Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-24-SC-min LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MINUTES November 24, 1975 Page 222 A regular meeting of the Lexington School Committee came to order at 8:05 p.m. at Jonas Clarke Junior High School. Present were Mesdames Swanson and Berchtold. Messrs. Rotberg, Wadsworth. Also present were Messrs. Spiris . and Monderer, and Miss Quinn. The entire meeting was devoted to a discussion of the testing program currently in use in the Lexington Public Schools. Invited to offer their perceptions of the program were Dr. Fritz Mosher of the Carnegie Corporation; Mrs. Helen Grush, a Lexington resident and former testing committee member; and Dr. Bernard Harleston, a Lexington resident who served four years on the Graduate Records Examination Board. Dr. Monderer opened the meeting. He noted that the testing program has these major characteristics: it uses a standardized, norm-referenced, group administered test to measure general achievement of pupils` basic skills each year from grades 2 through 8; in addition, a measure of aptitude for learning is used in grades 2 and 4. Dr. Monderer continued with a description of other evaluations used as a child progresses through the grades. These include kindergarten screening, placement tests and level tests in the elementary grades, and specially re- quested supplemental evaluations when a specific area of concern is noted. Dr. Monderer continued his presentation, reading a statement of the goals of the testing program as set forth by the Testing Committee in their 1974 report: 1. To identify periodically pupil strengths and weaknesses in terms of skill development in relation to self and peers 2. To provide meaningful test information that is easy for teachers to interpret. 3. To assist the teacher with methods of applying test data to improve the instructional process 4. To determine a child's basic learning potential 5. To identify children with special needs 6. To provide school administrators and the community at large with an index of pupil achievement Dr. Monderer closed by admitting that there are many concerns, both local and nationwide, about the whole concept of testing. While many decry the over- use of testing, still others demand accountability and measurement; this evenings ' meeting is an attempt to address that dilemma. Dr. Monderer then read a statement from Dr. Celia Schulhoff, a Lexington school psychologist, who was unable to be present for the meeting. Dr. Schulhoff confined her remarks to the area of IQ testing. She noted the complexity of the whole concept of "intelligence", the nature of IQ tests in general, and some major uses of IQ tests. Dr. Schulhoff then noted some abuses of IQ tests. Among these are: 1. treating an IQ score as if it were a fixed unchangeable trait 2. ignoring relevant factors which affect IQ scores, and 3. expecting definite levels of achievement in specific areas of the curriculum based on IQ scores. LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MINUTES November 24, 1975 Page 223 Dr. Schulhoff then addressed the Lexington program of IQ testing specifi- cally. She explained the reasons for the use of the Wechsler Intelligence Goals for Children (WISC) and the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). Dr. Schulhoff then noted that Lexington school psychologists have, for the past several years, recommended that the program of individual IQ testing for every child be reassesed. She noted several reasons for concern: 1. possible distortion of test results 2. reduced demand for testing for the AP program 3. availability of more effective criterion referenced tests 4. possible parental misinterpretation of test score 5. provision for such testing where necessary under Chapter 766 6. expense involved Mike Andolina, a reading specialist at the junior high school level, dis- cussed the pros and cons of criterion-referenced and norm-referenced testing. He concurred with the weaknesses previously mentioned in norm-referenced testing. He then cited some of the advantages of criterion referenced test- ing; they are not comparative, they measure the student's conformity to spe- cific measurable, predetermined objectives, they can be administered under natural condition, and most involve student products. Mr. Richard Denechaud, a representative of McGraw-Hill Company, defended the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), the test of basic skills used in Lexington's schools grades 2 through 8. He described the norming and screen- ing procedures by which his company endeavors to insure that a test is unbiased and reliable. Mrs. Swanson then introduced the three guest speakers. Dr. Bernard Harleston, who spoke first, addressed the country-wide concern about testing. He noted three philosophical concerns: 1. In the United States, people tend to equate score with worth, giving tests an inappropriate value-judgment dimension 2. Too much emphasis is placed on a single score, which cannot possibly convey the breadth of development of a specific youngster 3. Testing in this country is a big business, and companies may seek salability above all else in designing a test. Dr. Harleston then focused on the Lexington testing program specifically the use of the WISC at grade two. He found it, he said utterly inappropriate for several reasons. Among them: 1. the youngster atthe age of seven is generally immature and unstable 2. the score derived in these circumstances follows the youngster all through school 3. the WISC examiners have no special relationship with the school. Data exists which shows that the relationship between tester and subject can affect the test outcome. 4. WISC can be found unreliable due to bias in questions and norming group Lexington School Committee Minutes - November 24, 1975 Page 224 Dr. Fritz Mosher cited the importance of local level decision-making about a testing program. He noted that special programs are peculiar to each school, and tests should be geared to those programs. Dr. Mosher said that several aspects of WISC should be evaluated: how are the results used, is it too expensive, what is the system attempting to measure? If it is deemed too expensive and its utility is questionable, then perhaps a trade-off for a staff member would be appropriate. Turning to the question of norm-referenced vs. criterion referenced testing, Dr. Mosher made several points. There are reasons, he said, to question the appropriateness of norm-referenced testing. 1) control for background will "wash" out" the differences in the things that schools and systems do 2) it would be hard to tell if Lexington is doing better than other systems from outcomes on the kinds of tests that Lexington uses 3) reported scores are interpreted differently by different teachers.. 4) there is danger for a student whose scores indicate that he is where he is expected. The test fails to be an alarm and may tend to be a sedative. Criterion reference tests, he noted, have the weakness of not pro- viding external reference for a school system. However, they are more useful to teachers because they test whether or not a student is learning what the teacher (school, system) wants him to learn. Mrs. Helen Grush was the final guest speaker. She admitted that her ' "bias" is the underachiever, the student with learning disability. She views the WISC as a good clinical instrument, noting, however, that the fees paid to Lexington testers may attract less qualified personnel. She concluded that it would probably be a better idea to eliminate individual IQ testing at the second grade level, to administer IQ tests later, where necessary to provide more qualified testers, and to interpret results more carefully to teachers and parent. Mrs. Grush had high praise for the LIRSP program, though she was con- cerned about several sections of it, and questioned what was happening to students not exposed to it. She took special note of the Lexington Lang- uage Arts program, and hoped that it could be combined with LIRSP. A discussion period followed the speaker's presentation. In answer to a question about staff reactions to testing, Alice Bailey, a teacher at Hastings School and a member of the original testing committee, commented on a questionnaire distributed to 384 Lexington staff members by that committee. She indicated that the results of the poll revealed concern about the deleterious effects of the testing program on students. Weak- nesses noted included lack of challenge for brighter students, too much challenge for less able students, length of administration time, and in- appropriate timing of the tests in the academic year, making results virt- ually useless by the time they were available. Lexington School Committee Minutes - November 24, 1975 Page 225 Sylvia Schatz, a team leader at Franklin School, concurred with the concern about when the tests are administered and results are available. She added that the contents of the tests should also be open to question, and that the results are often looked upon as if they are magic, leading in some cases to mislabeling and misperceptions of students. Dr. Rotberg asked whether the standardized tests would serve as a monitor of the town's curriculum. Dr. Mosher responded that they might in a specific area if careful concern were given to interpretation of results. However, he noted, the tests cannot be very reassuring because they are not very sensitive. Dr. Harleston concurred, adding that stand- ardized tests can be used if a system cannot devise a way to measure its own curriculum. He added, parenthetically, that if the standardized tests can be believed, Lexington is doing well. Mrs. Swanson closed the meeting, thanking the participatns. She asked for a copy of the original report submitted by the Testing Com- mittee and stated the School Committee would review it. Res ectfully, submitted, Elizabeth A. Quinn Recording Secretary /k (Pro Tem)