home | contact | faq

action items

If you missed the October 19th meeting with the representative of CTB/McGraw Hill concerning the Terra Nova tests and the home reports, here is a quick summary of the important points of the evening.

Bonnie Williams, the CTB/McGraw Hill rep, gave a predictable presentation following her company line. She did, intentionally or not, interweave information on the state-mandated testing with information on the Terra Nova and other testing introduced this year in Readington. To be clear: the Terra Nova, the Inview and the I-know testing have nothing to do with the state-mandated tests and they are not required by anyone except our own administration.

Bonnie did make an effort to point out the need for other types of assessments, such as teacher evaluations. At one point she noted that the Terra Nova test is "a snapshot of one day. It might be good, it might be bad, it might be typical. We hope it is typical." At another point in the evening, Superintendent Irene Benfatti noted that the results of the tests will be used by teachers to "target instruction" and to modify curriculum to better serve the needs of our students. So, we hope the snapshot reflects a typical day in the life of our students, but we are going to modify our instruction based on the once-a-year results either way?

To the credit of the administration, this meeting was very different from the one on October 13th, in that considerable questions were allowed from parents and in that the attitude of the speakers was more subdued, more reflective, and more respectful of parental concerns. It should also be noted that there is suddenly lots of talk about student portfolio assessment in our district. The previous public comments of soon-to-be-retired Jim Gillock notwithstanding, almost every speaker from the administration mentioned portfolio assessment in a positive light at least once. Even Bonnie Williams suggested that test scores be integrated with student portfolios! Standardized test scores do not belong there, of course, but the comment is telling.

The questions from parents were centered on the subject of this meeting, rather than the standardized testing issue as a whole. Many questions were about the anxiety and stress children felt on test days. One Principal related a story about a teacher who tried to relieve student stress by placing a sticker on each student's forehead, telling him or her it was a "think dot". The students were to press it anytime they were stumped on a problem. We looked in vain for evidence of think dots on the foreheads of the administration figures there.

More seriously, some key information did float to the top during the Q&A. Irene Benfatti did mention that the next round of tests at the start of the school year may be delayed a few weeks to allow for students and teachers to get settled. Bonnie Williams confirmed that the Terra Nova test being given next year would be identical to the one given this year. That means that the teachers who were proctors this year will have the knowledge needed to prep their next students. Do you think scores will rise?

Bonnie also noted that parents are not allowed to see this "secure" test, although it is common knowledge that some parents in the district did, in fact, see the test before it was given. Examples from some tests were shown at this meeting, although most of the examples were of the "constructed response" type where a student actually writes out an answer. The examples are not representative of the whole test, although most parents will never be able to confirm that for themselves. In fact, there is some confusion as to whether Readington even gave the segment of Terra Nova with constructed response answers.

One line of questioning dealt with young students who cannot yet read or read well being given a test where they are required to read the questions. Another dealt with students who, for reasons of boredom or anxiety, simply start guessing on the test. Bonnie Williams heroically attempted some answers; "attempted" being the key word. Her response that CTB/McGraw Hill statisticians adjust for such things or that if a child was guessing he or she might have problems in that area anyway did little to assuage parental concerns.

 Bonnie Williams can't be faulted for singing the company line at this meeting, she's just trying to make a buck. Folks in our administration, on the other hand, need to press their "think dots". This non state-mandated testing has been stressful on students and teachers, plus it is likely to be inaccurate or untrustworthy at best, due to that stress and due to the fact that some students simply guess or can't even read the questions. The company that produces the tests admits that they "hope" it will represent a typical day. We know that these tests, "aligned" to our curriculum or not, can only sample the total amount of knowledge and learning we would like to find in our classrooms. Otherwise, the tests would be three or four times the length they are now. We know that teachers, as Irene Benfatti put it, have "angst" about the testing in their classrooms. So, why are we spending the money, spending the time and enduring the trauma for something with so little potential return?

Perhaps the real concern on the part of our administration is that they will look bad when state-mandated test results come back or that there are some teachers in our district who require outside guidance to determine what an individual child needs or what changes to their lessons are needed. If so, more testing is hardly the way to improve quality. Teachers who need help are far better off being mentored by colleagues who have figured out how to individually evaluate students successfully. A little push by the administration for teachers to come on board with portfolio assessments and to come up to date with the best practices that do already exist would be helpful too. Parents and taxpayers in Readington contribute to a significantly higher percentage of district funds than in other New Jersey districts not because we want our children to be compared to a quarter of a million other strangers on a bubble-test, but because we want a superior, child-centered education for our children that recognizes them as individuals. The state testing is intrusive enough--do we really need to add an additional burden? The October 19th meeting certainly did not bring us to "yes".