ORCA K-8 Joins the MAP Boycott
So says the Times.
Eleven teachers and instructional assistants at ORCA K-8 have decided that they, too, will boycott district-required tests known as the MAP, according to ORCA teacher Matt Carter.
In the letter to district administrators, the Garfield staff members listed nine reasons why they oppose the test, which range from how few students take it seriously to how much time it takes away from class instruction and whether it measures what teachers are supposed to be teaching.
The middle school teachers at ORCA will not refuse to give the tests because they hope to get a grant from the city that requires that they give them, Carter said. But 11 of the 16 teachers and instructional assistants in kindergarten through grade 5 have decided to do so, Carter said.
The principal apparently will find others to proctor the tests and give them anyway. (I have heard about issues using non-staff proctors so it's not as easy as it sounds.)
That grant from the City is likely one from the Families and Ed levy that requires documented results.
The SEA weighs in:
The representative assembly of the Seattle Education Association is scheduled to discuss the issue at a meeting Monday evening, and consider a motion that calls for the union to support any teacher who refuses to give the MAP. The motion also asks the district not to discipline teachers who refuse to give the exams, and asks that the district stop using the MAP tests as soon as possible.
So that makes three schools where large numbers of staff have openly come out against MAP: Garfield, Ballard and ORCA K-8.
Clearly, a review of MAP can't come soon enough. If more schools and parents joined it, this boycott would be unstoppable.
Consider opting your child out in support of this effort.
Eleven teachers and instructional assistants at ORCA K-8 have decided that they, too, will boycott district-required tests known as the MAP, according to ORCA teacher Matt Carter.
In the letter to district administrators, the Garfield staff members listed nine reasons why they oppose the test, which range from how few students take it seriously to how much time it takes away from class instruction and whether it measures what teachers are supposed to be teaching.
The middle school teachers at ORCA will not refuse to give the tests because they hope to get a grant from the city that requires that they give them, Carter said. But 11 of the 16 teachers and instructional assistants in kindergarten through grade 5 have decided to do so, Carter said.
The principal apparently will find others to proctor the tests and give them anyway. (I have heard about issues using non-staff proctors so it's not as easy as it sounds.)
That grant from the City is likely one from the Families and Ed levy that requires documented results.
The SEA weighs in:
The representative assembly of the Seattle Education Association is scheduled to discuss the issue at a meeting Monday evening, and consider a motion that calls for the union to support any teacher who refuses to give the MAP. The motion also asks the district not to discipline teachers who refuse to give the exams, and asks that the district stop using the MAP tests as soon as possible.
So that makes three schools where large numbers of staff have openly come out against MAP: Garfield, Ballard and ORCA K-8.
Clearly, a review of MAP can't come soon enough. If more schools and parents joined it, this boycott would be unstoppable.
Consider opting your child out in support of this effort.
Comments
We voted nearly unanimously at our rep assembly tonight to support Garfield, Orca and Ballard teachers in their boycott of the test and to encourage every school to have meetings to organize on this issue.
Rally next week."
As an adaptive test, this data is also useful to see just how high some students are operating so I can address their needs too. This is just one piece of data that is figured in with other assessments we run in each subject area. All of which can inform instruction if used correctly.
Do we need a new test? Maybe. But calling for a boycott of this test before a proper data review and open meetings are held is irresponsible and will be confusing to parents. Then defiant teachers become the issue rather than the suitability of the test.
Upper Elementary Teacher
-Curious
Other than that, I support my kids' school, teachers, and administration, and respect the school's history of activism, so will proudly back this effort. I am aware of and concerned by the limitations of MAP, how it's misused, and the resources it saps up. But I have to admit, I also like to see my kids' lives at school quantified in some way. I just do. I'm involved in both of my kids' classrooms, but a lot of what happens there is a black box. I get a certain level of comfort in the metrics. Again, though, I will support the professionals at our school who have fully earned my trust. But it's not without mixed feelings.
--southpaw
Emile
Curious: like all tests, use in moderation! I haven't found huge discrepancies in the data from MAP with other tests we use, only on occasion. Since we use multiple measures, that data is then verified with other assessments we use to create a more complete picture on how the child is growing academically. Never rely on only one measure.
I'm open to other tests, just not throwing out the one we have until we have a solid discussion, backed by data and research, that says why and what our next course of action should be.
Upper Elementary Teacher
CURRENT Upper Elementary Teacher
- Curious
1) The SEA Rep Assembly voted 2 years ago that the MAP test was junk and ought to be replaced. I was there, that vote involved about 250 teachers from all the sites in this district. It wasn't even close. That was the considered opinion of most teachers then, and it hasn't changed.
2) NWEA, the maker of the MAP test, acknowledges that measurement error within the test, across students, across time periods, etc, etc. is greater than expected student growth.
Younger kids haven't all figured this out, but older students routinely blow off the test, because it doesn't matter to them. Their results are particularly suspect.
3) I absolutely support your efforts to assess students in a variety of ways. You put that well. That's the key to assessment, as any professional teacher knows. Portfolios, presentations, pamphlets, speeches, writing, tests, homework, etc. etc. That philosophy is antithetical to the MAP. It is precisely the reductive nature of the MAP test, boiling down the complexity of student growth into a couple of hours in front of a computer which spits out a number, that so many of us object to.
4) Not to mention the absurd use of finances and library & computer resources. As I've said elsewhere, my roof leaks, right in the center of my classroom.
Eric Muhs
27 years in teaching
National Board Certified Teacher
Abby G
A friend
Curious: We use most Seattle schools use: Teachers College, EDM assessments, Science Kit assessments, MSP, Words Their Way, individual projects and portfolios, individual conferring, self assessments, peer assessments, etc. All of them have issues unfortunately but together, they give us an idea to help inform instruction. In elementary, grading is more about identifying ways to differentiate and inform instruction so having more is helpful.
Eric: I appreciate your position. I don't know anything about the data and info used by the SEA when they made that decision so I'll look into that as this discussion moves forward. I completely agree about the computer resources and time but every computerized assessment is going to put us in this bind...our computer resources are lousy also.
Not trying to attack, just trying to get info.
On the other hand, my child usually scores well on the MAP. Her good scores may help her teacher look good and may help her option school look good so we can continue to attract more students. So, while I'd just as soon the District did away with the MAP altogether, as long as they have it maybe my child should continue to take it.
-Go Garfield
On the one hand, tested subjects get taught. The state standards should be the primary focus, however, and not the substrands of MAP.
The previous teacher's post is Exhibit A on how standardized testing can degrade learning in the classroom. When teacher evaluations are tied to a test, this is where it takes us.
-opt out
-public school parent
Elem Teacher
Teacher evals are here to stay so what do teachers want?
Can't teach to the test because they can't see it? God forbid they teach kids general critical thinking skills.
I just want to know what these teachers want.
Frustrated
I agree that, despite my experience with MAP being mostly negative, the comment about "not seeing the test" was one I don't get. Granted, to the extent the test doesn't match the standards I kind of see the point and would hope you would recognize that the mis-alignment with standards is the real issue - it doesn't align to the standards the students are evaluated on that we're preparing them for all year. I'm more worried about EOC prep (graduation requirement) than MAP prep (no graduation standards correlation).
High schools are in the middle of giving the EOC makeup exams and while proctoring we're under pretty strict professional standards NOT to look at it. Obviously we see a couple questions via proctoring, but professionally we know we'd better not study it and/or take notes (incidental views while proctoring is not going to make or break the next year's instruction).
Once I was in an uncomfortable situation in which a peer was reviewing it (against the rules) and it took multiple "put it down" comments. The response was along the same lines of how to give a test not knowing what was in it.
That's what the standards are for - right now, though, the standards have been in massive flux for several years and yet to make matters worse the MAP doesn't even connect with either WASL/EOC-HSPE/Common Core standards and in math it taps out at geometry so it's pretty darn close to useless at the High School level.
The teacher comment also gives a glimpse into what we are starting to see with too much testing - teaching to the exact test. It's my hope that with most states going to Common Core standards we will have less moving-target standards and thus the software developers can focus their targets for testing so future tests are more aligned to the "standards" and we don't have to feel like we haven't "seen the test".
Coming from industry I'm more pro-tests than most teachers... most are ok with some testing (seriously, we give tests all the time), but MAP was forced for reasons already well documented (Goodloe-Johnson's undisclosed Board role, Bernatek reported to MGJ, etc.). This test just isn't good and I think the district is owed a refund - spend it on a truly standards-based test but get rid of this (at least at the HS level).
As an aside, if testing is moving towards computer-based (and every indication is that it is) the already behind-the-times and too-few computer labs in Seattle need some serious help. I'm ok with computer based testing but we will need more computer labs if we're spending several weeks per year in testing.
Another Teacher Perspective