Comments on: Year-round prep for standardized tests?

By: 5th grade mom

5th grade mom — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:30:50 +0000

Moving both tests to the end of the year just means the kids won’t get a break from test prep at all. As it was, from September to January they were drilled on ELA test prep, then from January to March all they received was test prep for the Math state test. After the Math test, if they were lucky they actually learned something or maybe had a field trip during the last couple of months of school. I am curious how the children will be taught to both tests simultaneously, all year.

By: Marge Kolb

Marge Kolb — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:05:06 +0000

Currently, children are tested on info. they should have learned at the end of the previous school year plus things learned up to the point the test is give (e.g. January for ELA in past years). So, having the tests moved to May does not mean students will have more time to prepare - it just means they will be tested on more new info. It doesn’t matter what month tests are given - they will still be based on one year of learning. I think moving the tests to May stinks because students won’t get a break from test-prep all school year…

By: Myriam Charles

Myriam Charles — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:33:55 +0000

Having both test in the same month could create a great confusion for teahers and students.However having Math and ELA at the end of the school year is great. That will allow the teachers to work althrough the school year. If I take for instance, after the Math if you test any student on ELA the result will be less than the child’s ability why; because in order to get ready for math teachers stop teaching on English Language Art. This is unacceptable for the teachers to work only for the tests. I strongly support, the fact that students will be tested at the end of the school year.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:20:12 +0000

Actually, the math tests have always been later than the ELAs. They used to be in February. So now they are in March. Not a big difference. My daughter got a 4 on her 6th grade math exam this year. She described some of the questions and I couldn’t believe how easy they were. Also, the raw score cut-offs for the 4 level keep going down. They used to be in the low 700’s. Now they’re in the high 600’s. My point is that the state exams may be a decent indicator of proficiency, meaning an average student in English and math should get at least a low 3 without much test prep. However, the exams are a poor indicator of excellence and shouldn’t be heralded as proof of excellence. My daughter is an excellent student, but I don’t base that assessment on her state exam scores. AND, I don’t want the second half of her school year focused on test prep. The late schedule may make sense for the 3rd and 4th grades, as a few months maturation at that age can make a big difference. By 5th grade, students need to focus on sophisticated learning and not test prep. If we have to take the darn tests, let’s get them over with by Feb. or March.

By: Marina

Marina — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:19:54 +0000

This is a great idea. My daughter scored better in Math simply because she had an extra 2 months to prepare. Test are important even if we don’t like them. The extra time will make a difference. There must have been evidence of this with the high scores in the math this year. It was not easier, it was given 2 months later. How can you test a child in January immediately after December holidays and only a few months into the year. It makes for a miserable first few months of school and unnecessary stress. Test matter and more times helps!!!

By: Ilene

Ilene — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:55:12 +0000

This is truly a crummy idea. How else can the State push off the small amount of time the teachers have to be free of testing and free to fully embrace their creative teaching styles? And I hate to think about the group of children who stress about test taking no matter how good their teacher may be about downplaying its importance. Just stinks all around!!