There were two opinion pieces in the editorial section of Sunday’s Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper to shed light on an issue that surfaced as the result of a report released by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. The report (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement Releases Grading Alignment Study) was designed to find out what relationship exists between students’ scores on end-course-exams, and grades in those courses.

Lo and beyold the study researchers found out that there was indeed a relationship between those 2 hour end-of-course test scores and the grades students earned for a full years worth of work. But it wasn’t necessarily the relationship that some wanted!

Comparing Grades and End-of-Course Test Scores in Eight Content Areas

The key words to examine here are “alignment & rigor.” State officials believe that the rigor that has been imposed on the development of standards, and norm referenced end-of-course exams should result in an alignment between curriculum, high-stakes tests, and grades. Sounds logical.

However, some are bent-out-of shape with the results showing that in some schools more than 50% of students who received an A in a course flunked the End-of-Course test. The state would like to see a relationship such that if you flunk the End-of-Course test you probably should have flunked the course. It really sounds logical. But….

One of the findings in the study revealed that a higher positive correlation was found among students who attended schools in affluent neighborhoods, whereas there seemed to be a negative relationship between test scores and grades in less affluent schools. This is not a surprising gap. It exists on most standardized tests given not only in the USA, but in other countries as well.

In her article, Maureen Downey of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution argued that the divide between grades and test scores can’t be ignored. She points out that although tests provide a limited snapshot of academic performance, if these snapshots “capture” the same low achievement, perhaps we should look at the implications. In a corresponding article on the same issue entitled Tests for Our Students Make the Grade, Melissa Fincher, Director of Assessment at the Georgia Department of Education, argues that the state mandated tests are doing the job. She says, in part:

The purpose of the EOCTs (End of Course Test) is to provide a common measure, ensuring all students in the state are held to the same expectation. Local systems and schools are required to align (my italics) their instructional programs to the state content standards.

A key tenet of a standards-based educational system is common learning expectations. The state’s new curriculum, the Georgia Performance Standards, was developed to set clear, rigorous expectations for both teaching and learning. The state’s tests are built to assess those standards.

This is the same line that the state uses to continue using End-of-Course tests and other high-stakes tests to defend the “tougher standards” philosophy that has strangled schools of innovation and creativity. One intresting comment made in Downey’s article is a quote from Gerald Bracey, former director of research of the Virginia Department of Education. He says:

Perhaps the classroom A is actually more predictive of success than the state test. Does doing well on the [state] test mean anything for kids later in life? Georgia should look at whether the kids who get A’s from the teacher and lower grades on the tests perform worse in college.

Downey points out that many states are unwilling to pursue these questions because they might find that their tests aren’t really valid measures of student achievement.

I know that I am swimming upstream when I suggested in earlier posts that there should be a moratorium on high-stakes tests. Instead, perhaps we could take Bracey’s suggestion and find out how effective these tests really are.

I recommend you read both articles, and then you might want to read Alfie Kohn’s article, The Case Against Tougher Standards.