Tag: tests

  • Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, a new survey finds

    Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, a new survey finds

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    About one in four teachers say their schools don’t give students zeroes. And nearly all of them hate it.

    The collection of practices known as equitable grading, which includes not giving students zeroes, not taking off points for lateness, and letting students retake tests, has spread in the aftermath of the pandemic. But it wasn’t known how widespread the practices were.

    A new nationally representative survey released Wednesday finds equitable grading practices are fairly common, though nowhere near universal. More than half of K-12 teachers said their school or district used at least one equitable grading practice.

    The most common practice — and the one that drew the most heated opposition in the fall 2024 survey — is not giving students zeroes for missing assignments or failed tests. Just over a quarter of teachers said their school or district has a no-zeroes policy.

    Around 3 in 10 teachers said their school or district allowed students to retake tests without penalty, and a similar share said they did not deduct points when students turned in work late. About 1 in 10 teachers said they were not permitted to factor class participation or homework into students’ final grades.

    Only 6% of teachers said their school used four or more equitable grading practices.

    That was surprising to Adam Tyner, who co-authored the new report for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, in partnership with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. He expected more schools would be following a “whole package” of grading reforms supported by advocates like former teacher and education consultant Joe Feldman, who wrote the influential book “Grading for Equity.”

    “It’s not like this has swept the country,” said Tyner, who has studied grading practices. He argues that some policies meant to create equity lead to grade inflation and don’t benefit students.

    The findings come as many schools are rethinking what students should have to do to get a high school diploma, and how much emphasis should be put on grades. At the same time, many schools continue to struggle with student disengagement and historically high rates of absenteeism following the pandemic. As a result, they’re trying to hold students accountable for their work without making it impossible to catch up on missed assignments.

    Though ideas about how to grade students more fairly predate the pandemic, several large districts started rethinking their grading practices following that disruption, as more students struggled to meet strict deadlines or do their homework.

    Proponents of equitable grading say it’s important for students to be able to show what they know over time, and that just a few zeroes averaged into a grade can make it difficult for students to ever catch up. When students don’t see a path to passing a class, it can make them less motivated or stop trying altogether.

    Still, some teachers have pushed back, arguing that no-zeroes policies can hurt student motivation, too.

    That showed up in the recent survey.

    Eight in 10 teachers said giving students partial credit for assignments they didn’t turn in was harmful to student engagement. Opposition to no-zeroes policies came from teachers of various racial backgrounds, experience levels, and who worked with different demographics of students.

    No-zeroes policies can take various forms but often mean that the lowest possible grade is a 50 on a 100-point scale. Some schools use software that will automatically convert lower grades to a 50, one teacher wrote on the survey.

    Schools that enrolled mostly students of color were more likely to have no-zeroes policies, the survey found. And middle schools were more likely than high schools and elementary schools to have no-zeroes policies, no-late-penalty policies, and retake policies.

    Researchers weren’t sure why those policies popped up more in middle schools.

    But Katherine Holden, a former middle school principal in Oregon’s Ashland School District who trains school districts on equitable grading practices, has some guesses.

    High schools may be more worried that changing their grading practices will make it harder for students to get into college, Holden said — a misconception in her eyes. And districts may see middle schoolers as especially likely to benefit from things like clear grading rubrics and multiple chances to show what they know, as they are still developing their organization and time-management skills.

    In the open-ended section of the survey, several teachers expressed concerns that no-zeroes policies were unfair and contributed to low student motivation.

    “Students are now doing below-average work or no work at all and are walking out with a C or B,” one teacher told researchers.

    “Most teachers can’t stand the ‘gifty fifty,’” said another.

    More than half of teachers said letting students turn in work late without any penalty was harmful to student engagement.

    “[The policy] removes the incentive for students to ever turn work in on time, and then it becomes difficult to pass back graded work because of cheating,” one teacher said.

    But teachers were more evenly divided on whether allowing students to retake tests was harmful or not.

    “Allowing retakes without penalty encourages a growth mindset, but it also promotes avoidance and procrastination,” one teacher said.

    Another said teachers end up grading almost every assignment more than once because students have no reason to give their best effort the first time.

    The report’s authors recommend getting rid of blanket policies in favor of letting individual teachers make those calls. Research has shown that other grading reforms, such as grading written assignments anonymously or using grading rubrics, can reduce bias.

    Still, teachers don’t agree on the best approach to grading. In the survey, 58% of teachers said it was more important to have clear schoolwide policies to ensure fair student grading — though the question didn’t indicate what that policy should look like — while the rest preferred using their professional judgment.

    “There are ways to combat bias, there are ways to make grading more fair, and we’re not against any of that,” Tyner said. “What we’re really concerned about is when we’re lowering standards, or lowering expectations. … Accountability is always a balancing act.”

    Nicole Paxton, the principal of Mountain Vista Community School, a K-8 school in Colorado’s Harrison School District 2, has seen that balancing act in action.

    Her district adopted a policy a few years ago that requires teachers to grade students on a 50-100 scale. Students get at least a 50% if they turn in work, but they get a “missing” grade if they don’t do the assignment. Middle and high schoolers are allowed to make up missing or incomplete assignments. But it has to be done within the same quarter, and teachers can deduct up to 10% for late assignments.

    Paxton thinks the policy was the right move for her district. She says she’s seen it motivate kids who are struggling to keep trying, when before they stopped doing their work because they didn’t think they could ever bounce back from a few zeroes.

    “As adults, in the real world, we get to show what we know and learn in our careers,” Paxton said. “And I think that kids are able to do that in our building, too.”

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on classroom trends, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Australia expands accepted English language tests for visa applications

    Australia expands accepted English language tests for visa applications

    LanguageCert Academic, CELPIP General, and the Michigan English Test (MET) are now officially accepted for use in Australian visa applications.

    With this update, a total of nine tests from eight different providers are now officially recognised for Australian visa purposes. These include previously accepted options such as IELTS, Pearson (PTE Academic), Cambridge English, TOEFL iBT, and OET. Notably, IELTS Academic and IELTS General Training are now registered as separate tests.

    Commenting on the news, Sharon Harvey, CEO of Michigan Language Assessment, said: “We are proud that Michigan Language Assessment has been approved by the government of Australia for MET to be used for Australian visa purposes. This recognition is a clear acknowledgment of the validity and reliability of MET, and of its value in assessing and certifying English language skills.”

    We are proud that Michigan Language Assessment has been approved by the government of Australia for MET to be used for Australian visa purposes

    The company, which launched in 2009 and enhanced with a secure digital version in 2021, said that to earn this status, MET underwent an extensive validation process.

    Meanwhile, LanguageCert‘s partnerships and recognitions director Fraser Cargill said the company was “excited to deepen our engagement in Australia, supporting individuals as they pursue opportunities in this dynamic country”.

    “This contract reflects our ongoing commitment to supporting government departments with secure solutions and individuals worldwide in achieving their academic, professional or personal goals through accessible and trusted language assessment,” he added.

    As of August 7, updated score requirements for certain tests have been implemented, with full details available on the Department of Home Affairs website.

    For its part, CELPIP General said it was “pleased to announce” that its test was one of those accepted by the Australian government as proof of English langage proficiency for visa purposes.

    “With this designation, we are pleased to provide test takers seeking to attain an Australian visa with the same dedicated assessment of English language proficiency that is tried and true for the government of Canada and other score users,” it said.

    Source link

  • New ELT study takes aim at “less traditional” tests

    New ELT study takes aim at “less traditional” tests

    The report by the Universities of Dundee and Cambridge highlights concerns about “the preparedness of students admitted through less traditional tests” as well as worries about the “security, validity and perceived inadequacy” of tests run by Duolingo and Oxford Education Group (OIEG).  

    The study draws on evidence from 50 UK universities, though its critics point out that many of the statements seem to be based on qualitative perspectives and anecdotal evidence from a small sample – comments that the report’s authors have hit out against.

    It is causing disturbance in the ELT world, with Duolingo highlighting that four out of the five authors are affiliated with a “single competitor test” – the IELTS test. For their part, the report’s authors have maintained that the study was carried out objectively.

    The study found the IELTS test to be widely regarded as the “common currency” of SELT, “largely due to the high level of trust in IELTS as a reliable and valid measure of language proficiency”, said the authors.  

    The most widely accepted English language test by UK universities, IELTS, is co-owned by IDP, Cambridge University Press and the British Council. 

    Other tests including TOEFL, C1 Advanced, and the Pearson Test of English (PTE), were found to be accepted by a high number of the institutions surveyed, while Duolingo was only accepted by six universities.  

    “Unfortunately, this study is based on the perceptions of a small group and relies on outdated views rather than robust empirical evidence,” a spokesperson for Duolingo told The PIE News in response to the findings. 

    They commented: “Every Ivy League university accepts the Duolingo English Test (DET), as do a third of Russell Group institutions and over 5,900 institutions worldwide,” adding that the DET “combines academic rigour and integrity with accessibility and affordability”. 

    Meanwhile, English testing expert Michael Goodine advised test takers “to keep in mind that the criticisms mentioned in the study are anecdotal and not presently supported by comparative data”.

    What’s more, at the time of the survey, Duolingo was only accepted at six universities, compared to IELTS. which was accepted at all 50.

    Given the experiences of surveyed staff sharing their worries about declining standards of English: “Clearly, then, Duolingo isn’t the problem,” suggested Goodine. “Maybe the traditional tests are also problematic,” he posed.

    For its part, Cambridge University Press & Assessment maintained the study was independently peer-reviewed, objecting to comments about the research being conducted on a “small” group or to their views being “outdated”.

    “The researchers did not seek views on any specific test,” said the spokesperson, adding that interviewees were asked about their personal experiences with the tests, changes since the pandemic, internal decision-making processes around test selection and their experience of the English levels of students admitted with such tests.

    “We hope this evidence will help universities to consider the relative merits of different modes of language assessment. Now is the time to put quality first,” they added.

    Maybe the traditional tests are also problematic

    Michael Goodine, Test Resources

    The report’s authors note that the shift to online learning and testing during the pandemic “has led to a perceived decline in language standards, with many staff members worried that students are not meeting the necessary threshold for successful academic engagement”.   

    “The lack of transparency and external validation, especially for newer tests, exacerbates these concerns, as many of these tests provide little evidence of comparability beyond marketing information,” they say, calling for universities to use evidence-based approaches when selecting which English language tests to use.  

    In addition to the choice of test, much of the report is dedicated to findings highlighting the growing concerns among university personnel about the declining English language proficiency of international students. 

    When asked to evaluate the academic literacy of the international students they teach, 44% of respondents said it was ‘poor’, 47% deemed it to be ‘mixed’ or ‘varied’, with less than 10% judging it to be ‘good’.   

    “Admitting students without sufficient English jeopardises their educational experience and places strains on institutions and faculty,” said Pamela Baxter, managing director for IELTS at Cambridge University Press & Assessment.  

    “These are some of the highest stakes exams around – that enable people to migrate and study”, said Baxter, adding that international students comprise 23% of the UK’s total student population, and “greatly enrich” universities, but must be admitted with the right standards.  

    The study finds a “great divide” between EAP and academic staff placing a greater emphasis on test validity and language proficiency, as compared to recruitment and admissions personnel who tend to priorities accessibility and cost.  

    Such a disparity highlights the “need for a more integrated approach to decision-making”, the authors argue.  

    The report comes as the UK SELT sector is bracing for a dramatic overhaul, caused by the government’s ongoing development of a dedicated Home Office English Language Test (HOELT), for which a tender process is currently underway.  

    Most recently, the Home Office launched a fourth round of market engagement about digital testing, exploring the viability of incorporating remote testing into the HOELT service.  

    Source link

  • HOELT tender explores digital tests

    HOELT tender explores digital tests

    The latest round of engagement is being undertaken “to gather market insights on newly available and emerging technology in relation to remote testing, and the viability of incorporating this into the HOELT service,” said the Home Office in a notice on July 2.  

    The notice is the latest update to a government tender to design and maintain a dedicated Secure English Language Test (SELT) owned by the Home Office, holding an initial contract value of £1.13bn, which was since reduced to £680m

    The original tender, launched in August 2024, made no mention of engagement on emerging technologies and digital tests, instead outlining plans for in-person delivery, including invigilators and ID-verification services at physical test centres around the world.  

    As per the latest update, the developer that wins the tender will still be responsible for “establishing and managing global test centres” – of which there are 268 – though the notice suggests that remote testing will also be incorporated into the model. 

    While the sector has embraced online delivery and at-home testing, the Home Office will also be taking stock of rising concerns among the public about the use of AI in English proficiency tests.

    According to a recent YouGov poll, 40% of the public are worried about AI causing a greater risk of cheating on English language tests, with a similar proportion concerned about the ability of AI to properly assess language skills.

    The poll, commissioned by Cambridge University Press & Assessment, asked respondents specifically about tests assessing English language skills for people applying to work and study in the UK.

    Additional findings revealed the public’s unease at the prospect of limited human interaction and concerns that AI-led exams would disadvantage those with limited access to technology – both cited by roughly a quarter of respondents.

    Meanwhile, only 8% said they had “no concerns” about the use of AI in English language tests for people applying to work or study in the UK.

    39% of the public are concerned about AI-based tests enabling cheating

    YouGov Poll

    Under its initial plans, the Home Office proposed disaggregating the service into two lines; the development and ongoing support of a Home Office branded test to be used globally, and the facilitation of tests around the world, according to the tender. 

    However, the government’s slashing of the value of the tender led some stakeholders to speculate that the Home Office might turn to a single supplier for both development and delivery.  

    Despite the additional engagement around emerging technologies and remote testing, the value of the tender remains at £680m (excluding VAT).  

    Since the government put out the HOELT tender last year, there has been little news about which companies are throwing their hats in the ring or what their proposed model would look like.

    Currently, PearsonLanguageCert, Trinity College London, and IELTS – which is co-owned by IDP, Cambridge English and the British Council – deliver Home Office-approved SELTs in the UK. 

    The deadline for the latest round of engagement is July 17.

    Source link

  • Majority of AP Tests to Be Delivered Online

    Majority of AP Tests to Be Delivered Online

    Put down your pencils: The Advanced Placement test will take place entirely online.

    Starting this May, the College Board will discontinue paper exams for 28 of the 36 AP subjects that offer end-of-year exams, reflecting a growing transition to digital testing.

    All the AP exams will be offered via Bluebook, a digital testing application that also hosts the SAT and PSAT.

    Students will take the exam completely online or with a mix of online and handwritten responses, depending on the subject matter. Essay-based exams, like AP U.S. History and AP English Language and Composition, will be fully online, while computational tests, like AP Biology and AP Statistics, will be a mix of multiple-choice online and free response on paper. The remaining paper exams are language and music exams, which require audio files.

    College Board has offered digital AP exams for select subjects since 2022, after first providing at-home online test taking for students in 2020, when the pandemic caused challenges in administering and collecting students’ tests.

    The transition to digital testing hasn’t been smooth for the College Board; thousands of students experienced difficulties completing the English and Chinese tests in 2023.

    Cheating has also hurried College Board’s digitization plans, as the organization seeks to improve security after a higher-than-normal share of student scores had to be canceled in 2024 due to alleged academic misconduct.

    Changes to the AP exam have raised doubts about the rigor of the tests and scoring methodology. College Board acknowledged an overhaul of its AP scoring system in 2024, which it claims creates a more data-informed approach to scoring, though critics argue it is boosting student scores.

    Source link

  • How standardized tests became part of the DEI debate

    How standardized tests became part of the DEI debate

    In the Education Department’s sweeping Dear Colleague letter last month, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor wrote that colleges must eliminate all race-conscious programs and policies, from scholarships and admissions practices to campus cultural groups and DEI training.

    One surprising mention: standardized testing policies.

    Trainor wrote that test-optional policies could be “proxies for race” to help colleges “give preference” to certain groups.

    “That is true whether the proxies are used to grant preferences on an individual basis or a systematic one,” he wrote. “It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.”

    Higher education leaders and researchers have long debated the pros and cons of standardized testing in admissions: Some believe they’re a meritocratic predictor of academic success, while others say they’re more aligned with family wealth. In recent years, those debates have become entangled with discussions of systemic racism in the American education system.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of colleges waived test requirements for applicants. Five years later, most have retained their test-optional policies—though a year ago some selective institutions began returning to score requirements, reigniting a charged debate about the role of standardized tests in admissions.

    After the Supreme Court banned affirmative action in 2023, experts said test-optional policies could serve as race-neutral measures to help colleges maintain diversity in their applicant pools. They cited research showing that colleges with test-optional policies enrolled 10 to 12 percent more students from underrepresented racial backgrounds; other studies found that doing away with test requirements simplified the application process and thus removed barriers for first-generation and other underserved students. The Biden administration even included test-optional policies in its guidance for colleges adjusting to the court ruling.

    If colleges cited such research in keeping their test-optional policies, Trainor’s letter implied it could be grounds for a civil rights investigation.

    In a Frequently Asked Questions document meant to clarify the broad scope of the Dear Colleague letter, OCR made no mention of testing policies. But in response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about how the department views test-optional policies, Trainor left the door open to federal scrutiny.

    “This isn’t complicated,” he wrote. “When in doubt, every school should consult the [Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard] legal test contained in the [Dear Colleague letter]: ‘If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.’”

    Harry Feder, executive director of FairTest and an outspoken critic of standardized testing, said assessments like the SAT have long been embroiled in debates about racial equity in education, but the discourse grew more prominent as attacks on DEI and affirmative action intensified.

    “The SAT has racial bias baked into it from its origins as an early IQ test to keep out the riffraff,” he said. “What Republicans are now saying is, that’s an objective measure of merit, and if white and Asian kids do better on them over all, then colleges not considering those scores is a form DEI run amok.”

    John Friedman, an economics professor at Brown University, has published numerous influential studies on the effects of standardized testing policies, including those cited by the majority of Ivy League institutions that decided to return to test requirements. He said he understands where the Education Department’s skepticism comes from.

    “Schools might be tempted to continue test-optional policies to make it easier to maintain diverse classes, even if that makes it harder to assess students’ academic preparation,’” Friedman said. “I think that’s where some of the angst comes from, as part of a larger concern about higher education moving away from the traditional sense of meritocracy.”

    At the same time, he said the department should consider how institutions use test scores in admissions, which can vary widely.

    “The point is not that you can’t go test-optional. It’s that you shouldn’t if your goal is an end run around the SFFA decision,” Friedman said. “It would be bad to force institutions that decided thoughtfully that test requirements are not best for them to adopt those policies anyway.”

    Dominique Baker, associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, said she doesn’t believe it should matter whether colleges are considering racial diversity in deciding on their testing policies. The truth, she said, is that research on how testing policies affect applicant diversity is murky, and many of the colleges where the policies could have a demonstrable impact have already returned to requiring scores.

    For her, the mention of testing policies alongside other DEI initiatives is “head-scratching.”

    “The places the administration cares about have largely already returned to testing, or are certainly poised to do so soon. So who is this for?” Baker said. “It’s bananas that testing is even in here.”

    Reversing the Test-Optional Tide?

    So far, the letter hasn’t had any effect on institutions’ testing policies. But colleges are starting to respond to the Dear Colleague letter’s guidance in other ways, changing the names of student service offices, scrubbing mentions of race and equity from their websites, eliminating race-conscious programs, and canceling affinity group events.

    “It would be naïve to believe that certain institutions wouldn’t, at the very least, strongly consider changing their testing policies in order to fly under the radar with the administration,” Baker said.

    Some colleges are pushing ahead with their test-optional policies regardless. Last Thursday the University of Vermont announced that its test-optional policy, put in place during the pandemic, would become permanent.

    Jay Jacobs, vice president for enrollment management at Vermont, told Inside Higher Ed the decision was based on years of research that found that removing test requirements not only had little effect on students’ academic performance and persistence, but also helped UVM achieve its goal of enrolling more local and first-generation students.

    He said the university did not take racial diversity into account when measuring the policy’s enrollment impact—“we didn’t want that to be construed as the reason,” he explained—but said that whatever the rationale, he doesn’t believe the Education Department’s guidance should have any influence.

    “No external party should have a say in dictating institutional policy,” Jacobs said.

    Meanwhile, leaders in the assessment industry have remained largely silent about the Trump administration’s promotion of their exams as part of the war on DEI.

    The College Board, which owns and administers the SAT, did not release a public statement about the letter, nor did ACT, Educational Testing Services or any other major assessment organization.

    College Board communications director Holly Stepp wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the organization believes testing can promote college access, but it does not usually comment on policy matters.

    “College Board provides access and opportunity to millions of students from every background through programs that are mission-driven, evidence-based, and nonpartisan,” Stepp wrote. “We do not set policies around how our exam is used by higher education institutions and scholarship providers.”

    Juan Elizondo, ACT’s strategic communications director for government and public relations, told Inside Higher Ed that the company stands behind institutions’ freedom to set their own testing policies.

    “ACT respects the authority of our higher education partners to decide the admission standards that are right for their institutions,” he wrote.

    Failing the Logic Test

    As colleges like Yale, Harvard and MIT returned to test requirements last year, many cited the same new research: a study from Opportunity Insights that found that test-optional policies made it more difficult for selective institutions to admit students who could succeed academically—and to find qualified applicants from diverse racial and economic backgrounds. Statements from both Yale and Dartmouth said that test scores could “help expand access” for underrepresented groups, including students of color.

    So if both test-optional and test-mandatory policies can promote racial diversity depending on the institution, how will the Trump administration enforce its guidance?

    When asked this question, Trainor did not respond directly but implied that any institution using racial diversity as a justification for any policy, or even citing it as a potential benefit, could be in violation of the current Education Department’s views on civil rights law.

    Friedman, one of the researchers who produced the Opportunity Insights study, said his research showed that for some highly selective colleges, requiring test scores could help “a little bit” with diversity in the selection process. The argument is that by providing a standardized measure of academic preparedness, selective colleges can find a “diamond in the rough”—applicants from underresourced high schools who would struggle to stand out otherwise.

    “For some schools, going back to requiring testing may help improve diversity, but my sense is that improving diversity is not the primary motivation behind this policy change,” he said.

    Feder agreed but had a different prediction.

    “If I’m at the OCR and an Ivy League college is saying, ‘We went back to test requirements because it’s good for diversity,’ even if that’s not really the case, I’d go investigate them,” he said. “By their own logic, they’d have to.”

    Baker said there hasn’t been enough research to determine whether test-optional policies make a huge difference in promoting diversity. Many of the colleges that have kept them in place, she said, have also made more holistic changes to their admissions process that could account for diversity gains. But she believes ending the experiment early by government coercion would be a major step backward.

    “Researchers in the field are doing some real deep dives to better understand the effects of test-optional policies themselves. The people writing the [Dear Colleague] letter have no clue about any of that; they just read about how these policies are part of an anti-white war on meritocracy,” she said. “They’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall.”

    Source link