© 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and the Lost Benefits of Effective Testing Richard P. PHELPS

US Standards & Testing Policy: 1990s © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 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

US Standards & Testing Policy: 2000s © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 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

US Standards & Testing Policy: 2010s © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 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

US Standards & Testing Policy © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 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, “The Effect of Testing on Student Achievement, ” 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, Number of studies of effects, by methodology type… Methodology type Number of studies Number of effects Quantitative Surveys and public opinion polls (US & Canada) Qualitative245 TOTAL

© 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, 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 )

John Hattie’s meta-analyses of meta-analyses © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May,

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 Student-centered teaching Classroom cohesion Pre-term birth weight Peer influences Classroom management techniques Outdoor-adventure programs Home environment Socio-economic status © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May,

“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,

10 benefits of testing and their applications to education Roediger, Putnam and Smith Direct effects of testing SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 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 © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May,

10 benefits of testing and their applications to education Roediger, Putnam and Smith Indirect effects of testing SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 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. © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May,

10 benefits of testing and their applications to education Roediger, Putnam and Smith SOURCE: Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 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 © 2015, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May,

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, Richard P PHELPS Governor’s Council on Common Core Review, Arkansas State Captiol, May, No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and the Lost Benefits of Effective Testing Richard P. PHELPS