Let's have a serious discussion this weekend on testing. Most of us agree testing should be part of any curriculum, but how much? Should it be everything or the only thing? How much should teacher performance be tied to testing? Is a test a true measure of student achievement? Have you ever simply "taught to the test"? Is "multiple choice" really just "multiple guess"? Do standardized tests inherently favor majority populations or is is more income based?
I don't think that anyone would argue that some assessment and some accountability are necessary, however it seems to me that more time is being allocated for testing than for instruction. That is absurd. I hear from students that I taught many years ago and I never get comments about content. The things they are pleased about having learned are patience, kindness and their own self esteem. We are doing a great disservice to our students by bowing to the pressures of NCLB. We should be addressing the needs of the whole person rather than attempting to create students who can pass a test, but have no other skills. The comic strip is right on target. Unfortunately our students are telling us this same thing in other ways.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with accountablility. Current testing fails to take into account the starting point of the students. I am teaching reading and I have a 6th grader reading at the 3rd grade level and the student and I work really hard, that student may gain 2 years in one year. What a success. However, current testing would "ding" me because that student was one year behind. The process needs to be refined.
ReplyDeleteQuick!!!
ReplyDeleteCorrect the spelling of curriculum.
Sent from Teacher at School 422.
To: Blog Administrator
ReplyDeleteI believe you've added another person as a co-administrator because spelling and grammatical errors have appeared in the most recent two posts. This does not reflect favorably on us as teachers.
ciriculum, wuts dat?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind being evaluated on student test scores if the students were given a pre-test when they arrive at the beginning of the year. The problem is that they are not on grade level when they get to me so they will never show growth unless there is a base-line to compare them to. The end of course assessment doesnt count because they loose so much over the summer.
ReplyDeleteIf you start being evaluated by students test scores it will cause some teachers to cheat.
ReplyDeleteThey already cheat, I know of an elementary teacher whose student always score on grade level in math, and they lose two years progress before the next test. She put all the formulas and tables on the boards before testing.
ReplyDeleteENDANGERED MINDS
ReplyDeleteJane M. Healy, Ph.D.
Meaningful learning -- the kind that will equip our children and our society for the uncertain challenges of the future -- occurs at the intersection of developmental readiness, curiosity, and significant subject matter. Yet many of today's youngsters, at all socioeconomic levels, are blocked from this goal by detours erected in our culture, schools, and homes. Fast-paced lifestyles, coupled with heavy media diets of visual immediacy, beget brains misfitted to traditional modes of academic learning. In a recent survey, teachers in both the United States and Europe reported overwhelmingly that today's students have shorter attention spans, are less able to reason analytically, to express ideas verbally, and to attend to complex problems. Meanwhile, school curricula modes of instruction do little to remedy the deficits by engaging either attention or curiosity. The result? A growing educational "crisis" of misfit between children and their schools.
Narrowing the gap between the school's demands and the "readiness" of the students' brains can be accomplished in two ways: changing the student and/or changing the classrooms. Both are possible. Let's start with the students.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaping the Malleable Mind
ReplyDeleteThe brain's functioning -- and thus its "readiness" for any type of learning -- is shaped by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Genetic nature combines with prenatal nurture to endow the infant brain with a range of possibilities, but the environment after birth helps forge the neuronal connections that underlie later learning. Like a sculptor, the child's experience prunes away unneeded -- or unused -- synapses, while strengthening those patterns of connections that are repeatedly used. Thus habits of the mind may become, quite literally, structures of the brain. Although the susceptible cell groups comprise but a small proportion of total brain mass, they are critical to learning because they facilitate higher-level thinking, planning, and skills of mental organization so essential to self-directed and meaningful human learning.
While our understanding of this phenomenon of "neural plasticity," or malleability, of the growing brain is still rudimentary, several principles suggest themselves from the research. First, repeated experiences cause synaptic differences if they comprise a significant part of a child's mental life. For example, the brains of deaf children, or of those otherwise deprived of oral language experience, develop differently from those of hearing children because of differences in the dominant types of input to which they have responded. As yet no one has attempted to demonstrate less dramatic brain changes from a heavy diet of video and rushed, adult-directed activities or from immersion in thoughtful conversation and spontaneous creative play, but it is eminently possible that they exist. (Certainly, anecdotal information from teachers suggests that there has been a shift in information-processing abilities of children in recent years.)
Secondly, animal research and common sense converge on the notion that a brain which is actively involved and curious is likely to develop stronger connections than one which is merely a passive recipient of learning. Third, there appear to be critical, or at least "sensitive" periods in the course of development when certain neuron groups become particularly amenable to stimulation. If sufficient mental exercise is lacking, the related ability may be permanently degraded. This phenomenon has been demonstrated for basic aspects of human language development; very little is known, however, about its applicability to most human learning, particularly the higher-level skills (e.g., understanding of more complex syntax, abstract and analytic reasoning, self-generated attention) which may have sensitive periods well into adolescence. In today's world, these skills appear to be particularly endangered.
So, how do we change the children? First, we stop blaming them -- and their teachers. Parents, policy-makers, and the arbiters of popular culture are also part of the the problem. If we wish to retain the benefits of literate thought, we must educate parents, encourage more constructive uses of media, and set our priorities in every classroom to show children from the earliest years how to get ideas into words and to listen -- not only to peers and to adults, but also to the voice of an author. I would suggest that every home and every school institute a "curriculum" for listening and following sequential directions, as well as emphasizing the use of language to talk through problems, to plan behavior, and to reason analytically about such concepts as cause and effect. Deficits in these fundamental "habits of mind" cause not only academic but also social problems. Reading instruction should take a back seat until language foundations and skills of auditory analysis and comprehension are in place, lest reading become a meaningless exercise.
ReplyDeleteSomeone must also take time to listen to the children, soften the frenetic scheduling of their lives, read to them, give them some quiet time to play, to ponder, to reflect, and to use the inner voice that mediates attention and problem-solving. Without adult models, children cannot shape their own brains around these intellectual habits which, in the long run, will be far more valuable to all concerned than a frantic march through content. The executive, or prefrontal, centers of the brain, which enable planning, follow-through, and controlled attention along with forms of abstract thought, develop throughout childhood and adolescence. We have a responsibility to children -- all children -- to demonstrate the habits of mental discipline and attention necessary to reflect on, utilize, and apply the information they learn. If the culture refuses to cooperate by providing models outside of school, we must add it to our academic curriculum -- even if it means sacrificing some of the data in the syllabus
Since each brain's developmental timetable is different, we must also disabuse ourselves of the notion that children can be made to learn on a set schedule. And, finally, we should recognize that whoever is minding the children is shaping our national intelligence -- and choose and reward these persons accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding Minds for a New Century
ReplyDeleteMerely reinstating some of the mental habits of a bygone era will not suffice, however. We must also accept and capitalize on the fact that today's children come with new skills for a new century. The changes we observe in our children may, in fact, represent a cusp of change in human intelligence -- a progression into more immediate, visual, and three-dimensional forms of thought. Schools will need to accept the fact that lectures and "teacher talk," which commonly comprise approximately 90% of classroom discourse, must give way to more effective student involvement. Today's learners must become constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients of information that even the least intelligent computer can handle more effectively. Many examples already exist in outstanding literature-based programs that turn students on to reading, writing, and oral communication, "hands-on" science and math curricula in which product takes a back seat to understanding of process; project-oriented, multidisciplinary social studies units; cooperative learning paradigms; multi-modal teaching; training of teachers in open-ended questioning.
Particularly exciting are curricular innovations in which the unlimited potential of visual thinking is used to complement language and linear analysis. Courses in critical viewing and effective use of visual media are examples; computer simulations requiring step-by-step progression to three-dimensional reasoning herald development of new skills which may eventually transcend the linear constraints of scientific method and even unite the talents of the two cerebral hemispheres in expanded modes of thought.
Traditional parameters of learning must be broadened, even redefined, not simply because of the changing priorities of future technologies, but also because of present realities. Our growing crisis in academic learning reflects societal neglect of the neural imperatives of childhood. We find an alienation of children's worlds -- and the mental habits engendered by them -- from the traditional culture of academia. Merely lamenting this fact, however, does not alter the reality or rebuild the brains. Nor does choking our young with more didacticism -- under the rubric of "competency" -- make them learn to think. In past decades we got away with insignificant subject matter and poor pedagogy because the culture dutifully sent us docile minds, well-endowed with the linguistic currency of academic learning. But our children today have been differently prepared, and, sophisticated consumers that they are, do not suffer drivel lightly -- nor should they.
ReplyDeleteClosing the gap between wayward synapses and intellectual imperatives will not be accomplished by low-level objectives, such as memorization and recapitulation of information. Human brains are not only capable of acquiring knowledge; they also hold the potential for wisdom. But wisdom has its own curriculum: conversation, thought, imagination, empathy, reflection. Youth who lack these "basics," who have forgotten how to ask the questions that may never have been asked, who cannot ponder what they have learned, are poorly equipped to become managers of our accelerating human enterprise.
The final lesson of neural plasticity is that a human brain, given good foundations, can continue to adapt and expand for a lifetime. Its vast synaptic potential at birth can bend itself around what is important of the "old" and still have room for new skills demanded by a new century. A well-nourished mind, well-grounded in the precursors of wisdom as well as of knowledge, will continue to grow, learn, develop -- as long as it responds to the prickling of curiosity. Perhaps this quality, above all, is the one we should strive to preserve in our children. With it, supported by language, thought, and imagination, minds of the future will shape themselves around new challenges -- whatever societal neglect of the neural imperatives of childhood may be. But if we continue to neglect either these foundations or the curiosity that sets them in motion, we will truly all be endangered.
Sorry I had to post this in sections, but it speaks to this topic, anyone who is interested in this author she writes very readable but research based information on learning and brain development, best book IMHO is "Your Child's Mind: from Birth to Adolescence" I bought a copy in Spanish and gave it to Zendehaus, I doubt she ever read it.
Yo, what is fidelity?
ReplyDeleteTesting should be used for assessment purposes- assessment of the students and the teachers. However, as an earlier poster mentioned, testing needs to take into account some variable factors. A student whose reading level is three grades behind and makes up two grade levels in a year still will not count as making enough improvement, and that's not an accurate assessment of the teacher. Teachers are told we should treat students as individuals, so the tests should do the same, especially because I would hate to be judged as a bad teacher if I have a student who won't try on the test.
ReplyDeleteI think progress monitoring can be valuable, but too much takes away from classroom instruction. Care must be taken to choose tests and procedures that allow for the least interruption of regular class time with the regular teacher as possible.
Teachers need to be held accountable for a certain standard of learning, but impossibly high standards (benchmark for every child in every school) is simply unreasonable. Concessions need to be made based on subject (with special education and ELL being assessed with tests at an appropriate level to show growth, not just the 'grade level' the student's age says they should take).
I don't believe teaching to the test is good; however, teaching basic standards that will be covered on the test is usually very similar to what you should be doing anyway. The only test- based teaching should include things such as ensuring third-graders can use a Scan-Tron style sheet in a way that accurately shows what they know. Students SHOULD know the format of the test and how they will be graded, as well as having some examples to practice (even in a timed format) so that they know what to expect, experience less anxiety, and are prepared. Otherwise, the test has an even poorer chance of being able to show what the student knows.
I think it's interesting that we even talk about the test as if it has any validity. Has anyone ever seen a denied GQE waiver?
ReplyDeleteWe are told subjects must be "relevant" to students, we adapt the curriculum. So we drop certain classics from the course of study, how is the "The Red Pony" by John Steinbeck relevant to inner city students, so we don't teach it in sixth grade. How is "Of Mice and Men" relevant? Again somewhere along the line it was dropped. And Springboard seems to discourage the reading of novels in Language Arts courses. However on a recent GQE test a large section included a reading of passages from a Steinbeck novel. The reading and questions would have been a snap for a student who had read the two previously mentioned novels, and the student would have had a knowledge of how to put the passage in a historic context.
ReplyDeleteIt is also an issue of cultural literacy, we aren't providing our students with a general level of cultural literacy and when they join the wider population our students won't have this knowledge base. This problem marks them for their entire lives.
To illustrate this story here is an old story.
School 58 had a principal with no cultural literacy, one day in a faculty meeting she announced "someone needs to fine out who Ralph Waldo Emerson was, why he was famous, and why he had a school named after him". After the principal left we laughed until we cried, and forever more that principal was marked in our minds as ignorant.
I collect instructional data for one of our IPS high schools. I was especially interested in our recent ELA Scrimmage results.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ELA teachers teaches SpringBoard by the letter. This teacher's students are always highly engaged, working in collaborative groups, doing 'quick writes', journaling, working on projects, etc. I love to visit her classroom.
On the other hand, there's an ELA teacher who many would describe as 'old school'. Her students sit in rows, work quietly, stay on task, etc. She does not teach SpringBoard although her lesson plans as posted on Rubicon reflect SpringBoard. When I visit her classroom, on surface it appears that not much active learning is going on. It's almost dull.
Now, I look at the Scrimmage results. The engaging 'SpringBoard by the letter' teacher had students who posted poor to mediocre Scrimmage results; while, the 'old school' teacher's students posted the highest Scrimmage results in the entire school.
Go figure!
I taught at a school that adopted Saxon math, and happened to be in all the second grade classrooms twice a week, six different rooms.
ReplyDeleteThree of the teachers taught the program as it was intended to be taught, which is incredibly boring from an adults view point (think reading "The Cat in the Hat" every night) and the other three just passed out the worksheets.
The next year I asked to see the scores and the three who taught the program all made more then a years progress as a class average, the three that hadn't didn't even hit the end of second grade mark. This was over 15 years ago, but it still speaks to what good hard teaching can do.
Again from my friend, the best teacher I know, when kids would finish their work they would get a reward, MORE WORK. And actually mastering skills and improving on school work gave the kids wonderful self-esteems. When you came in her room the kids wanted to show you how much they had done and what they had learned.
Anyone who has worked with seniors during the GQE era...knows the heartache of seniors who did not qualify for or get his/her waiver approved. Yes, it does happen, much too often.
ReplyDeleteWaivers are rarely if ever denied!!! Students have to have very low attendance otherwise they pretty much go through. I believe last year the directive was that if they showed as present for even one period, that day was not to be counted as an absence. Basically any day there was a sub in a room everyone was present. There were students with 30+ absences who were marked down as 1 day absent because one teacher each of those days didn't mark attendance.
ReplyDeleteAh the big IPS attendance lie rears its ugly head. There are plenty of teachers who never take attendance, a violation of state law, but they are never corrected, or if they are it is done with a wink and a nod, since their misdeeds benefit the system, by reducing the actual absentism rate. This only really damage the kids, and their colleagues. The public is lead to believe all these kids actually are in school, they just aren't learning so their teachers must be complete incompetents.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't much teachers can do about absences, call parents and turn it over to the overworked and overwelmed social works, after that you are out of tricks. I remember one wonderful and tortured BRHS teacher used to go out during her prep and get one or two of her kids and bring them to school, at least twice a week. In direct violation of Willie Giles who said never transport a student in your car.
Sorry it is too late to punish her, since she died last year.
The poisonous essence of [No Child Left Behind] lies in the mania of obsessive testing it has forced upon our nation's schools and, in the case of underfunded, overcrowded inner-city schools, the miserable drill-and-kill curriculum of robotic "teaching to the test" it has imposed on teachers.
ReplyDelete-- Jonathan Kozol
No Child Left Behind ['s] . . . stated purpose is to improve public education, but its covert purpose has been to undermine it so that public schools can be replaced by charter schools, private schools, and religious schools.
-- Joe Brewer and George Lakoff
There is so much test bias against poor kids in standardized tests. The questions about the beach for a child who has never been there are the most obvious. But there are more subtle ones, I've been in homes where there isn't enough silverware for everyone to have their own set, so some kids got spoons and some got forks, do you think they had placemats. To these children there is no such thing as a mat. And the garden hoe, has an entirely different meaning to a kid without a garden. My middle schoolers insist that EGO (as mentioned in a new Beyonce song) is a penis.
ReplyDeleteFrom Reading Crisis: Why poor children fall behind
The authors found that in the early years the children were in general on par with mainstream (middle-class) children. A slump was noted in the fourth grade, around age nine or ten. The authors identify meaning vocabulary as the biggest problem for low-income children, a problem that tends to worsen with increasing years in school as subject textbooks become more demanding and require a wider vocabulary of less common words. The findings suggest that teachable literacy skills, rather than cognitive factors, explain the reading problems of low-income children.
This lack of vocabulary at the foundation of the problem many of our students, yet the solution exposing students to more and richer vocabulary is not one of our solutions. Vocabulary is learned in context, and when your entire context is a classroom, you are certainly limited in this effort. Field trips are often limited to "only after testing" they miss the opportuntity to learn where it would be meaningful.
Think about all the words you would use when you talked to your child last time you visited the zoo. Words about size, smell, habitiat, patterns, types of animals, behaviors, and
geography, it was a rich language experience.
Long ago in professional development the presenter Gwen Fountain, said "bathe the children in language" still good advice.