Thinking outside the test
Assessment, Pedagogy April 13th, 2008
I just read a very interesting article in Edutopia entitled Reinventing the Big Test: The Challenge of Authentic Assessment by Grace Rubenstein. This article discusses the shortcomings of today’s high-stakes state proficiency tests. According to the article, “The educational assessment tests states use today have two fundamental flaws: They encourage the sort of mind-numbing drill-and-kill teaching educators (and students) despise, and, just as important, they don’t tell us much about the quality of student learning.”
I couldn’t agree more. Assuming the schools I currently work in are representative of the whole, teachers have lost control over how and what they teach. The stakes are so high for children to pass the Ohio Achievement Test that the teachers are under immense pressure to focus their fast-paced lessons entirely on test preparation. According to many teachers I talk to, this has significantly dumbed down their students. Children are losing their ability to think critically about real issues (the ones that exist outside of textbooks) and to apply creative solutions to everyday problems. As well-intentioned as the No Child Left Behind Act is, it is actually a major obstacle to the preparation of children for the demands of the 21st century workforce.
The article goes on to explore alternatives to standardized, multiple-choice, one-size-fits-all testing. Some test makers are actively working on more authentic forms of assessment that measure a student’s resourcefulness and problem-solving skills. These tests are more complex, more subjective and much more complicated to grade. This, of course, makes them expensive to administer.
I suppose in today’s environment of hyper-accountability, we will never see the end to standardized testing. We have gone too far. The tests are here to stay. The question is, how can we realistically improve or alter standardized assessment to reflect society’s need for accountability while also recognizing the need to prepare a generation of creative, problem-solving, critically thinking children?
May 1st, 2008 at 6:17 am
While teaching English 7-12 for 25 years, I found that in some cases “teaching to the test” wasn’t such a bad idea: it all depends on the test and the teacher’s sense of content mastery for his/her class. What is important is not to let the specter of a March test take over all classroom activities.
I would make my plans as I always had with one exception: I’d create a unit to address the specific writing skills for the March test so students would have a clear picture of what was expected. But that was the only special thing I ever did.
I was blessed by working in a small 7-12 school (200 students), and students came to me being able to read and write on grade level pretty much. I don’t know what I would have done if that had not been the case for an entire group.
My vocabulary series, Sadlier-Oxford’s Vocabulary Workshop closely paralleled the PSAT’s and SAT’s, and I found that quickly seeing the difference between synonyms and antonyms when dealing with an exam was one of the greatest challenges.
So I didn’t really teach to the test; I would be sure that I covered basic literary skills. But then I would move one. I found that helping students become competent readers and writers is all that was really needed. It sounds simple, and it is if teachers focus on that goal. The test scores will take care of themselves. My students did well.
It’s not so much changing the assessment as it is changing how we approach the preparation.