MCPS officials don't count.
To be fair, the PARCC did force our school to get better wifi, so it wasn't completely worthless. But still, I was understandably shocked when I learned that MCPS was responding to the complaints of over-testing.
The thing is, people don't hate final exams. Like, they suck, but it's just something we have to do. Even when we (and I'm using that term to mean 'people I know') could technically get a C, or a D, or whatever, on the exam and not be affected, we still try. Sort of. We don't try as much for the tests that really matter, but we don't answer the questions randomly. We don't write complaints about the test in the middle of (or in lieu of) the essays. (If someone went A-A and only wanted a B, the 50% rule would mean that they actually could answer the multiple choice randomly, though it would be worth putting in some effort on the free response to avoid a zero. Not to mention if they only wanted to pass the class.)
I think it's fair to say most people don't hate final exams as much as the PARCC.
And final exams, compared to the PARCC, aren't as terrible in...any way. They cause some stress, but we have a good idea of what's going to be on the test and the teacher's grading style. (It helps a lot that we aren't losing class time to take them.) They take some preparation, but nothing like the PARCC, because their format is about the same as the tests we've already taken and acclimated to. They're at the end of the year, when we've learned everything we're going to, rather than weeks before. And they even have some educational value, because sometimes, they're the only reason we revisit the stuff we learned in class.
That's not something I'm very happy about, as I've written previously, but I digress.
Is testing us twice on what should be the same material a waste of time? Certainly. Which one would we pick? Final exams.
The discussion, however, is centered on how to restructure the final exams. There are four options.
- Option A: replace final exams for middle school courses with unit or marking-period assessments
- Option B: eliminate final exams for high school students
- Option C: schedule final exams over multiple class periods
- Option D: replace final exams for high school level courses with marking-period assessments such as unit tests, projects, and portfolios
I don't, to be honest, care much about the middle school students, because in hindsight, middle school didn't matter much. The rest of the options, though... As lovely as the idea of not having to take final exams sounds when going B-A, it sounds absolutely terrible when going A-B, and honestly, with the PARCC's disruptive influence, that may be the more likely one. Besides, I am morally opposed to grading on a trend, because as we all learned in math, two points do not make a trend.
Students aren't the only ones who need to brush up on basic skills.
Seriously, though, MCPS's grading policies. I love that if I get the same grade in both quarters I basically don't have to worry about the final exam. I love it. It makes the final exams a relatively relaxing time. But it is absurd to have precision of grades to one significant figure and then report the GPA with three.
Anyways. Option C sounds absolutely terrible. First of all, transition time for tests is inevitable, so it would take more time to take the test. Second of all, nobody wants to study three nights for one test (forty-five minute periods would stretch a two-hour test over three periods). Yes, it sucks when math's your first test, but at least after you're done, you're done. You're free to promptly forget everything you learned until the last week of August (which, let's be honest, everyone does). Now you can clear some room in your head for that nomenclature. Two hours is a long time to be sitting, but it's two hours and then freedom.
Okay, I admit I'm biased, because I'm the type of person who needs to get into things to do well and doesn't have a problem sitting still. The points are still valid.
Option D is the most palatable. I still don't really like it, because I like projects that are highly stressful but, in the end, practically guaranteed As. However, replacing final exams with projects and unit tests (at the teacher's discretion, I assume) seems reasonable. Some AP classes use projects in lieu of final exams already. It's sort of weird, in fact, to have a test in an English class where the bulk of the assignments have been take-home essays.
(Not that that stopped the state of Maryland from creating multiple choice English formatives.)
Of course, there are some classes in which the bulk of the grade is made up from unit tests (math), so that might make that a bit difficult. And everyone's just going to calculate what they need on that last assessment to get the desired final exam grade. But it could be reasonable, as long as teachers don't respond to unit assessments being used as the final exam by adding more unit assessments.
To be honest, I don't think removing final exams (unless it was executed really, really poorly) would have a huge effect on students. The larger problem is this accountability testing we do. You'd think that if America was worried about its standing in the international rankings it would, you know, try to emulate schools with better rankings.
I'm not saying that we don't need accountability. We do. National standards are good, though it's totally unreasonable for us to put the United States of America as a single entity in international rankings. I mean, the list is topped by "Shanghai", which, like, isn't a country. (I feel obliged to note that all entities associated with China in the top ten have had significant Western influence.) And this is America, where individual states make their rules about schools. I don't know who decided that America was being tested as a country, but I hope whoever it was didn't take a US Government class.
But I'm getting off-topic again. The point is that the top-performing countries listed generally have testing as students advance between schools, which are often entrance exams but sometimes diagnostic. These tests also often test a wider range of subjects than math, reading, and science.
Of course, there are also things these countries do that I personally wouldn't support, like putting students into tracks. Testing only once at the end of elementary, middle, and high school doesn't sound bad, though. For one thing, it would take up less time, for obvious reasons, and wouldn't intersect with any sort of final exam. For another, people might actually be moved to take them seriously. I can hardly speak for other people, everyone I knew considered the MSAs—our annual state assessment—a joke. Now, if there was only one test before each promotion, and we only were subjected to one pep rally for the test, we might be able to bring ourselves to get anxious about it, especially if the stakes were made clear.
We might even move ourselves to study for it as if it were, like, a real test with, like, real consequences for doing poorly.
MCPS is considering getting rid of final exams because of the PARCC, but the problem isn't final exams. The problem is the PARCC, and the plethora of nationally (or state...ly) standardized tests we take, which consume more time and are less relevant to the specific content learned in class. The problem is the fact that we've started to just throw tests at the problem. And maybe, before we do away with final exams and instate the PARCC, we should think a moment about whether this is necessarily the best way to ensure accountability. After all, if people aren't meeting the bar for math after fifth grade, is it really the end of the world? There's still time to correct that, and more importantly, nobody really learns anything in elementary school.
Also, let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that China, which literally invented standardized tests, tests its students less than America.
No comments:
Post a Comment