One of the problems of teaching to No Child Left Behind standards is the risk of teachers becoming nothing more than their students’ test scores.
Via Eduwonk.com I found one such teacher’s story:
I teach in an inner city school where inequity is apparent. The neighborhood has a high poverty level. Violence and poor housing conditions tuck my students in at night!
Underemployment, unemployment, lack of health insurance is the norm. It has only been of late that a “real” grocery store was available for residents to purchase fresh foods.
We are locked into teaching reading practices that are driven by federal government’s bad research. I witness a lack of all that made school a joy for my students. Literally the things that helped to build community and self-respect and self-esteem for children have disappeared. In their place is rigid schedules and long periods of disjointed phonics, and disjointed language practices.
One of the reasons many teachers are not fans of NCLB is that it’s a one-size-fits-all solution. That “one-size” is often, as this teacher comments, “disjointed.”
This teacher writes of her students’ lack of satisfactory achievement according to the NCLB-mandated state testing.
My Unsatisfactory “grade” was followed by the comment:”This teacher�s students made minimal growth in her classroom this year.”
Most of my children are reading on or above grade level. The amount of “progress/growth” made this year by most of my children was no where near minimal.
I asked my principal if she believed that statement that appeared on my evaluation. She said “Yes, I do, based on your DIBELS scores!”
Her statement hurt me because I know the amount of work I did this year with my precious students. The amount of growth the children had in all areas was in no way “minimal.” I mentioned that the reading levels of some of my first-graders were equal to the end of second grade. She said the district didn�t recognize non-standardized test scores. (susanohanian.org)
Having worked with at-risk kids, I can understand (to a degree) what this teacher is going through.
Such “teaching” turns both students and teachers into little more than cogs in some great bureaucratic machinery. No one is working toward “learning” in any real sense here, and as far as teaching critical thinking, it’s probably non-existent.
Very often, kids coming from such backgrounds need so much more than simple reading and writing instruction. They step into school with huge disadvantages to begin with, and to some degree, reading and writing alone will not help them. They need work with social skills and an understanding of the social framework that exists outside the inner city.
This is not to say that I am advocating a sixties-style “go where the students take us” type of teaching, and I am not suggesting that all standards are a bad thing. However, NCLB’s cookie-cutter approach seems to do little for many students and teachers.
Resistance to NCLB (and VA’s SOLs) is often characterized as a teacher’s unwillingness to be held accountable. The fact is that these tools have not been tested for effectiveness and were created by politicians and test sales/scoring firms, not by educators. Perhaps in NCLB — I know this is the case in VA SOLS — the input of teachers was flatly ignored.
We’re risking the education of a generation of students for the sake of some politician tough-talk and the financial well-being of ETS. Modern educational testing is a federally mandated con game.
I think much of standardized testing is a con. Most of it tests little more than the ability to perform well on that test, and it’s hardly a true measure of the test taker’s ability, let alone improvement.
Take the GRE, for instance — while preparing for it many years ago, I took countless practice tests. Usually I was taking it within the required time frame, and I was a little disappointed with the results, especially in the analytical section. Then one evening, I sat down with a cup of coffee and said, “Time limit be darned” and just worked through the problems. I made a perfect score, and it only took me about twenty or twenty-five minutes longer than the allowed hour. When it came time for the real one, I folded under the pressure and I don’t even think I scored in the 600s. What did that test? Only my ability to work certain puzzles under time pressure. It was hardly an accurate measure of my analytical ability.
The stakes here, though, are much higher…