RSSA Positive Stance
Aug 15th, 2007 | By Eric Hoefler | Category: Education/LiteracyWhile I disagree with the way NCLB has been conceived and enforced, I agree with this approach from teachers to students:
We decided it was our duty to do everything we could to help our students beat this test—everything, that is, except give up powerful, purposeful instruction.
I’ve also found that an “outside enemy” (like a standardized test neither the students nor the teachers can do anything about) sometimes serves as a beneficial force that unites teachers and students in a common struggle toward learning, which can be played to the students’ benefits if you work it right.
The authors of this article also make a valid point: “Professions from restaurant employee to certified public accountant to teacher require success on tests just to get in the door.” They then outline three maxims of their strategy:
- Successful test-takers must first be smart readers.
- Successful test-takers must be able to translate the unique language of the test.
- Learning to be a successful test-taker can be fun.
This all sounds like a positive approach and sound strategy for teachers to take when dealing with students, and I hope all teachers can take a similar stance. However, from teachers to community, the resistance to bad politics and the demand for sound pedagogy should continue. And though I agree with the idea that teachers don’t have to give up “powerful, purposeful instruction” in theory, practice demonstrates that far too many do, far too often.
Related posts (auto-generated):
- Freakonomics Quorum on Testing The Freakonomics Blog (hosted by the New York Times) held a quorum on standardized testing and posted the contributions yesterday. The questions were: Should...
- Response to “In Defense of NCLB” I found Dan Meyer’s blog post “In Defense of NCLB” through Chris Lehmann’s post “A Smarter Mind than Mine Takes on NCLB.” I wasn’t...
- Testing Teachers From the CNN article “Commission urges tracking of teacher progress,” notes about a “special commission” involved in the revision of NCLB: Teachers should be...
- How are you testing? From Cognitive Daily’s “Does test-taking help students learn?” Practice tests need not duplicate the format of the final test. Instead, practice tests should require...
- Educational Policy Recap Education Sector has posted the text of a presentation1 delivered by co-founder and co-director Thomas Toch. In it, Toch gives a brief but helpful...
Eric, I agree with everything you say here. I have a quibble with the article’s authors’ comment in relation to its relevance to grade-school students:
That’s true enough, but remember that someone who’s, say, taking the CPA exam has gotten the background education, finished grade school, finished college/university, and decided that she wants to be a CPA (&deity only knows why). That’s a lot of water under the bridge between, say, fourth grade and the CPA exam.
It’s certainly good for kids to learn that they will need to pass standardized tests and that there’s a skill (some say an art) to succeeding on them. That said, I don’t like the idea that we’re giving fourth graders their equivalent to the CPA exam at that stage in their education. They need the solid background first, and I don’t like the way NCLB is often causing schools to cast off innovative methods in favour of preparing their students specifically for the exam.
@ Barry: Agreed, good point, and well-said. Thanks for the additional thoughts!
In my county, elementary-school students have to take 32 county-mandated exams, all of which must be exported to the central office, in order to “ensure successful preparation” for the SOLs. There are only 36 weeks in the school year. When do teachers get to teach!?