Xin Ru '24 brings a great counterpoint against this year's assessment policy!
To many students, school is inevitably associated with the idea of “stress”. Walking down the hallways at SAS, it's hard not to hear the complaints of sleepless nights from writing a physics lab report or an upcoming Socratic seminar. However, the prevalence of these complaints in our school community is precisely why we should seek for a remedy. The school administrators, for example, had taken the first steps by introducing a new assessment policy.
The policy states that any major assessments— assessments constituting “more than 10% of the semester grade and/or [taking] more than 30 minutes”— must be administered during first or third block, with exceptions to IB courses.
Though the apparent effect of this is just increasing first-block tests, that’s only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this much-disputed policy. In a recent survey, despite the neutrality of the averaged opinion, which could be due to a lack of awareness or a lack of preference, students expressed a sprawling variety of opinions that indicates the complexity behind this well-intended policy. And through exploring its benefits and drawbacks, I will seek to answer whether it has achieved its purpose of relieving student stress or not.
PROS
A read of the student handbook would tell you of a similar pre-existing policy. However, the critical difference is that whereas the old policy gives students the right to object to more than two major assessments a day, the new policy rejects the need for students to do so.
In an interview with Mr. Mimnaugh, he had said that, previously, some teachers were adhering to that right and some were not, and that many students had a difficult time advocating for themselves. That is only understandable, as students don't want to be on a teacher’s bad side. But by forcing assessments into certain blocks, the burden of enforcing the policy is lifted from the student’s shoulders and levied onto the teachers.
Not only that, but this policy also eliminates consecutive major assessments. Imagine finishing an exhausting writing test only to find that you have to face a trigonometry test right afterward. As Elaine Shen (’24) said, the policy helps to reduce the possibility of burnout, which is what students are most susceptible to when dealing with assessments, one following another.
And by reducing burnout, the policy can prevent academic dishonesty. According to Mr. Mimnaugh, when students have a lot of stress all at once, some tend to cut corners. Alleviating some of those burdens could protect the integrity of students and promote a culture of honesty, where students don’t feel the urge to resort to such measures.
A side effect of this policy also gives surprising benefits. Regarding the hotly debated topic of math classes getting around the policy by making their tests shorter and worth less percentage, the policy may prove to be a blessing for some as more summative tests mean more chances to do well.
In fact, in the opinion of Mr. Mimnaugh, an increase of smaller tests actually falls in line with best practice, as educators can gather more evidence of learning instead of assessing just one culminating unit test. And despite this increase in math tests, Elaine Shen (’24) explained her preference for smaller tests because of their minimal need for studying, which cancels out the stress that normally comes along with assessments. This is especially true for those who see the smaller tests as opportunities to boost their grades in a relatively low-stress situation.
While these are evidence of the policy’s success in alleviating stress, not everyone agrees when it comes to the policy’s implications on fairness and scheduling.
CONS
Critics of this policy could go off reciting its numerous flaws, but one most people have probably noticed is the difference in assessment schedules. With the first-or-third-block restriction, test-taking dates can vary greatly between different classes.
In an interview, Lucy Chen (’24) said that while she could accept one or two days due to A- and B-day rotations, she cannot tolerate the fact that people are given four whole days to prepare for something that she only had a day or two to study for.
And the unfairness goes beyond more time to study— students can ask about what’s on the test. It’s true that teachers can and probably will change the content on each test, but there’s only so much a teacher can do. At the end of the day, these tests are still the same when it comes to the type of questions asked, and this information can be extremely advantageous for someone studying.
Moreover, affecting assessment scheduling can also obstruct the flow of learning. For example, a Unit 1 test could take place after you’ve already started Unit 2, because the policy forces teachers to postpone the test until it can happen during a first or third block, which can severely hamper students’ retention of the learned material.
And, again, with math class, the increase of tests is an outrageous and ironic side effect of the policy for many. As the policy was aimed at reducing stress, this increase of assessments seems unreasonable when students are struggling to keep up with their already hectic schedules.
For many, having more tests, whether it carries as much weight as a major exam or not, almost always equates to added stress and anxiety. Sarah Wang (’24) explained that their math class needs to complete EOLs (Evidence of Learning) almost every single class. While this sounds like an overstatement, the weight of the stress on students is nevertheless very real— as Lucy Chen (’24) said, these small tests can easily make or break your grade.
But regardless of how grades are affected, the sheer amount of these tests truly calls into question the merits of the policy.
CONCLUSION
Advocate or hater, we must admit that the policy has had its successes with reducing student stress. But at the same time, we cannot turn a blind eye to its numerous flaws, which could push the limits of an otherwise bright student.
Perhaps the greatest issue is the impracticality of a one-size-fits-all solution. After all, each student is unique with how they perceive and deal with stress. It’s unrealistic to ask school administrators to create a policy, in a situation as complex as this, to satisfy every individual’s needs.
But the impossibility of perfection shouldn’t stand in the way of the effort to attain it. And as an institution that provides world-class education, according to Mr. Mimnaugh, we should continue to seek for better policies to ensure a culture of joy and care for the students, where the learning environment is for the benefit of all students and not certain individuals.
Until then, we must continue the endeavor to relieve the weight of assessment stress on the shoulders of the students, one EOL at a time.
Comments