The first sentence says it all...

"Few education policies are built from a deep knowledge of schools, the teachers who work in them, or the students who attend them," says Valerie Strauss in this article. How apt. 

This is what I've been saying all along. And I don't think I have ever met a teacher who would not agree with this statement. Policy-makers, on the other hand...

The writer of this article also excoriates CCSS, her thesis being, rightly, that not all students develop at the same pace. That is one of the biggest issues with the standardization movement -- we know not everyone is the same (in terms of learning styles, interests, ability, etc.), so why does this movement insist on pretending that everyone is? 

How kids (and adults) learn

Many teachers and educational experts are against the standardized testing movement for many good reasons, one of which is because testing does not equal learning. One of the reasons why I believe that standardized tests are not accurate measures of what a student learns is because the brain naturally works in such a way that it forgets what it does not deem relevant. If memorizing an algebraic equation or analyzing a Shakespearean sonnet does not matter to the student, they may master this concept on a test, but they will not remember it for the long-term. Things that are irrelevant to students (and, for that matter, adults) have no meaning. This site has a great diagram (about 5/6ths of the way down) of what happens in our brains when something has no meaning for learners.

This theory is clearly observed when put into practice. We naturally gravitate toward what we enjoy. It should be no different in classrooms. In this blog post published almost a year ago, the author explains extremely well why students have trouble learning basic skills like spelling when teachers ignore (or don't know) how the brain works. She states that “[i]f spelling words are simply strings of letters to be learnt by heart with no meaning attached and no investigation of how those words are constructed, then we are simply assigning our children a task equivalent to learning ten random seven-digit PINs each week. That is not only very very hard, it's pointless.” Her idea about teaching morphemes so that a child will write “jumped” rather than “jumt” not only helps students develop meaning about words and therefore attach relevancy to them, but also helps them with deductive reasoning, which is a skill that is transferable to almost anything. But most standardized tests do not test deductive reasoning; most are based, instead, on rote memorizing, like spelling, which will likely be forgotten.

Teaching and testing methods that rely on this type of knowledge are not only ineffective, they are boring. This is one reason why children drop out of school. These children soon become adults, and since they have been out of school for so long, they often feel stuck, and they become unemployed and/or incarcerated. This is a problem particularly in DC, where more than 60,000 adults do not have a high school credential. The GED is designed in much the same way high school standardized tests are, so the problem remains: students must study for things they just don't care about. Can we blame them for not caring about quadratic equations and whether or not a character's mood changes in contrast with the setting? I don't think so. I think we should train teachers and test-makers instead to assess what is relevant. Students will be happier and more productive when we do.

Arts Appreciation... or not

Educators and policy makers have been aware for a long time that the education movement has been focused on standardized testing, and that focus does not seem to be shifting. Those who have the most power still want the testing movement to press on -- see this article, despite the fact that everyone who knows anything about education keeps telling them there is much more to school than test scores. The article above, for instance, states it perfectly: "Despite assessment experts... warning over and over again that using students' standardized test scores to evaluate educators is misguided, Duncan maintained his allegiance to using [standardized tests] as an evaluation tool."

But as experts (and I) have stated time and time again, standardized tests are not the best measure of either a student's or a teacher's ability. Nor, for that matter, are they a particularly useful learning tool, since standardized tests will not continue once students are finished with school and enter the workforce (I'm not counting those one-time tests like the MCAT or LSAT that students take to enter a line of work -- I'm more interested in the rest of students' lives, once they have begun careers). So why are we so focused on teaching children test-taking skills and little else?

And with all the focus on helping students score high on standardized tests, we do not have time to teach children so many other (and I would argue, more important) skills they need to help them grow into successful adults. Untested subjects are often those that are more important -- the arts, for example. This blog post does a beautiful job of explaining why the arts enhance education and how they can be applied to all subjects. We don't measure art because it is often subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If you're still not convinced that there should be more focus on the arts in school, this article also does a great job at explaining why the arts are important (even if you don't believe in art for art's sake). Who can argue that the skills proffered in this article are not necessary for creating successful human beings? (Especially #10, ahem, which education policy-makers seem to be obsessed with.) Aren't these skills what employers look for when hiring new employees?

I'm not suggesting that we eliminate testing all together, but no two people learn exactly the same way. This, perhaps, is the largest failure of the standardization movement -- we cannot realistically expect all students to succeed on the same metric when learning styles will invariably differ. That's another reason we should focus on arts integration. The arts are intrinsically differentiated. Here is an excellent explanation from a drama resource teacher about how the arts are beneficial for all types of learners. We can still test students' abilities without the constraints of multiple-choice tests.

Finally, children are naturally curious and so much testing destroys their love for discovery, which is really what school should be about. Not that elementary school students should design their own curricula, but this student from New Jersey says in child-friendly language precisely what I am thinking. I've said many times before that teachers, not politicians, should lead the education reform movement, and clearly we need to listen to the children, too.

Happy New Year!

Though in terms of policy, it's pretty much the same thing: Common Core supporters and critics, poor education for children in poverty, classism, and racism. (What does this have to do with teaching, you may ask? Pretty much everything, since the education system is designed largely by white people. More on that below.) There's also this nifty collection of charts showing how the teaching profession has progressed (or not) in various capacities this year. Yay data!

Regarding the point above about racism, writer/vlogger John Green does a great job at explaining that yes, systemic racism does still exist in today's world. As I have stated before, this (along with classism) has much to do with the inequality in education.

Although Green does not directly refer to education in his video (except for the subjects offered in predominately white vs. predominantly black schools -- which is an interesting point), he definitely proves society is racist, and the education system is created by this society. And he does mention incarceration rates and economic opportunities for blacks vs. whites, which are both results of the education system.

I said "yay data!" in the first paragraph, and have previously waxed poetic about my love for data. But Green makes it a point to say that data is not everything, which is oh so true. Skip to 3:32 to hear him state that "while I think statistics and data are really important, I also think it's important to listen to the voices of people who have been affected by racism." This is a key point that policy makers forget -- statistics do not tell the whole story. While we cannot necessarily "measure" anecdotes, they are more important, since, as Green states, "data is cold in a way that humans are not." Educational policy (along with economic, health, and environmental policy) is for humans, not robots. Therefore it makes sense that we should actually listen to human stories.

Speaking of humanity, humans generally do not like change. Perhaps this is one reason why policymakers are stuck on making sure the testing movement and/or CCSS works? Yet, according to this article, it's not that hard to change things.

So... happy new year from an education curmudgeon. Here's hoping 2015 won't be more of the same.