advanced, suckering a D out of the system? I anticipate all my A students to pull down Advanced or Proficient, results which require no action on my part. The most likely event is a couple of B students might score Advanced and, imo, get a deserved grade bump. If you’re attached to any of the other objections you list, most of which are philosophical disputes, I’d have some questions to ask you.

Listen, though. The motivation for my grade incentive isn’t to reward students for doing well on the STAR. It’s my buy-in. It’s one of several ways I tell them that, hey, these tests matter to me, and I want them to matter to you.

Nothing did more to improve my testing experience (both in terms of class scores and their accuracy) than when I decided to abandon my resentment and invest myself as much into testing as I had the rest of my practice.

Admission to honors classes is by teacher recommendation and an entrance essay. In social science, AP courses are open enrollment; in English, it’s teacher recommendation; I’m not sure the process for science and math, but I believe it’s teacher recommendation and course history.

How are you seeing that breakdown of test results so quickly? Where is “there” that you are getting those results from? At my school, teachers do not have access to test data until just about September. The system that holds all that is called the Cruncher and we only have access to this year’s students in the Cruncher and we can only access the Cruncher from our classroom. We have no idea how instruction impacted last year’s kids unless those results are hunted down, which I’ve done for the last 2 or 3 years. This is the first year our administration handed out those results to all staff members, but I don’t think we got it until late September, early October. And even then, very little training for making sense out of the data (I know what it means, but lots of other teachers do not).

Kids classify for course offerings based on prerequisites; a few courses require teacher recommendation. My school offers lots of AP classes and that’s one of our selling points, the number of AP offerings we have. And out of all those AP classes, I’ve been told that we removed 1 student from an AP class who tanked on the CST. That’s the only way CST affects course placement and I believe that student was more of an example than a pattern. Out of 2500 students, 1 kid’s schedule was affected. Students in honors English classes are there because of teacher recommendation and an entrance essay, not CST results. We schedule those classes long before the test results come our way.

Does that bring anything to light? The CST data doesn’t impact our kids at all. So how does performance on the CST tell us much of anything when there’s no incentive to take the test, no punishment for failure and no reward for success?