I am not a big believer in the catch phrase “data-driven” instruction.
First of all, instruction cannot be driven by a test given in March and May, because by the time the results come in, the school year is over. So instead the school year is driven by test prep. In my previous school, this meant that 5th graders were taking practice PARCC tests on the computer every Friday. This was not to gauge their progress towards mastery of the standards so much as it was to get them familiar with the technology and format of the test.
Taking so much time to practice disrupts instruction, yet the acquisition of these computer skills is being sold as critical for college and career readiness. But I bet you that any employer would be willing to pay for a typing class for a potential employee who was a well-spoken, intellectually sound writer.
Secondly, the data, which the PARCC provides, only covers a subset of the knowledge and skills required by the Common Core Standards. (One test cannot test every single aspect of every standard. For instance, there are speaking standards that are not tested.) By their very nature, a cumulative test has to be less than thorough. So when a teacher sees the test data in September for his or her new students, even the breakdown of strengths and weaknesses will not be enough to “drive instruction.” That teacher will still have to their own assessments. This is particularly true in Reading and Language Arts where there are so many subskills behind the reading and writing done on the test. The PARCC does not even give a reading level that would help guide a teacher to suggest appropriate independent reading books.
Thirdly, every teacher takes a course on assessments. While earning my M.A.T. at Johns Hopkins, we discussed, administered, and analyzed data from various types of standardized tests and teacher-made assessments. We learned about formative and summative assessments. The PARCC is a summative assessment that claims to be able to do what a formative assessment does, but it cannot.
The goal of formative assessment is to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching and by students to improve their learning. More specifically, formative assessments:
- help students identify their strengths and weaknesses and target areas that need work
- help faculty recognize where students are struggling and address problems immediately
Formative assessments are generally low stakes, which means that they have low or no point value. Examples of formative assessments include asking students to:
- draw a concept map in class to represent their understanding of a topic
- submit one or two sentences identifying the main point of a lecture
- turn in a research proposal for early feedback
The PARCC is not filling some void in education. It is replacing sound educational philosophy and practice. The students who the school districts deem in need of better scores, will be subjected to more PARCC-like practice (presumably from PARCC prep books that Pearson is gearing up to crank out and profit from or test prep programs like Study Island). But in reality those students are not getting any closer to better reading comprehension or writing skills. They are just going to be even more turned off by learning and school.
Finally, I don’t know about you, but I do not want data to drive the instruction of my children. I would much prefer sound education research and known best practices to drive instruction. Or better yet, well-trained happy professionals who feel fulfilled by their job and have enough energy and freedom to infuse their lessons with creativity. I want instruction driven by innovation. Or by the interests of the students. Or by current events. Or by the students themselves, as they are given tasks that make them think, create, and perform in ways that make them prepared for the challenges they will face not only in college or careers, but in life.
The phrase “data-driven instruction” is thrown around as if teachers have been wandering around aimlessly with no clue how to plan lessons. But the fact is that teachers are masters of assessment, all kinds of assessment. We devise our grading policies and in the end calculate the grades. We can often assess a student’s level of understanding by the expression on their face or their body language.
Now with the new software available, parents can see the individual assignment and test grades of their children as they are entered by the teacher. They get a running average throughout the marking period from the comfort of their own home.
We do not need any more data.
We know the United States is behind. We know there is an inexcusable divide in the quality of education that children get based on their race or socioeconomic status.
We have the data.
What we need are leaders that are not bound by the purse strings of lobbyists. We need local leaders to step up and take education back from the greedy hands of corporations and politicians and take it upon ourselves to ensure our children get the quality education they deserve. That means parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and board members.
Let’s stop letting others do the thinking for us. Because they are getting it wrong. Gravely wrong.