Wouldn't it be cheaper to just scribble out the names on the tests we already use and pencil in a new name. Not only will it save money it will save time it takes to come up with new tests. These tests save the Iowas are fairly new and cost the state a lot of cash to implement.

Utah has a history of these sorts of changes based on the current popular view in education. None of these approaches has helped kids. Did the open classrooms during the seventies help or hinder ed.? Has the current national trend towards investigations Math gone well in Utah? I just don't see such an expensive change in the basic how we do things is going to help.

The Iowas would be the ACTs. I agree with that change as they seem pretty comparable. But I don't think even that is needed because taking the different norm referenced test breaks the state's continuity in testing. That makes previous generation's testing records not align with future ones. As an educator I would have less to compare my teaching methods for purposes of improvement. It is not worth the loss of continuity.

The UBSCT is quite the unpopular test with many parents, and conversely politicians who hear when kids in their areas have failed to pass. I can see why they are wanting to undo the requirement of passing the eighth grade level test for High School graduation, but doing so is the wrong thing to do. So were the several school districts who granted diplomas when students had not met the minimum requirements. This test happens to be the only test the state currently uses applying full accountability to the student for their learning. All other tests lie mostly on the shoulders of the educator.

What would be a better approach is to test at the end of 8th and 9th grade. Students who have met the requirement are ready for High School and should be allowed to enroll. Students who are not ready need more help and reteaching. They should be steered to a school that will meet their needs. If they are ready and can pass the test later, then they enroll in HS. This fulfills the government's obligation to provide a proper public education, and would be a more efficient uses of public tax dollars.

The CRTs are still in development, slowly moving into an advanced age of testing technology with the 'sudden emergence of the computer' in our public schools. Getting rid of this form of testing for one that is almost exactly like it (the difference being periodic testing instead of a one-time cumulative year-end test) seems like a great way to spend more money without improving the end result.

Before such a change is made, consider the research that is similar or already available whether this will help or hinder the goal of providing an appropriate public education. You will find that any strong research-based program such as Saxon Math or Reading Mastery already has built in periodic testing to ensure maximum effectiveness in the instruction and the the student's level of mastery and comprehension of what the program is designed to teach.

Secondly, educators already assess periodically to ascertain students' comprehension and the effectiveness of their own teaching methods. The New testing will either duplicate current testing effort in schools or remove the teacher initiated testing. I see it as a duplication. Technology is not fully available at our schools to make the state testing timely enough for corrections....

...and without appropriate technology, educators must still use pencil and paper tests to get timely results to improve teaching methods and to reteach students who were unclear of the objectives.

Funny how this all comes down to funding. If the state adopts this new approach to testing, they must also update current technology in all public schools, and then update that technology every three years or so. Not getting that technology in all schools undermines the very effectiveness of the periodic testing. At the very least it will tie up what little technology the schools have access to as to make them unavailable for computer based instruction.

Is the state willing to spend money to put current technology in all public schools if they make this change? Do they understand why they must do so for this sort of testing to be effective? If either answer is no, we are better off to leave things alone.

Well put MrJarvis. Be sure to send your thought to the panel members and legislative deciders. At this point, I suspect that the discussions have been a mere formality and the new tests -- that are of questionable value--- will be pushed through in spite of overwhelming opposition from educators throughout the state.

At my son's school the CRT's for science are their lowest scores in all subjects (math, english and science).

Yet the Iowa basic skills test, scores for science are the highest.

What does this tell us?

The CRTs are horrible tests. My son said he had a hard time even figuring out what the questions were asking. He is a straight A student.

I can only imagine what the kids that are just learning english have to do to understand those CRT tests.

The CRT questions are not very well written. I use them in my class all the time, but I have to rewrite/edit them to make them understandable.

Putting just a little more effort into ONE type of testing... maybe even two, would be much better and cheaper than constantly switching test formats.

I have participated in writing the CRT questions.

The process they make you go through makes it so that you can't write a decent yet understandable question.

They try to write questions that test on too many levels. The poor ESL kids in my classes (about 30% of the kids) don't stand a chance at deciphering the questions so they end up guessing.

Sad part is we pay some company from back east to come out and run the test writing workshop. Then they hire the local teachers to write them and pay us a couple hundred bucks...

The state averages for Science CRTs have been in the mid sixties the past two years. The other two CRTs are legitimate measurements of student learning.

I asked why the Science test was so poorly written (I ran one of the schools testing labs and saw many of the questions). I was told that the other two sections of the test had been used for a long period of time. The Science test had just been written by the state and not the same group who had written the other two CRTs. This means the Science section needs a lot more work, and perhaps our standards to be more definitive. I wonder how well we as teachers cover the material tested based on how vague some of the standards are.

Switching to a new test does not solve this problem as the questions still need to be written for our State's curriculum.

As far as the Iowas go, that test is very easy and should be a great boost to kids self esteem. One fifth grade Science question on a parent/offspring connection could be correctly answered by most five-year olds without ever being instructed on the concept.

Problem is, the generation of a decent question bank shouldn't have to take a decade. I can sit at my computer and "edit" these questions and make them understandable for my own kids. It takes all of 20 minutes to redo an objective test.

At the same time, going to a computer based test is really going to hurt us. Now, teachers don't even know what their kids are being tested on unless they hover over their backs reading the questions.

Why are we asked to teach to a test that we can't even see? Constantly, throughout education we are told to NOT teach to the test... and then we are graded, paid, and fired based on those tests.

And now we can't even see a copy of the test?!?

The test scores wouldn't be down if teachers were teaching the material that is on the State Core! OUr school put in an initiative to teach the state core in all subjects that have one, especially math, science, and English. During the 05-06 school year, we were dead last in our district. After the 06-07 year, we jumped to the middle, around 5th or 6th. At the end of last year we jumped to 3rd in the district. All because we were teaching what we are supposed to be teaching. We don't have a "rich" school.

Therefore, if you were teaching the state core and not what YOU think the students need to know your test scores wouldn't be low.