We Need to Administer the Test

I have never been a big fan of standardized student assessment. In fact, over the course of my career I have continued to lambast the annual administration of the Iowa Assessment. Calling it like I saw it, it was an antiquated test best left in another decade (or two). Then the Iowa Statewide Assessment of Student Progress (ISASP) came along. Granted, it took a lot of years to get it done but we finally crossed the finish line. Yes, it required several legislative sessions, rules being written (then rewritten again when-get this: they were followed), and even argument between the state board of education and legislature about who had plenary authority on the  matter. Indeed it is far from a perfect instrument. But it is a huge improvement over what we had previously administered. Two key features include the fact it is criterion referenced and is aligned to the Iowa Core Academic Standards.

Criterion referenced means students are measured by whether or not they know the content, as opposed to norm referenced which simply measures how well the students perform compared to their peers across the state. When this new statewide assessment was first administered in 2019, most school districts braced themselves for significantly depressed scores, particularly when compared with the previously administered Iowa Assessment. Why? Well, the new test was designed to be more rigorous. By comparison, the Iowa Assessment was based largely on a students' ability to recall information as opposed to applying critical thinking skills. Indeed this was and is a huge flaw of a test that relied on multiple choice response. Contrast that with the IASAP where there are fewer multiple choice questions; and instead short answer response, and questions that require the pupil to think. This no doubt leads to a more rigorous assessment. That coupled with the perception that schools across Iowa held the belief that, in general didn't really have a strong alignment of instruction to the core academic standards. 

When we administered the test in the spring of 2019, we ended up being pleasantly surprised with the results. While all would (or should) agree there are areas of improvement that we can build on, the results were not as depressed as we thought they would be. In fact, in many instances they were quite good. In retrospect, the evidence seemed to suggest that we did a decent job of preparing for a new assessment by first and foremost ensuring the content area depth of knowledge was much more than superficial recall. Further, I think we realized our alignment to the Iowa Core Academic Standards was much stronger than we had realized. 

We were in the midst of preparing for the 2020 version of the ISASP when we shut down last spring. In fact, an agenda item included on our March 2nd cabinet meeting included a discussion on the logistics of the administration of these tests. That meeting happened of course, but then two weeks later we closed and would remain so until school resumed this fall. The ISASP didn't happen in 2020.

Now we are beginning some of those preliminary conversations about the test this spring. Granted we haven't started those preparations in earnest because it is too early, but we are beginning the preliminaries. With these preparations a new debate has begun to emerge. Simply stated, there are some who think we shouldn't administer the test this year.

Perhaps those arguments are valid. We are experiencing a very unusual school year. Instruction is being delivered unevenly: some are participating in remote learning while others are onsite. Students who have to go into quarantine aren't always that motivated to keep up with their studies. Then of course there is the loss of instruction that occurred last spring. And there is a worry about how depressed test scores are going to impact the state report card. For the record, our vanity should have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the statewide assessment is administered this spring. Further, does anyone honestly believe the reason for poor test scores is going to be anything other than the pandemic? Give me a break!

Look, I get it. But here is the thing. We need to administer the test. We need this data to help us uncover where gaps in learning have occurred so we can mitigate and fill those gaps with high quality instruction. It will shine a light on what we have been saying for decades: access to in person learning with high quality instruction matters a lot. Absent that, we won't really know for sure how we are performing and how much students are really growing. All we will really succeed in doing is delaying access to valuable data that can be used to help us target and guide instruction. 

Thankfully we are no longer administering a norm referenced test. If there was ever a reason to completely discount the usefulness of understanding the relationship between one students test and your own child, it is now. We are already well aware there has been lost instruction. What we need to drill down to exactly at this point is what. We need know what they know. I'll say it again. We need to administer the test.