Readings for Feb. 4
February 3, 2008
This week’s readings leave little doubt: high-stakes testing is bad, BAD BAD. Unfortunately, I would have to concur. At my school we periodically have to suspend our syllabus to “teach to the test.” It’s a real pain. I can see easily why some teachers burn out and quit over those tests. And it doesn’t seem to be doing the kids any good, either. In my experience, they either stress out over testing, or they adopt an attitude of nonchalance that guarantees that they will do poorly. What I like about two of the three readings is that they’re very pragmatic in the face of high-stakes testing. It’s as if the authors are saying, “We can’t get rid of high-stakes testing, so we may as well find a way to co-exist with it.” For us teachers to stress out over the tests … well, we don’t make enough money to be crusaders. I like the authors’ “deal-with-it” approach. One last thing: The International Reading Association’s brochure takes pains to point out that the group is -not- against teacher accountability. The perception that teachers don’t take responsibility for their students is what drives the public’s desire for high-stakes testing, I think. We know better, don’t we?
<
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Yes, I think we do know better. Unfortunately, there are some people (perhaps many people) who won’t do what they are supposed to unless there is some form of accountability present. Thus, while there are those of us who work to provide the best education possible, regardless of who is looking over our shoulder, I’m not so sure this is always the case. I think you bring up a good point here: accountability is necessary, but how do we get accountability without harming students and teachers in the process? At my school, the administration does informal “walk-throughs,” which is supposed to add an element of accountability. Basically, teams of administrators and department heads travel in and out of classrooms, clipboards in hand, looking for signs of effective instruction. However, I’m not sure if this is any more effective than the hated tests. They never stay more than two or three minutes, quickly checking off factors that are supposed to equate with good instruction. (Essential question on board? Check. Lesson plans on door? Check. Teacher in room is actually teaching? Check. Students are all conscious and seemingly engaged? Check. You get the idea.) I can get all checks and still not be delivering “good” instruction; likewise, I can miss a check or two and be in the middle of the best lesson of my career. How do we effectively hold teachers accountable for their work? I don’t know the answer to this…I just know that I hold myself accountable and hope that it is reflected in my practice.