Villager (TX) guest columnist Jennifer Leeth understandably wants to raise good thinkers, not good test-takers. But part of her argument doesn't exactly hang together:
High-stakes test scores alone reflect neither best teaching practices nor good learning. Case in point: We have twin fifth graders in separate public school classrooms. For those who don't know, fifth grade is a "fail the test, fail the grade" year. In preparation for last week's reading TAKS test, Teacher A drilled the students all quarter on reading passages and testing strategies at the expense of other learning activities. The week before The Test, her class read 14 passages in language arts class alone, and still more in science and social studies classes. By TAKS time, this child was burned out and stressed beyond consolation.In contrast, Teacher B continued to teach the state-mandated curriculum while preparing her students for The Test. This class continued to read authentic literature and engage in discussions and projects while they prepared for the TAKS. Not surprisingly, this child was more relaxed and mentally ready for The Test.
Which child will score better on the TAKS? Does it really matter?... before you fault Teacher A, ask yourself whether you really want a school finance system that forces teachers to teach to a test for their own survival and that of their school.
But, given the fact that Teacher B apparently exists, can't the argument be made that the test is not the problem? After all, Teacher B wasn't forced to "teach to the test." I read this and I think that Teacher A chose to teach in a manner that was stressful, though presumably effective, and I could logically conclude that the problem is Teacher A's strategies, not the test itself.
I would be very interested in knowing which teaching method was more effective, as measured by the test, and I would not be surprised to hear that Teacher B was in fact more effective. However, it would be nice if a better argument against the TAKS could be mustered than, "Some teachers get stressed out and focus only on the exam."
Ms. Leeth closes with:
...if you are able to process these arguments and respond with critical thinking skills, ask yourself whether your own test scores reflect the full extent of your abilities, and then thank your teacher.
No one test can reflect the full extent of educational ability; no test should claim that it can. Most if not all "do-or-die" tests, like the fifth-grade TAKS, are basic skills exams that do not claim to measure the full extent of skills possessed. They claim to measure the absolute basics that are needed to progress to the next level. Thus, it's legitimate to be concerned with confronted with a teacher who is supposedly great at imparting higher-order thinking skills, yet produces students who are clueless about the basics.
The notion that, somehow, children can be very educated and advanced and free-thinking and logical, yet unable to handle a test of basic reading, science, and math skills, is so pervasive these days. Where did this meme come from? When did we decide that it was more important for fifth-graders to have these "critical thinking" skills than to understand how many days there are in a year, or be able to summarize the main point of a three-page story?
Posted by kswygert at March 3, 2005 11:39 AM