High stakes

This week's readings were all about the craze of high stakes testing. Allington and Pearson discuss the lack of scientifically based evidence in support of certain assessments, like DIBELS. Even DIBELS' own website says that the assessments should not be used as a "diagnostic tool". Assessments like DIBELS were developed after the NRP reported on the importance of scientifically based research, but then schools were handed a seeming ruse. DIBELS, originally intended for progress monitoring, assesses students on their ability to read nonsense words to check students' reading ability. As far as I know, I do not ever recall having to read nonsense words as an student or adult. Not only is DIBELS using unauthentic assessment, its perpetuation has distracted teachers and administrators from actual research-based practice. Additionally, the focus on progress monitoring has taken away time for the rich text discussion that is so important to students' learning and reading comprehension. The frustration and burn-out for teachers having to administer these types of tests with such frequency is causing a massive decline in the number of years that teachers remain in the field. 

Dr. Caitlin Dooley says that in response to high stakes testing and non-scientifically research based monitoring, teachers, parents, and administrators need to pay attention to the legislation being passed on these kinds of tests. By collaborating with one another, educators can work toward ridding their schools of these harmful practices and replace them with authentic assessment. Keeping up with legislators and current legislation can also prepare parents and educators to defend their students' and children's rights to a sound education. All that extra monitoring is just taking time away from the wholesome activities students need to learn. High stakes testing does not give the whole picture of a student's progress, but the tests are being used as if they do. Rather than making judgments based solely on these kinds of tests, the student's progress in class and the teachers remarks should be taken into consideration. This is a more authentic and realistic picture of how students have improved over time. Besides, NCLB laws (that ignited many of the high stakes testing) were intended to aid those students who may fall behind their classmates without additional help. If we, as educators, actually want to help these students, shouldn't we be doing what's best for them rather than allowing an unauthentic assessment create a greater gap in learning achievement?

Allington, R., and Pearson, P. D. (2011). The Casualties of Policy on Early Literacy Development. Language Arts 89(1), 70-74.

Baker, E. A., & Dooley, C.(2010, March 1). Teaching language arts in a high stakes era. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org.