Category Archives: TNReady

Posted on by

TC Talks Testing

Nashville education blogger TC Weber talks about testing (and a lot of other things) in his latest post.

Specifically, he talks about the release of data on TNReady tests and the comparisons being made to previous TCAP tests.

Keep in mind: We didn’t have a complete administration of TNReady in 2016. Which means the 2017 test was the first year for TNReady. It also means the comparisons being made are based on different tests taken two years ago. So, you have analysis of 5th grade results and “growth” on TNReady being made in comparison to 3rd grade results on TCAP.

It’s apples and oranges. 

Here’s what TC has to say:

Let’s approach this in a different manner though. Say I annually run a 5k race and each year my timing goes up a little bit, so I’m feeling like  I want something different. After year 5 I change to a 10k race. My time for that race is substantially lower. What conclusions can I draw from that difference in time? Am I really not that good a 5k runner? Is the course really that much harder than the 5k I was running? Is my training off? Am I not that good a runner?
I’d say there are very few conclusions, based on comparing the results between my 5k and my 10k time, that can be drawn. It could be that the length of the course was a bigger adjustment than anticipated. It could be that conditions were worse on the day I ran the 10k vs the 5k. It could be that one course was flatter and one was hillier. A kid could be good at bubble in questions but not write ins. How do we know that improvement isn’t contingent just on familiarity with the course? Or the test?
I know people will argue that we should all be training to run hills instead of a flat races. But does running hills well really indicate that I am a better runner? Terrain is just another variable. My liberal arts education always explained to me that in order to get the most accurate measurement possible you need to remove as many of the variables as possible.
One year of data is not a real indication of anything other than, kid’s are not very good at taking this test. In order to draw any meaningful conclusions, you would have to have a set of data that you could analyze for trends. Simply taking a 10k race and comparing it’s results to a 5k race’s results, just because both are races, is not a valid means to draw conclusions about a runners abilities. The same holds true for students and testing.
If TNReady really is the amazing test we’ve all been waiting for, why not take the time to build a reliable set of data? The results from year one don’t really tell us much of anything. Because we skipped* 2016, it’s even MORE difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the transition from TCAP to TNReady.
TC talks about these challenges and more issues. Check it out.
*We didn’t actually skip the 2016 test. Instead, many students attempted to take the test only to face glitches with the online system. Schools then were given various new times for testing to start only to have those dates changed and ultimately, to see the test cancelled. 
Kids were jerked around with messages about how the “important test” was coming up next week only to have it not happen. Teachers were told they’d be proctoring tests and instead had to quickly plan lessons. Our schools and students adapted, to be sure. But, there is no way to give back the instructional time lost in 2016.
Now, we have students taking THE test in 2017 only to see a slow drip of data come back. Students are told the test matters, it will count toward their grades. Teachers have growth scores based on it. Schools are assigned ratings based on it. But, getting it right doesn’t matter. Well, unless it does.
Oh, and we spend a lot of money on a testing system that produces questionable results with data coming back at a time that reduces usefulness.
What’s next? This year, we’ll try again to administer TNReady online across the state. That didn’t work so well with the previous vendor, but maybe it will this time. Of course, online administration adds another variable to the mix. So, 2018 will be the first time many students have taken a fully online TNReady test. Assuming it works, online administration could address the challenges of getting results back in a timely fashion. But, the transition could impact student performance, once again calling into question the legitimacy of growth scores assigned to students and schools.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

Muddy Waters

Laura Faith Kebede of Chalkbeat reports on the challenges in generating reliable TVAAS scores as a result of TNReady trouble last year. Her story cites a statistician from the Center for Assessment who explains the issue this way:

Damian Betebenner, a senior associate at Center for Assessment that regularly consults with state departments, said missing data on top of a testing transition “muddies the water” on results.

“When you look at growth over two years, so how much the student grew from third to fifth grade, then it’s probably going to be a meaningful quantity,” he said. “But to then assert that it isolates the school contribution becomes a pretty tenuous assertion… It adds another thing that’s changing underneath the scene.”

In other words, it’s difficult to get a meaningful result given the current state of testing in Tennessee. I wrote recently about this very issue and the problem with the validity of the growth scores this year.

Additionally, two years ago, I pointed out the challenges the state would face when shifting to a new test. Keep in mind, this was before all the TNReady trouble that further muddied the waters. Here’s what I said in March of 2015:

Here’s the problem: There is no statistically valid way to predict expected growth on a new test based on the historic results of TCAP. First, the new test has (supposedly) not been fully designed. Second, the test is in a different format. It’s both computer-based and it contains constructed-response questions. That is, students must write-out answers and/or demonstrate their work.

Since Tennessee has never had a test like this, it’s impossible to predict growth at all. Not even with 10% confidence. Not with any confidence. It is the textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges.

The way to address this issue? Build multiple years of data in order to obtain reliable results:

If you measure different skills, you get different results. That decreases (or eliminates) the reliability of those results. TNReady is measuring different skills in a different format than TCAP. It’s BOTH a different type of test AND a test on different standards. Any value-added comparison between the two tests is statistically suspect, at best. In the first year, such a comparison is invalid and unreliable. As more years of data become available, it may be possible to make some correlation between past TCAP results and TNReady scores.

So, now we have two challenges: We have two different types of tests AND we have a missing year of data. Either one of these challenges creates statistical problems. The combination of the two calls for a serious reset of the state’s approach to accountability.

As I suggested yesterday, taking the time to get this right would mean not using the TNReady data for accountability for teachers, students, or schools until 2019 at the earliest. If our state is committed to TNReady, we should be committed to getting it right. We’re spending a lot of money on both TNReady and on TVAAS. If we’re going to invest in these approaches, we should also take the time to be sure that investment yields useful, reliable information.

Why does any of this matter? Because, as Kebede points out:

At the same time, TVAAS scores for struggling schools will be a significant factor to determine which improvement tracks they will be be placed on under the state’s new accountability system as outlined in its plan to comply with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. For some schools, their TVAAS score will be the difference between continuing under a local intervention model or being eligible to enter the state-run Achievement School District. The school growth scores will also determine which charter schools are eligible for a new pot of state money for facilities.

TVAAS scores also count in teacher evaluations. TNReady scores were expected to count in student grades until the quick scores weren’t back in time. If all goes well with the online administration of TNReady this year, the scores will count for students.

The state says TNReady matters. The state evaluates schools based on TVAAS scores. The state teacher evaluation formula includes TVAAS scores for teachers and TNReady scores as one measure of achievement that can be selected.

In short: Getting this right matters.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

Seeping Scores Sour School Board

Members of the Murfreesboro City School Board are not happy with the slow pace of results coming from the state’s new TNReady test. All seven elected board members sent a letter to Commissioner of Education Candice McQueen expressing their concerns.

The Daily News Journal reports:

“However, currently those test scores seep ever-so-slowly back to their source of origin from September until January,” the letter states. “And every year, precious time is lost. We encourage you to do everything possible to get test results — all the test results — to schools in a timely manner.

“We also encourage you to try to schedule distribution of those results at one time so that months are not consumed in interpreting, explaining and responding to those results,” the letter continued.

A Department of Education spokesperson suggested the state wants the results back sooner, too:

“We know educators, families and community members want these results so they can make key decisions and improve, and we want them to be in their hands as soon as possible,” Gast said.. “We, at the department, also desire these results sooner.”

Of course, this is the same department that continues to have trouble releasing quick score data in time for schools to use it in student report cards. In fact, this marked the fourth consecutive year there’s been a problem with end of year data — either timely release of that data or clear calculation of the data.

TDOE spokesperson Sara Gast went further in distancing the department from blame, saying:

Local schools should go beyond TNReady tests in determining student placement and teacher evaluations, Gast said.

“All personnel decisions, including retaining, placing, and paying educators, are decisions that are made locally, and they are not required to be based on TNReady results,” Gast said. “We hope that local leaders use multiple sources of feedback in making those determinations, not just one source, but local officials have discretion on their processes for those decisions.”

Here’s the problem with that statement: This is THE test. It is the test that determines a school’s achievement and growth score. It is THE test used to calculate an (albeit invalid) TVAAS score for teachers. It is THE test used in student report cards (when the quick scores come back on time). This is THE test.

Teachers are being asked RIGHT NOW to make choices about the achievement measure they will be evaluated on for their 2017-18 TEAM evaluation. One choice: THE test. The TNReady test. But there aren’t results available to allow teachers and principals to make informed choices.

One possible solution to the concern expressed by the Murfreesboro School Board is to press the pause button. That is, get the testing right before using it for any type of accountability measure. Build some data in order to establish the validity of the growth scores. Administer the test, get the results back, and use the time to work out any challenges. Set a goal of 2019 to have full use of TNReady results.

Another solution is to move to a different set of assessments. Students in Tennessee spend a lot of time taking tests. Perhaps a set of assessments that was less time-consuming could allow for both more instructional time and more useful feedback. I’ve heard some educators suggest the ACT suite of assessments could be adapted in a way that’s relevant to Tennessee classrooms.

It will be interesting to see if more school districts challenge the Department of Education on the current testing situation.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

Apples and Oranges

Here’s what Director of Schools Dorsey Hopson had to say amid reports that schools in his Shelby County district showed low growth according to recently released state test data:

Hopson acknowledged concerns over how the state compares results from “two very different tests which clearly are apples and oranges,” but he added that the district won’t use that as an excuse.

“Notwithstanding those questions, it’s the system upon which we’re evaluated on and judged,” he said.

State officials stand by TVAAS. They say drops in proficiency rates resulting from a harder test have no impact on the ability of teachers, schools and districts to earn strong TVAAS scores, since all students are experiencing the same change.

That’s all well and good, except when the system upon which you are evaluated is seriously flawed, it seems there’s an obligation to speak out and fight back.

Two years ago, ahead of what should have been the first year of TNReady, I wrote about the challenges of creating valid TVAAS scores while transitioning to a new test. TNReady was not just a different test, it was (is) a different type of test than the previous TCAP test. For example, it included constructed response questions instead of simply multiple choice bubble-in questions.

Here’s what I wrote:

Here’s the problem: There is no statistically valid way to predict expected growth on a new test based on the historic results of TCAP. First, the new test has (supposedly) not been fully designed. Second, the test is in a different format. It’s both computer-based and it contains constructed-response questions. That is, students must write-out answers and/or demonstrate their work.

Since Tennessee has never had a test like this, it’s impossible to predict growth at all. Not even with 10% confidence. Not with any confidence. It is the textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges.

Here’s a statement from the academic article I cited to support this claim:

Here’s what Lockwood and McCaffrey (2007) had to say in the Journal of Educational Measurement:

We find that the variation in estimated effects resulting from the different mathematics achievement measures is large relative to variation resulting from choices about model specification, and that the variation within teachers across achievement measures is larger than the variation across teachers.
You get different value-added results depending on the type of test you use. That is, you can’t just say this is a new test but we’ll compare peer groups from the old test and see what happens. Plus, TNReady presents the added challenge of not having been fully administered last year, so you’re now looking at data from two years ago and extrapolating to this year’s results.
Of course, the company paid millions to crunch the TVAAS numbers says that this transition presents no problem at all. Here’s what their technical document has to say about the matter:
In 2015-16, Tennessee implemented new End-of-Course (EOC) assessments in math and English/language arts. Redesigned assessments in Math and English/language arts were also implemented in grades 3-8 during the 2016-17 school year. Changes in testing regimes occur at regular intervals within any state, and these changes need not disrupt the continuity and use of value-added reporting by educators and policymakers. Based on twenty years of experience with providing valueadded and growth reporting to Tennessee educators, EVAAS has developed several ways to accommodate changes in testing regimes.
Prior to any value-added analyses with new tests, EVAAS verifies that the test’s scaling properties are suitable for such reporting. In addition to the criteria listed above, EVAAS verifies that the new test is related to the old test to ensure that the comparison from one year to the next is statistically reliable. Perfect correlation is not required, but there should be a strong relationship between the new test and old test. For example, a new Algebra I exam should be correlated to previous math scores in grades seven and eight and to a lesser extent other grades and subjects such as English/language arts and science. Once suitability of any new assessment has been confirmed, it is possible to use both the historical testing data and the new testing data to avoid any breaks or delays in value-added reporting.
A couple of problems with this. First, there was NO complete administration of a new testing regime in 2015-16. It didn’t happen.
Second, EVAAS doesn’t get paid if there’s not a way to generate these “growth scores” so it is in their interest to find some justification for comparing the two very different tests.
Third, researchers who study value-added modeling are highly skeptical of the reliability of comparisons between different types of tests when it comes to generating value-added scores. I noted Lockwood and McCaffrey (2007) above. Here are some more:
John Papay (2011) did a similar study using three different reading tests, with similar results. He stated his conclusion as follows: [T]he correlations between teacher value-added estimates derived from three separate reading tests — the state test, SRI [Scholastic Reading Inventory], and SAT [Stanford Achievement Test] — range from 0.15 to 0.58 across a wide range of model specifications. Although these correlations are moderately high, these assessments produce substantially different answers about individual teacher performance and do not rank individual teachers consistently. Even using the same test but varying the timing of the baseline and outcome measure introduces a great deal of instability to teacher rankings.
Two points worth noting here: First, different tests yield different value-added scores. Second, even using the same test but varying the timing can create instability in growth measures.
Then, there’s data from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project, which included data from Memphis. In terms of reliability when using value-added among different types of tests, here’s what MET reported:
Once more, the MET study offered corroborating evidence. The correlation between value-added scores based on two different mathematics tests given to the same students the same year was only .38. For 2 different reading tests, the correlation was .22 (the MET Project, 2010, pp. 23, 25).
Despite the claims of EVAAS, the academic research raises significant concerns about extrapolating results from different types of tests. In short, when you move to a different test, you get different value-added results. As I noted in 2015:

If you measure different skills, you get different results. That decreases (or eliminates) the reliability of those results. TNReady is measuring different skills in a different format than TCAP. It’s BOTH a different type of test AND a test on different standards. Any value-added comparison between the two tests is statistically suspect, at best. In the first year, such a comparison is invalid and unreliable. As more years of data become available, it may be possible to make some correlation between past TCAP results and TNReady scores.

Or, if the state is determined to use growth scores (and wants to use them with accuracy), they will wait several years and build completely new growth models based on TNReady alone. At least three years of data would be needed in order to build such a model.

Dorsey Hopson and other Directors of Schools should be pushing back aggressively. Educators should be outraged. After all, this unreliable data will be used as a portion of their teacher evaluations this year. Schools are being rated on a 1-5 scale based on a growth model grounded in suspect methods.

How much is this apple like last year’s orange? How much will this apple ever be like last year’s orange?

If we’re determined to use value-added modeling to measure school-wide growth or district performance, we should at least be determined to do it in a way that ensures valid, reliable results.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

We Paid $60 Million for That?

Guess what? Tennessee taxpayers are on the hook for some $60 million to testing vendor Questar for new TNReady tests.

Guess what else? Those tests aren’t exactly helpful.

At least that’s the word from the education professionals in classrooms.

The Tennessean reports this year’s survey of Tennessee teachers indicates:

Sixty-five percent of educators surveyed said standardized exams aren’t worth the investment of time and effort. The same percentage of teachers said the exams don’t help refine teaching practices.

And 60 percent said the test doesn’t help them understand whether students gain the knowledge necessary to meet state standards.

In response, Education Commissioner Candice McQueen notes:

And teachers haven’t yet recieved meaningful data from the change to TNReady to help guide instruction due to the transition, Tennessee Education Commissioner Candice McQueen said. The state has and will continue to work to improve the usefulness of the test, she said.

Except the attitude about the previous tests wasn’t much better:

The attitudes toward testing also aren’t necessarily new.

In the 2015 survey, educators said testing was a burden, with teachers reporting they spent too much time preparing students for exams and taking tests.

Now, though, our students spend even more time testing and preparing for tests. Tests that educators don’t find useful. In fact, Chalkbeat notes:

By the time that Tennessee’s testing period wrapped up last week, the state’s elementary and middle school students had undergone about eight hours of end-of-year testing.

That’s more than double the testing minutes in 2012.

Why isn’t the testing useful? For one, the results don’t come back in time. Even with the switch to a new testing vendor this year following the debacle of the first year of TNReady, quick score results weren’t back very quickly and final results will be delivered later this year.

It’s worth noting, though, that even before the transition to TNReady, teachers found the testing regime burdensome and unhelpful. It’s almost like the state is surveying teachers but not actually paying attention to the results.

Why are educators frustrated, exactly? Teacher Mike Stein offers this:

Meanwhile, teachers’ performance bonuses and even their jobs are on the line. Though they wouldn’t assert themselves into the discussion, principals and directors of schools also rely heavily upon the state to administer a test that measures what it says it will measure and to provide timely results that can be acted upon. As long as both of these things remain in question, I must question both the importance of TNReady and the competence of those who insist upon any standardized test as a means of determining whether or not educators are doing their jobs.

Taxpayers are spending money on a test that day-to-day practitioners find unhelpful. In the case of evaluations, they also find it unfair. Because, well, it’s just not a valid indicator of teacher performance.

Perhaps state policymakers should take a closer look at the teacher survey results. Teachers have no problem being evaluated, and in fact, most say the current system provides them with useful feedback. The observation rubric is robust and with proper implementation and meaningful building-level support, can be helpful as a means of improving teaching practice.

What’s not especially helpful is a test that takes up significant instructional time and doesn’t yield information in a timely or useful manner.

Taking a step back and removing the high stakes associated with a single test could be an important first step toward right-sizing our state’s approach to student assessment.

 

 

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

More Testing, Please

Even with proposals that reduced total testing time this year, Tennessee students spent about twice as much time taking tests than they did in 2012.

Chalkbeat has more:

By the time that Tennessee’s testing period wrapped up last week, the state’s elementary and middle school students had undergone about eight hours of end-of-year testing.

That’s more than double the testing minutes in 2012.

The Tennessee Education Association had this to say about the trend:

“While Tennessee is just at the beginning of the TNReady experiment, most teachers and parents believe there is too much time spent on testing and test prep,” says a statement by the Tennessee Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union.

Tennessee is part of a nationwide trend toward longer tests, as states move away from purely multiple-choice assessments to ones with questions that are supposed to be better measure student learning — and take more time to answer.

Testing mandates increasing:

In addition to TNReady, the state mandated 14 separate tests this school year, including short diagnostic assessments for its intervention program, called RTI.

The new normal?

While TNReady has been disappointing in terms of the crash last year and the quick score mess this year, it appears it will continue to be the norm for Tennessee schools going forward.

More tests. Longer tests. All to satisfy the demand for accountability. We still don’t know how well TNReady works to assess standards because it simply failed last year. We haven’t seen test questions or answers. And while some parents attempt to opt-out, Commissioner McQueen stands against allowing that choice.

When resisting opt-out, McQueen and others often cite federal law requiring districts to test 95% of their students. But, here’s the thing:

The federal government has not (yet) penalized a single district for failing to hit the 95% benchmark. In fact, in the face of significant opt-outs in New York last year (including one district where 89% of students opted-out), the U.S. Department of Education communicated a clear message to New York state education leaders:  Districts and states will not suffer a loss of federal dollars due to high test refusal rates. The USDOE left it up to New York to decide whether or not to penalize districts financially.

As we see both problems with test administration and score delivery, we may also see more parents move to opt their children out of the growing number of tests students face. It’s important to note that when those wishing to opt-out are told it will cost their district money, that claim is not backed up by any federal action. It’s up to Tennessee’s Department of Education to decide whether or not to allow opt-outs or to punish districts by withholding funds. Ultimately, the Department of Education is accountable to the General Assembly.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

WTF, TNReady?

In what is sure to be surprising news to parents, students, and school district leaders, TNReady quick score results are delayed yet again. Hard to predict this type of disaster since it only happens every year for the past four years now.

This delay is due to a problem the vendor is having with new test scanning equipment.

Here’s a statement from Hamilton County Schools explaining the news they received from the Tennessee Department of Education:

Tennessee Education Commissioner Dr. Candice McQueen informed school directors state-wide today that TNReady assessment vendor Questar has experienced challenges with the scanning software and capacity to scan testing materials; therefore, the company will not be able to meet the raw score deadlines set.

Dr. McQueen has asked Questar for updates on district-specific timing, and says the company currently estimates the scores will be delivered for the state’s upload process no later than the week of June 12.

Questar released a statement, which I have attached to this email.

The message from Dr. McQueen says she plans to meet with several groups this summer, including the TOSS Board, to come up with solutions that may prevent Tennessee testing vendors from missing the deadline set for report cards for a third year in a row. Her office promises to keep districts posted as the state receives more information.

To their credit, Questar is taking responsibility. That’s a change in tone from previous testing vendor Measurement, Inc.

Here’s what Questar had to say:

A Statement from Questar Regarding Raw Score Delivery

Questar committed to spring TNReady raw score delivery on a timeline and terms we set and which were communicated extensively by the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE), however, our company has experienced scan set-up difficulties that will affect that timeline. Questar recently completed an upgrade to our scanning programs for paper tests, and we underestimated the time needed to fully integrate these upgrades. Therefore, any delays to the timeline are not the fault of the Tennessee Department of Education or the districts across the state. We take complete responsibility for this project, and we are actively working to meet our commitments to the state, districts, and educators. The purpose of this communication is to provide an update on the progress we are making to publish raw scores for grades 3-8 and End-of-Course assessments.

End-of-Course Status Update: Nearly all paper and online EOC raw scores are uploaded to EdTools. We appreciate the communication from the TDOE to reprioritize EOC delivery to ensure districts had these results as soon as possible.

3-8 Status Update: Questar is currently working through delays in scan processing for the 3-8 raw scores, which impact the timeline we previously provided to the TDOE for raw score delivery. We have experienced several software delays with our scan programming that we are actively resolving, and we are working to increase capacity within our scanning operations. We are committed to working with TDOE to mitigate these challenges in order to scan and score TNReady 3-8 assessments as quickly as possible. We will provide additional details and timelines, including district-specific estimations, as we make progress over the week.

The raw score delays will not impact the timeline for delivery of final score reports. Our scoring operations are unaffected by the scanning software issues, and we anticipate providing EOC final score reports this summer and 3-8 score reports this fall after the cut score process is complete, as previously announced.

We understand the importance of having the raw scores to communicate information to educators, students, and families, and we apologize for the inconvenience our delays have caused TDOE and our district partners in getting this information on the timeline we committed to months ago.

Questar sincerely appreciates our partnership with TDOE and the Tennessee educators and students we serve.

Tennessee has unique timing requirements for raw score delivery as compared to other states so we will continue to work with the department and districts to ensure that the future score return process is successful.

-Brad Baumgartner, Chief Partner Officer

At least we’re now paying millions of taxpayer dollars to a vendor who will take some heat, right?
This part of the Hamilton County statement is interesting:
The message from Dr. McQueen says she plans to meet with several groups this summer, including the TOSS Board, to come up with solutions that may prevent Tennessee testing vendors from missing the deadline set for report cards for a third year in a row.
Here’s a solution: Don’t count TNReady scores in student final grades. In fact, since McQueen readily admits that raw score data is of little actual value and since different methods of factoring quick scores lead to vastly different scores assigned to students, why even bother?
It’s clearly been a problem to get reliable quick score data back to districts. The data is of dubious value. Legislation should advance that eliminates the use of TNReady data in student grades.
As I’ve said before, TNReady may well be a solid test properly aligned to standards. Such a test can yield useful information. A more student-centered approach to testing would focus on project-based assessment and use tools like TNReady to provide diagnostic information for students, teachers, and schools.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Posted on by

It Doesn’t Matter Except When It Does

This year’s TNReady quick score setback means some districts will use the results in student report cards and some won’t. Of course, that’s nobody’s fault. 

One interesting note out of all of this came as Commissioner McQueen noted that quick scores aren’t what really matters anyway. Chalkbeat reports:

The commissioner emphasized that the data that matters most is not the preliminary data but the final score reports, which are scheduled for release in July for high schools and the fall for grades 3-8. Those scores are factored into teachers’ evaluations and are also used to measure the effectiveness of schools and districts.

“Not until you get the score report will you have the full context of a student’s performance level and strengths and weaknesses in relation to the standards,” she said.

The early data matters to districts, though, since Tennessee has tied the scores to student grades since 2011.

First, tying the quick scores to student grades is problematic. Assuming TNReady is a good, reliable test, we’d want the best results to be used in any grade calculation. Using pencil and paper this year makes that impossible. Even when we switch to a test fully administered online, it may not be possible to get the full scores back in time to use those in student grades.

Shifting to a model that uses TNReady to inform and diagnose rather than evaluate students and teachers could help address this issue. Shifting further to a project-based assessment model could actually help students while also serving as a more accurate indicator of whether they have met the standards.

Next, the story notes that teachers will be evaluated based on the scores. This will be done via TVAAS — the state’s value-added modeling system. Even as more states move away from value-added models in teacher evaluation, Tennessee continues to insist on using this flawed model.

Again, let’s assume TNReady is an amazing test that truly measures student mastery of standards. It’s still NOT designed for the purpose of evaluating teacher performance. Further, this is the first year the test has been administered. That means it’s simply not possible to generate valid data on teacher performance from this year’s results. You can’t just take this year’s test (TNReady) and compare it to the TCAP from two years ago. They are different tests designed to measure different standards in a different way. You know, the old apples and oranges thing.

One teacher had this to say about the situation:

“There’s so much time and stress on students, and here again it’s not ready,” said Tikeila Rucker, a Memphis teacher who is president of the United Education Association of Shelby County.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

It Wasn’t Me

TNReady results may or may not be included in your student’s report card, though we do know that more than 75% of districts won’t get scores back before the end of May. Don’t worry, though, it’s nobody’s fault.

Certainly, it’s not the responsibility of the Department of Education or Commissioner Candice McQueen to ensure that results are back in a timely fashion.

Today, Commissioner McQueen sent out an update to educators about assessments. There was some interesting information about TNReady going forward and about the timeline for scores for this year’s tests.

Not included? Any sort of apology about the TNReady quick score issue.

Instead, here’s what McQueen had to say:

Finally, I want to share an update on the delivery of raw scores for the 2016-17 assessment. We have received raw score data for nearly all EOC subjects, and grades 3–8 data continues to come in daily. We are in communication with your district leaders regarding the delivery of raw score data. State law and state board rule provides district choice on whether to include TNReady in grades if scores are not received within five days of the end of the school year. If you have questions about your particular district’s timeline or any decisions about including TNReady data in grades, I encourage you to reach out to your local leaders.

Got a problem or question about TNReady data and your student’s scores? Don’t ask Candice McQueen or the Department of Education. Ask your local leaders. Because, after all, we’ve been giving them all the relevant information in the most timely fashion.

I would suggest that leaders at TDOE just apologize and say it won’t happen again. But, as I mentioned, we’ve had testing challenges for four consecutive years now.

Here’s one word of advice to district leaders and teachers: Next year, when the Department of Education says everything is fine, it just might not be. Here’s something you can count on, though: It won’t be the responsibility of anyone at TDOE.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

A Teacher Takes on TNReady

Educator Mike Stein offers his take on the latest trouble with TNReady.

Here’s some of what he has to say:

TNReady is supposed to count for 10% of the students’ second semester grade and of the teachers’ evaluation scores. I had multiple students ask me before the test if it was really going to count this year. I told them it was going to count, and that the state was confident that they would return the results in time. Unlike last year, the Tennessee Department of Education had not announced anything to the contrary, so the students actually seemed to try. Sadly, the state has has once again let them down. They have also let down all of the teachers who worked so diligently trying to ensure that their students demonstrate growth on this ridiculously long, tedious, and inaccurate measure of content knowledge.

And he offers this insight:

Meanwhile, teachers’ performance bonuses and even their jobs are on the line. Though they wouldn’t assert themselves into the discussion, principals and directors of schools also rely heavily upon the state to administer a test that measures what it says it will measure and to provide timely results that can be acted upon. As long as both of these things remain in question, I must question both the importance of TNReady and the competence of those who insist upon any standardized test as a means of determining whether or not educators are doing their jobs.

Check out the entire post and let us know your thoughts in the comments.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport