No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and the
Lost Benefits of Effective Testing
Richard P. PHELPS
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core Review,
Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
1
US Standards & Testing Policy: 1990s
The golden age of democratic participation in US education
Education Establishment implements…
…radical constructivist national math and science standards
…”authentic, performance-based” standards/assessments
systems in California, Kentucky, Maryland
Results:
- citizens organized in opposition (remember, “Where’s the
math?”?)
- non-education professors involve selves in standards policy
- testing system fiascos in all 3 states, declines in achievement
Meanwhile, Massachusetts implements traditional
standards/assessment program and moves from middle of the
pack among states to top
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
2
US Standards & Testing Policy: 2000s
The federalization of US standards & testing policy
No Child Left Behind Act deliberation…
…profoundly unguided legislation uninformed by a world’s and a
century’s worth of research on standards & testing
Education Establishment declares nonexistence of evidence that
standards, testing, or accountability have any positive effects
Conservative think tanks are newly staffed by young education policy
analysts without training or experience in standards, testing
…who believe the nonexistence myth …still …even now
Test development firms complete transformations from research
campuses to competitive businesses
- gag orders imposed on the vast majority of US’s most
knowledgeable (pro-)testing experts
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
3
US Standards & Testing Policy: 2010s
End run around democratic process with Bill Gates’ wallet
Massive funding for lots of deceptive marketing…
…advocates have learned to say what people want to hear: higher,
deeper, richer, state-led, etc.
…euphemisms for the same old radical constructivism and
“authentic, performance-based” testing
Lead writers for the Common Core Standards turn out to be the same
folk who brought us the radical constructivist, performance-based
fiascos of the 1990s
- ACT and College Board loaned them standards writers to do the
yeoman’s work
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
4
US Standards & Testing Policy
Lessons & Outcomes
-
Ordinary citizens seem to have more leverage at the state level
-
US public debate on education testing now totally one-sided
-
What do most of our successful international competitors do?
-
multi-level, multi-target “grade span” high-stakes testing
-
effect of testing with stakes? …about 2 grade levels of
increased achievement over 12 years.
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
5
“The Effect of Testing on Student
Achievement, 1910-2010”
2012, International Journal of Testing.
• analyzed about 700 separate studies
(quantitative, qualitative and surveys),
yielding 1,600 effects
• 2,000 other studies were reviewed and
found incomplete or inappropriate
• lacking sufficient time and money, hundreds
of other studies remain to be reviewed
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core Review,
Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
6
Number of studies of effects,
by methodology type…
Number of
studies
Number of
effects
Quantitative
177
640
Surveys and public
opinion polls (US & Canada)
247
813
Qualitative
245
245
TOTAL
669
1698
Methodology type
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core Review,
Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
7
Findings from Phelps (2012):
• Survey study effect sizes average >1.0
• Over 90% of qualitative studies positive
• For quantitative studies, effect sizes vary between 0.55
and 0.88:
+++ testing more frequently
++ testing with stakes
+ testing with feedback
( 0.5 effect size ≈ 1 grade level )
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core Review,
Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
8
John Hattie’s meta-analyses of meta-analyses
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
9
John Hattie’s list of education interventions, in
order of effectiveness ( those with testing )
1.
11.
Student self-assessment/self-grading
Response to intervention
Teacher credibility
Providing formative assessments
Classroom discussion
Teacher clarity
Feedback
Reciprocal teaching
Teacher-student relationships fostered
Spaced vs. mass practice
Acceleration
Classroom behavioral techniques
Vocabulary programs
Repeated reading programs
Creativity programs
Student prior achievement
Self-questioning by students
Study skills
Problem-solving teaching
Not labeling students
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
21.
31.
Concept mapping
Cooperative vs individualistic learning
Direct instruction
Tactile stimulation programs
Mastery learning
Worked examples
Visual-perception programs
Peer tutoring
Cooperative vs competitive learning
Phonics instruction
Student-centered teaching
Classroom cohesion
Pre-term birth weight
Peer influences
Classroom management techniques
Outdoor-adventure programs
Home environment
Socio-economic status
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
10
“Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention.”
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
11
10 benefits of testing and their applications to education
Roediger, Putnam and Smith
Direct effects of testing
Retrieval practice during tests enhances retention of the retrieved information
(relative to not testing or even to studying) -- the “testing effect”
Repeated retrieval produces knowledge that can be retrieved flexibly and
transferred to other situations
On open-ended assessments (e.g., essay tests) retrieval practice induced by
tests helps students organize information into a coherent knowledge base.
Repeated retrieval leads to easier retrieval of related information
SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 55, 2011.
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
12
10 benefits of testing and their applications to education
Roediger, Putnam and Smith
Indirect effects of testing
Students tested frequently study more and with more regularity.
Tests permit students to discover gaps in their knowledge and adjust their
study efforts to focus on difficult material.
Students who study after taking a test learn more than if they had not taken a
test.
Students who self-test or are tested more frequently in class learn more.
SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 55, 2011.
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
13
10 benefits of testing and their applications to education
Roediger, Putnam and Smith
Benefit 1: The Testing Effect: Retrieval Aids Later Retention
Benefit 2: Testing Identifies Gaps in Knowledge
Benefit 3: Testing Causes Students to Learn More from the Next Study Episode
Benefit 4: Testing Produces Better Organization of Knowledge
Benefit 5: Testing Improves Transfer of Knowledge to New Contexts
Benefit 6: Testing can Facilitate Retrieval of Material That was not Tested
Benefit 7: Testing Improves Metacognitive Monitoring
Benefit 8: Testing Prevents Interference from Prior Material when Learning
New Material
Benefit 9: Testing Provides Feedback to Instructors
Benefit 10: Frequent Testing Encourages Students to Study
SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 55, 2011.
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
14
10 benefits of testing and their applications to education
Roediger, Putnam and Smith
Most teachers should be testing much more
frequently, …with smaller, shorter tests.
Students learn more when they test. But
learn best when the tests are “spaced”.
What is the optimal lapse of time between tests?
The best time to test again is just before students start forgetting the
information. This time lapse is shorter with discrete material, like
mathematics, than with other subjects. Some studies suggest that math
students should be tested at least once a week.
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core
Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
15
No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and
the Lost Benefits of Effective Testing
Richard P. PHELPS
© 2015, Richard P PHELPS
Governor’s Council on Common Core Review,
Arkansas State Captiol, May, 2015
16