“I’ve always told people, I have the best job in the world,” writes Susan J. Hobart, a National Board Certified Teacher, in the current issue of The Progressive.
Today, more often than not, I feel demoralized. While I still connect my lesson plans to students’ lives and work to make it real, this no longer is my sole focus. Today I have a new nickname: testbuster. Singing to the tune of “Ghostbusters,” I teach test-taking strategies similar to those taught in Stanley Kaplan prep courses for the SAT. I spend an inordinate amount of time showing students how to “bubble up,” the term for darkening those little circles that accompany multiple choice questions on standardized tests.
Yes, another one of those NCLB-is-destroying-education pieces written by a teacher. I predict that by the time the sun goes down, a smart guy like Jay Greene will have a line-by-line rebuttal on his blog explaining why this teacher is all wet. Why there’s no evidence that curriculum narrowing is occuring under NCLB. I’m sure it’ll make perfect sense. Heck, I’ll probably even agree with most of it.
Then I’ll remember my own 5th grade classroom, where I never had social studies textbooks–or time for social studies and science after our two hour ”literacy block” and 90-minute math workshop–but always had a fresh supply of shiny Kaplan test prep books every year. Where my students rarely got art, music or gym. Where we were trained by Teachers College to teach a unit on “test-taking as a genre” of literature. I’ll also remember the school assemblies and pep rallies where we tried to get the kids excited about the tests and shared all our “positive energy.” And I’ll remember one TFA corp member grad student, who was mandated to do two hours of test prep a day starting in September for the state tests in March.
Did I just dream all that?
I can do without the shrill rhetoric about the “assault on public education” and “one size fits all testing.” Still, every time I hear a veteran teacher describing with sadness how the job they loved became a joyless grind I find myself thinking, “Yeah, me too. ” How did this happen when testing, accountability and NCLB was what we were supposed to be doing all along anyway? Was I simply caught up in one of the greatest cases of mass hysteria since the Salem Witch Trials?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Hi Robert,
I don’t think you dreamed all of that. I’m sure that accountability testing has produced changes in how schools operate. Some of those changes may be good, as schools may focus more on the state’s standards and may have a greater sense of urgency in effectively teaching those standards. Some of those changes may be bad, as schools shift time and energy away from other subjects and spend more time on test-taking strategies. Mind you there is at least some evidence (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_54.htm ) that these shifts in time and emphasis are not having an adverse effect on achievement (at least in science in one analysis in one state).
But the real tragedy here is that most of the shift in time and emphasis is completely unnecessary. Schools would be better off just teaching academic content rather than test-taking. There’s room in the curriculum for art, gym, and music and still time to cover all of the state standards in high-stakes subjects.
Besides, almost no educators experience any meaningful consequences from the accountability system, so why would they throw aside all of their beliefs and best practices for something that has no real effect on them?
Also, while there are certainly problems with accountability testing, there are also problems with not having it. We can’t compare the defects of accountability testing to an ideal system in which every teacher was fully motivated and focused on the right material. We have to compare the problems associated with testing to the problems of the status quo ante.
Just about the only educators who are directly effected by accountability are administrators in schools and central offices without real union protections. I’m saddened that our culture of compliance, which predated NCLB, helped keep us from standing up for the welfare of students. Building on the agreement we are having with Jay Greene, we should keep two things in mind about the unintended effects of primitive accountability systems.
Firstly, focus on the right target, helping poor kids. Lousy teachers don’t complain about excessive test prep and curriculum narrowing, and often they love scripted instruction. So create efficient systems like the Toledo Plan to remove ineffective teachers.
Secondly, abandon the silver bullet of overarching “one size fits all” test-driven accountablity, and devise silver buckshot. Build accountability into each federal program whether it is the Marshall Plan for Teachers and Principals, or expanded early childcare, or funding turnarounds or creating science-driven data systems and research.
We don’t hold lawyers accountable by giving them the same test that we use to license accountants.
Great to have your comment here, Jay. I feel like Woody Allen in Annie Hall when he pulls Marshall McLuhan into an argument on line with a fellow moviegoer.
I completely agree with you that the “schools would be better off just teaching academic content rather than test-taking.” The truly bewildering thing is that I’ve never met a single teacher or administrator who would disagree. So why isn’t it happening? We say “good instruction is the best test prep” then reach for those Kaplan books.
Personally, I prefer to learn the lessons of experience rather than to wonder why people don’t practice what they preach. The singular accomplishment of the NCLB era is that it has shown that school systems can be made to sit up and take notice if the threat of consequences (real or imagined, Jay) is present. You simply have to assume that schools will teach to the test. The solution, is to have tests that are worth teaching to. If schools insist on favoring endless repetition of reading strategies in lieu of explicit content and vocabulary instruction that drives reading comprehension, then force the issue with reading tests that cover explicit content standards. Then the inevitable test prep time becomes time well spent learning content. After all, it’llbe on the test!
I’m quite certain that there’s plenty of evidence showing that curricula have narrowed during the NCLB era.
Also, while it may be hard to understand from afar why teachers would panic over test results that doesn’t change the fact that they are.
That said, I agree with everybody else that the current response to NCLB by a lot of schools (e.g. replace social studies with test prep) isn’t the best way to either educate kids or to succeed on tests.
Hi Robert,
“So why isn’t it happening?” Positive change takes energy and extensive support in improving curricula, teaching and the assessments. Something that takes time and implementing those checks and balances necessary in integrating the three critical elements of quality learning: curricula, teaching and assessments.
Our school system is not set up to improve. There are no support mechanisms for developing curricula, supporting quality teaching or even developing quality assessments.
Our system for developing curricula encourages bland watered down me-too materials. Certainly, curricular adoption committees are not looking for the unusual, no matter how well they improve student learning.
Our test takers are obsessed with reproduciblity and reliablity. Who is evaluating whether the tests are testing what we would like them to? No one.
Where is the time and support for quality teaching? Certainly, some execptional individuals stumble onto good teaching techniques. But how do we share the knowledge of experienced teachers? We don’t.
Internationally, there are only a few school systems that have been able to appropriately integrate the 3 aspects of quality learning. It is not easy. But it certainly is almost impossible to do under our current school structure.
Reality can be beaten with enough imagination.