Nick Anderson
"Rhee faces renewed scrutiny over depiction of students’ progress when she taught”
Washington Post
February 10, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021007240.html
Topic: This is basically a piece that highlights the actions of a school system chancellor. It basically magnifies a hit piece on her which was blogged by a teacher unhappy with her actions to hold teachers accountable. Whether the information of the article is factual or whether the Post should be re-printing blog information is a topic for another day.
The interesting discussion to me is the way in which the testing results of students are used and manipulated.
On one hand, it is very hard to measure whether students are meeting some basic benchmarks without testing them. On the other, the temptation for teachers and administrators to falsify, manipulate or misuse the test results is great.
As a tax payer, I like to see my money being used wisely. Although I like the intention behind the standardized testing, my hope is that some kind of reasonable balance can be met. There is importance in a grasp of facts which can be tested, but things such as creativity and innovation are much harder to measure but I believe are just as important.
Intended audience: Voters who can be swayed in regard to the chancellor and her policies.
Relevance: The discussion on the effectiveness of the current student standardized testing is at the forefront of both teachers, administrators and government watch-dog groups.
"On the other, the temptation for teachers and administrators to falsify, manipulate or misuse the test results is great." I reviewed an article where allegations of this were being highlighted. I see the pressures of testing everyday. Fortunately, integrity is preserved and manipulating or falsifying is not optional. I feel for those who cave here. There has to be a better solution. Really the students suffer, they loose out on getting the education they need and deserve.
ReplyDeleteI think that the key is, as you stated, to find a balance. A high school mentor of mine was huge on balance. "Balance," he claimed, "is the key to anything healthy or worthwhile."
ReplyDeleteWhether it is budget concerns, the use of standardized testing, teacher-administrator professional relationships, personal relationships, diet, I have found that balance is in fact an ideal worthy of pursuit.
I agree with Doug's assertion that "it is very hard to measure whether students are meeting some basic benchmarks without testing them." This is especially true for the traditionally "left brain" subjects: math, physical and biological sciences. It is equally true for other measurables like spelling. Testing certainly has its place in education.
However, tests can tend to get in the way of efficient or meaningful learning of other subjects. For example, in my opinion, standardized tests are not only inefficient and ineffective measures of the study of history, but state-mandated standardized tests in the study of history and government amount to cultural engineering, myth building, and, in some cases, outright propaganda.
I was fortunate enough to take my Praxis II subject area tests while I was in the midst of my most difficult experience as a student/historian (my undergraduate seminar project: a 35 page research project). In that experience, we learned that history is not simple. It is not as cut and dry that Democracy/Capitalism = Good, Communism/Anarchism/Anything Else = Bad. In fact history as a discipline is about thinking for one's self, analyzing primary source documents, and making an educated guess about how things work and have worked in the past. Standardized tests on the subject, like the Praxis II, cannot test these skills. They test one's ability to memorize a few hundred facts and a fist full of myths, but do not test one's ability to analyze or understand history. You end up putting down the answer that you know is "right" and thinking "well, that's really debatable, and rather more complex."
I had similar experiences with macro-biology and environmental science at the University of Oregon. I cannot imagine how standardized testing could possibly capture the complexity of the subjects.
That said, balance is always the key. Testing works very well for some subjects, for some students, for some teachers. In the same breath, testing will do very little to ameliorate the understanding of some subjects for some teachers. It is only through a balanced approach that we can most effectively teach all students all subjects.
I propose that teachers, not the state should control standardized testing. Teachers have a pretty good idea how their subject is best approached. Doug knows how to look at physics. Why not form a teacher based advisory board to oversee the testing, or lack thereof, of individual subjects? This board could operate at a national level, a state level, or even a district level. The smaller they are, the better able the board would be to attend to the needs of their individual students.
Furthermore, openness and transparency are essential for certain subjects. Any teacher who want to join the board should be able to (an argument for a less centralized approach), and it would operate more or less like a democracy. And it is essential that the members be current teachers, devoted to their craft. History, government, english are all examples of subjects where transparency in curriculum is necessary. Why are you or are you not teaching "The Things They Carried" or "Huck Finn"? How are you teaching government? How are you teaching Civil Rights? Are you teaching Federalism or Radicalism?
Perhaps something like this already exists. It may. If it does then we have little reason to complain and much incentive to get involved. If it does not, I've found a project.