Education News for Adults
Teach to the Test?
Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews sure created a stir when he wrote this column, suggesting that "teaching to the test" is a good thing.
Critics of high-stakes standardized testing say that the practice encourages teachers to teach only what they think will be tested. As a result the curriculum can be both narrowed (no more writing a class play - that won't be on the test) and dumbed down (no time for in-depth discussion or further exploration of topics).
Mathews argues that teachers do neither in practice - instead they carefully and conscientiously push their students to meet those tough state standards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
It's hard for me to believe that Mathews hasn't seen the life sucked out of education by the tests - I see it everywhere. Teachers who still teach in-depth consider themselves rebels.
So this week, Mathews published responses from two of his teacher friends, Kenneth Bernstein and
Mark Ingerson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Bernstein, a high-school social studies teacher, teaches both required test-driven classes, and non-test driven electives. He thoughtfully analyzes the way the test influences his teaching and his students' learning. Here's a partial quote: "The existence of external tests inevitably influences what occurs in my classroom. I cannot avoid my responsibility for preparing my students to do well on those tests. That takes time away from other things I might want to explore. It limits my ability to respond to events in the world and in the lives of my students that might be far more meaningful in connecting them with the domain."
Bernstein's response is excerpted from a longer post here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/18/84750/3438
Ingram argues that high-level thinking and learning of facts must go hand-in-hand: great thinking requires mastery of facts. I absolutely agree with that, but the problem is that a lot of test-driven instruction leaves facts disconnected or meaningless.