No matter what you think about standardized testing, it is an unavoidable part of modern education. The question is: how do you design a course without “teaching to the exam”?
First, we have to ask is teaching to the exam a bad thing? I guess that depend on the end goal of your class. If your goal is to make sure that your students score as well as possible on the exam, then you SHOULD be teaching to the exam. If you have any other goals, you definitely should not (or at least not exclusively).
The simple answer is try and strike a balance – SOME class time will be dedicated to test prep, and the rest can be used for the teaching that accomplishes your other goals. But what do you do when there simply isn’t enough class time to do both? This is the reality that most teachers I know have to deal with: They have to either eliminate important curriculum or leave their students unprepared for their standardized test (be it the SAT, no child left behind, or whatever). Being a stubborn old Yankee, I tend to concentrate on preparing my students to deal with the real world, and ignore “the test”. My theory is that if the test is really relevant, by preparing the students for the real world, they will be prepared for the test. Yes, this is idealistic. (but bear with me – I have an unusual situation that will Make it Better.)
As a teacher, am I failing my students by not prepping them for a standardized test? Well, it depends on the test. I teach High school, so it is critical that my students are prepared for the SATs. They need decent scores in order to get into college, so as their teacher, I have an obligation to prepare them for the exam. The No Child Left Behind Exams (NCLBE) are completely irrelevant to the student, so I have no obligation (to the student) to prepare them for those exams. However, depending on the school I work in, the school may feel that I have an obligation to prep the students for the NCLBE. So now, I’m back to the conflict of deciding if I should teach material that the STUDENT needs (for life and SATs), or teaching material that the school needs (to boost NCLBE scores). What to do. For me, the decision is easy: I teach for my students. NCLB is irrelevant to the students, and is therefor secondary. Meaning if i have time I’ll get to it, and if not, I won’t. If the school doesn’t like that, they can fire me an hire someone that will pander to test scores.
However, I DO have that special situation: I have the luxury of working at a very small school, and I can offer pretty much whatever courses I want. that means that, in my case, I can require that students take a course dedicated to the NCLBE, and I can schedule the course so that the students take it right before the exam, and make sure that they don’t get graded on it (so it doesn’t effect their GPA). This means that I’m essentially taking the NCLBE material that I wouldn’t cover in my courses, and letting the students KNOW that it is bullshit (but also explain why it is needed). I can also take the time to teach them to take standardized exams – an art form in itself.
Does this subvert the whole concept of NCLB? Absolutely. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not. I’ll take the extra time to teach the PC crap that the kids need to make it look like I’m playing the game, but at the same time, I’ll be teaching them what they should be learning – regardless of NCLB. Plus, by taking the time to teach them how to take standardized exams, I’m providing them with a skill that will serve them well in their future academic career.
Subvert the system? Who, me?
March 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
I feel exactly the same way. In fact, I remember having a conversation with you about teaching the kids how to pass those tests and not worrying about the MATERIAL so much as the STRATEGIES.