It’s Time to Replace the WASL
April 19, 2010
It´s Time to Replace the WASL
By Lloyd Gardener
It appears we are experiencing a minor revolution with respect to the WASL. Most significant was a resolution passed by the Seattle teachers union asking the state legislators to throw out the WASL. Numerous other groups and writers have voiced the same message and I have joined them.
For me, there are two very compelling reasons why the WASL should be abandoned.
- Our Washington State standards (our EALRs – Education Academic Learning Requirements) upon which the WASL is based are substandard, vague and unmeasurable
- Performance Based Testing (the WASL type) is quite inferior to standardized testing (ITBS, CTBS, Stanford, etc.) which have consistently enjoyed parent and teacher acceptance.
(EDITOR’s Note: It is CURE´S position that although the information gained from the use of ITBS/CTBS type tests is very useful for districts, for the state, and even (to a certain extent) for individual teachers and students, even these should not be a determining factor for graduation or advancement in grade or CM!)
The EALRs I´ve written a couple of letters to the A+ Committee (Accountability Committee) pointing out the problems and deficiencies of our state standards. My comments reflect results of a Fordham Foundation review of learning standards in all fifty states. Fordham gave Washington F´s in math, history and geography, D in English and B in science for an overall grade of D. Their primary criticism of our standards was that they were Ovague and unmeasurable¹ forcing the assessments (the WASL) to be similarly vague. This results in answers from students that are imprecise and subjective, and not indicative of what had or had not been learned. This is the same thinking that has brought us the disastrous whole language reading¹ and fuzzy math¹.
Performance Based Testing:
This type of test is inferior to standardized testing (mostly multiple choice) that has heretofore been popular. Standardized tests require specific answers, thus displaying the students true acquisition of knowledge on a given subject. Performance based testing has been strongly promoted by the education bureaucracy precisely because it is vague and subjective allowing great latitude in who is right¹ or who is wrong¹. This gives teachers and administrators a way to avoid criticism for poor student scores. Performance based testing requires essay answers in which there is a great latitude on the part of the grader to score high or low. (You can bet that Terry Bergeson is already applying pressure to increase or decrease the year to year trend to best promote continued use of the WASL and its multi-billion dollar costs.) Even major testing organizations acknowledge a great deal of variation between different graders in scoring performance based essay tests. They agree that scoring is heavily dependent on the Chief Reader´s (the straw boss) attitude on any given day and students themselves are more apt to have good days and bad days.
These are the reasons that the College Board instituted multiple choice testing in determining SAT scores for college bound students. A great many references are available to further document the advantage of standardized (multiple choice) tests. On one such program, Daniel Koretz has characterized the deficiencies of a large scale performance based test program as follows:
1. The unreliability of scoring alone was sufficient to preclude most of the intended uses of the scores.
2. The system did not differentiate well between best pieces and the rest of the portfolio.
3. The rating system failed to discern real differences in quality.
4. The rate of exact agreement was 45%, but the rate expected by chance alone was 35%.
5. The financial costs appear to be sizeable. For all of the above reasons the WASL is not the proper test for determining student performance. But there is a good solution. In years past, we have used a variety of standardized tests and parent and teachers were satisfied with the results. We need to go back to one or more of such tests (CTBS, ITBS, Stanford, etc.) that have served well in years past as the primary indication of the progress of our students. The result would be a program that parents and teachers would understand and have confidence in and one that would reduce K-12 education costs by billions of dollars.
It’s time to do the right thing!
(Written between 2000 and 2005)
¹ E.D. Hirsch ³The Schools We Need² (pg. 185)
Tags: EALR, Fordham, WASL, assessments
It´s Time to Replace the WASL
By Lloyd Gardener
It appears we are experiencing a minor revolution with respect to the WASL. Most significant was a resolution passed by the Seattle teachers union asking the state legislators to throw out the WASL. Numerous other groups and writers have voiced the same message and I have joined them.
For me, there are two very compelling reasons why the WASL should be abandoned.
- Our Washington State standards (our EALRs – Education Academic Learning Requirements) upon which the WASL is based are substandard, vague and unmeasurable
- Performance Based Testing (the WASL type) is quite inferior to standardized testing (ITBS, CTBS, Stanford, etc.) which have consistently enjoyed parent and teacher acceptance.
(EDITOR’s Note: It is CURE´S position that although the information gained from the use of ITBS/CTBS type tests is very useful for districts, for the state, and even (to a certain extent) for individual teachers and students, even these should not be a determining factor for graduation or advancement in grade or CM!)
The EALRs I´ve written a couple of letters to the A+ Committee (Accountability Committee) pointing out the problems and deficiencies of our state standards. My comments reflect results of a Fordham Foundation review of learning standards in all fifty states. Fordham gave Washington F´s in math, history and geography, D in English and B in science for an overall grade of D. Their primary criticism of our standards was that they were Ovague and unmeasurable¹ forcing the assessments (the WASL) to be similarly vague. This results in answers from students that are imprecise and subjective, and not indicative of what had or had not been learned. This is the same thinking that has brought us the disastrous whole language reading¹ and fuzzy math¹.
Performance Based Testing:
This type of test is inferior to standardized testing (mostly multiple choice) that has heretofore been popular. Standardized tests require specific answers, thus displaying the students true acquisition of knowledge on a given subject. Performance based testing has been strongly promoted by the education bureaucracy precisely because it is vague and subjective allowing great latitude in who is right¹ or who is wrong¹. This gives teachers and administrators a way to avoid criticism for poor student scores. Performance based testing requires essay answers in which there is a great latitude on the part of the grader to score high or low. (You can bet that Terry Bergeson is already applying pressure to increase or decrease the year to year trend to best promote continued use of the WASL and its multi-billion dollar costs.) Even major testing organizations acknowledge a great deal of variation between different graders in scoring performance based essay tests. They agree that scoring is heavily dependent on the Chief Reader´s (the straw boss) attitude on any given day and students themselves are more apt to have good days and bad days.
These are the reasons that the College Board instituted multiple choice testing in determining SAT scores for college bound students. A great many references are available to further document the advantage of standardized (multiple choice) tests. On one such program, Daniel Koretz has characterized the deficiencies of a large scale performance based test program as follows:
1. The unreliability of scoring alone was sufficient to preclude most of the intended uses of the scores.
2. The system did not differentiate well between best pieces and the rest of the portfolio.
3. The rating system failed to discern real differences in quality.
4. The rate of exact agreement was 45%, but the rate expected by chance alone was 35%.
5. The financial costs appear to be sizeable. For all of the above reasons the WASL is not the proper test for determining student performance. But there is a good solution. In years past, we have used a variety of standardized tests and parent and teachers were satisfied with the results. We need to go back to one or more of such tests (CTBS, ITBS, Stanford, etc.) that have served well in years past as the primary indication of the progress of our students. The result would be a program that parents and teachers would understand and have confidence in and one that would reduce K-12 education costs by billions of dollars.
It’s time to do the right thing!
(Written between 2000 and 2005)
¹ E.D. Hirsch ³The Schools We Need² (pg. 185)
Tags: EALR, Fordham, WASL, assessments