Assessments are my life right now. As much as I may hate it, I teach to the test. Specifically, I teach to the GED, since that's why my students attend the program.
But just because students pass the GED doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful in post-secondary education, or, for that matter, in life. The same applies to all standardized tests. Life isn't standardized, so why should students' assessments be?
At its best, education should prepare students for life, which standardized tests do not do. Therefore, the standardization movement is unethical, since it does not accurately prepare students for real-world skills. I also think the movement is dangerous, since our society depends upon a well-educated populace with critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The standardization movement is essentially destroying our own future (not to be overly dramatic or anything). This will continue to be the case for as long as the movement is run by billionaires, for-profit testing corporations, and other people who are not teachers.
In the article linked above, a mother is concerned that Pearson's wrong answer in a textbook would carry over to Pearson's test; but more than that, she is concerned that the test is not allowing her children (or herself) the chance to hold them accountable. As the author states, Pearson is writing tests "we parents will never get to see. Tests we parents will never get to review. Tests we parents will never get to question." This is extraordinarily unethical, and extraordinarily dangerous. Any curriculum designer will tell you to BEGIN with the assessment to see what students know, not END with the assessment to penalize students for what they don't. (Of course, you need pre- and post-assessments to be entirely accurate, but the point of the final one is to see which skills students still have not mastered, not to be used as the end-all be-all of how to grade students and their teachers.) If the testing company is the only one that knows the answer, how can students, parents, and teachers know how to improve? (Moreover, if teachers have to be held accountable, why doesn't the testing industry have to live up to its own standards?)
I experience this same frustration with my students. We give them practice tests through the testing sites, and we are able to see a score, and nothing more, once the student has finished. That's it. This is incredibly unhelpful in terms of designing lessons and assessing skills. This is not how you learn. This is not how you teach.
Clearly, I am not a fan of the for-profit testing industry. Nor, as I'm sure you're aware, am I a fan of the larger movement in which billionaires seem to have ultimate control over education reform, regardless of how ignorant they are of the complexities of the school system. (Warning: This article is really long.) They continually harp upon accountability, but to whom are they accountable?
The current education reform movement, in a nutshell, seems to be saying that if you have money and power, you get to make the rules, and that teaching really isn't that hard, since they can get the answers (albeit wrong ones) from the textbooks. The entire movement undermines the entire profession of teaching, what with all this hate about teacher tenure and Teach for America, which doesn't seem to think that one needs experience or much training to become a teacher. That's why I'm glad that Harvard may no longer be sending graduates to TFA -- at least that is one baby step in the right direction. But we have so far to go.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
I'll take Policy Potpourri for 500, Alex (aka Link Storm 2014)
Most educational reforms, as most of us know, deal with testing and accountability. In many cases, this means several things: teachers lack control of their own curricula, academics take priority over everything else; and schools systematically find ways to deal with "bad kids" who inhibit learning.
To the first point: Curricula cannot be one-size-fits-all. All students, and all teachers, are different. But when one is teaching to a specific standardized test, this idea is often forgotten, and then teachers are stuck teaching things they themselves may not even care about. Thus, students become bored and disengaged, and no one can learn like that. Education needs to be relevant or you won't remember what you learned. That's basic learning theory. Additionally, as this article points out, racial makeup of schools (in regards to both students and staffing) does matter, especially in terms of how comfortable students and parents feel in their neighborhood schools. I believe that first and foremost, schools should feel like a community for all involved, not simply a place where one goes to learn stuff. When teachers can't control what they're teaching, it breaches basic theories about how students learn, and quashes the idea that schools act as safe communities who embrace their students' cultures. Perhaps more importantly, when teachers are not in control, their voices are not heard, and neither are their students'.
To the second point: We all know that there is not enough time in the day to do everything we want to do. This is even more problematic for teachers, especially when they must teach to the test. But is it really a bad thing when students don't have time for non-academic activities, like music, sports, and theater? Yes. The author here does an amazing job of advocating for the arts. I know from experience that the arts are vital. Especially for at-risk students. True, the arts are not tested. But we can still hold arts teachers accountable for what their students learn. Not all successes can be measured through numbers (and this is coming from someone who creates pivot tables for fun...).
And to the last point: Perhaps I am naive, but I don't understand why there is such a preponderance of expulsions and suspensions in the school system. First of all, if a child dislikes school, suspending him is not a punishment. Secondly, while I understand that teachers may not be able to manage a classroom with constant misbehavior (speaking from experience), taking a child out of school sends a message that the people in charge are giving up on helping her. This article alludes to the idea that expulsion rates correlate to drop out rates (and looking at this graph, you can see that "not being interested" -- i.e. the first and second points -- and "missing too many days" account for the most popular reasons for why students drop out (page 3)). We need to develop a culture that tells students school is important, but this goes back to making school relevant and interesting again.
Finally, to end on a good note, despite the fact that is so much wrong with education reform, the world needs passionate and caring teachers. This professor explains why beautifully.
.
To the first point: Curricula cannot be one-size-fits-all. All students, and all teachers, are different. But when one is teaching to a specific standardized test, this idea is often forgotten, and then teachers are stuck teaching things they themselves may not even care about. Thus, students become bored and disengaged, and no one can learn like that. Education needs to be relevant or you won't remember what you learned. That's basic learning theory. Additionally, as this article points out, racial makeup of schools (in regards to both students and staffing) does matter, especially in terms of how comfortable students and parents feel in their neighborhood schools. I believe that first and foremost, schools should feel like a community for all involved, not simply a place where one goes to learn stuff. When teachers can't control what they're teaching, it breaches basic theories about how students learn, and quashes the idea that schools act as safe communities who embrace their students' cultures. Perhaps more importantly, when teachers are not in control, their voices are not heard, and neither are their students'.
To the second point: We all know that there is not enough time in the day to do everything we want to do. This is even more problematic for teachers, especially when they must teach to the test. But is it really a bad thing when students don't have time for non-academic activities, like music, sports, and theater? Yes. The author here does an amazing job of advocating for the arts. I know from experience that the arts are vital. Especially for at-risk students. True, the arts are not tested. But we can still hold arts teachers accountable for what their students learn. Not all successes can be measured through numbers (and this is coming from someone who creates pivot tables for fun...).
And to the last point: Perhaps I am naive, but I don't understand why there is such a preponderance of expulsions and suspensions in the school system. First of all, if a child dislikes school, suspending him is not a punishment. Secondly, while I understand that teachers may not be able to manage a classroom with constant misbehavior (speaking from experience), taking a child out of school sends a message that the people in charge are giving up on helping her. This article alludes to the idea that expulsion rates correlate to drop out rates (and looking at this graph, you can see that "not being interested" -- i.e. the first and second points -- and "missing too many days" account for the most popular reasons for why students drop out (page 3)). We need to develop a culture that tells students school is important, but this goes back to making school relevant and interesting again.
Finally, to end on a good note, despite the fact that is so much wrong with education reform, the world needs passionate and caring teachers. This professor explains why beautifully.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)