Standardized Testing: What is it Good For? A Case Study in Connecticut

The case study was developed in an attempt to shed more light on the debate of standardized testing. The goal of the study was to find evidence to support whether or not standardized testing is worth doing in public secondary schools. To investigate this question, the state standardized math test scores of three Connecticut public high schools were analyzed. The average math scores over thirteen years were observed and statistical analysis was performed to see if any significant differences existed between the three schools. Tests were performed before and after the change in standardized test. The graduation rates of the schools were observed and compared to the trend of the CAPT mean math scores over time. This analysis was then supplemented with responses from a survey distributed to Connecticut high school math teachers to take into consideration the educators’ views of standardized testing. Both the quantitative and qualitative data had conflicting results. The standardized test scores appeared to improve over time, while the teachers found their teaching and student learning was interfered with the testing. Following the analyses, future implications of using standardized testing and how it may affect the transition to the Common Core Standards is discussed. -

Changes in Patient Perceptions of the Provider Most Involved in Care During COVID-19 and Corresponding Effects on Patient Trust

During COVID-19 routine clinical operations were disrupted, including limits on the types of providers allowed to perform in-person care and frequency of times they could enter a patient's room. Whether these changes affected patients’ trust in the care they received during hospitalization is unknown. Hospitalized patients on the general medicine service were called after discharge and asked to identify who (attending, resident, etc.) was most involved in their inpatient care, and how much trust they had in the physician caring for them. During the pandemic patients were more likely to report attending physicians (29% to 34%) and nurses (30% to 35%), and less likely to report residents/interns (8.1% to 6.5%) or medical students (1.7% to 1.4%) as most involved in their care (chi-squared test, p  = 0.04). Patients reporting their attending physician as most involved in their care were more likely to report trusting their doctor (chi-squared test, p  < 0.01). As such, trends in medical education that limit trainees’ time in direct patient care may affect the development of clinical and interpersonal skills necessary to establish patient trust