So, I'm in education and my question is this: If you don't test to see what the kids know, then how do you know how effective the teachers are being?
If you want to improve in any of the fields of education, and the old ways aren't working, then how do you know how many of, or even which of, your efforts are successful without testing their results?
Why not exercise your judgment? If we can't expect teachers, or their supervisors, to be able to do that, then how can we expect them to be able to teach?
The liberal arts programs that produced the Enlightenment had no testing at all. They seemed to work pretty well.
I think what the standards are doing is not telling a teacher how you teach but what. And then the testing is telling you how well. Comparing it to the Enlightenment may not be the greatest idea because the literacy rate then varied greatly from male to females and was at best 70 percent for males. And this would have been based mostly on the judgment of the educators as to who should be taught what.
I think the testing is only telling you how well you've trained students to take tests.
This is what I think of our schooling. This is why I think testing is counterproductive. And this is how I think we should educate.
I kind of just don't buy that teaching kids math, science, writing and reading is the worst thing we can be doing to them. I believe there are more effective ways to do it than we currently do, but we'd have to change a lot more than the curriculum to change that.
That's what the Common Core standards are; standards for teaching reading, writing, science, and math. And testing to see whether they've been achieved or not is an assessment tool for the administrators of the school system to see who is doing well so they can figure out how and train others to do the same.
I'm curious. Why do you think tests show how well a subject is being taught?
In my experience, tests distract everyone from the subject matter. Both students and teachers are more interested in test scores than they are in the subject matter. They memorize factoids and procedures in order to take a test, then they forget it all so they can get on with the memorization for the next test.
The only people who can learn anything (except for how to take a test) in that kind of environment are the ones who test so well that they don't have to worry about the tests. They have the time to pay attention to the subject matter (often on their own because the class time is so frequently being used for test prep).
I've known many students who had only the vaguest idea what a course had, ostensibly, been about by the next semester. They were certain that schooling was about test-taking, and that the different subjects were only used to keep the tests from all being the same. No joke.
I think that testing shows how well a student is being taught because it gives the best avenue for a student to demonstrate knowledge. Teachers have thought this for a very long time, and it is the reason that you are tested and/or asked to demonstrate knowledge at the end, and during near every course you will ever be in.
Testing can take many shapes, so even in an art class you can be assessed to see how well you understand and are able to demonstrate a certain concept (like cubism or interpretation). Not every test has to be fill in the bubble, and testing itself can be a learning experience.
- it gives the best avenue for a student to demonstrate knowledge.
I can't remember ever taking a test like that. These ones I've taken involve identifying specific answers to particular questions and following particular procedures for producing specific answers. I wasn't demonstrating my knowledge of anything except my test-taking skills.
Now, I have been told that there was a time when teachers discussed the subject matter with students during class, and then altered their methods and subjects to accommodate what the students appeared to understand, and what they seemed to need to understand. I've rarely seen anything like this myself, but this sounds like a far more sensible system of assessment and adjustment than testing to me.
I've even been told that, at one time, principals, department heads, and deans used to sit in on classes to see what was going on and evaluate the quality of the instruction. Again, I've rarely seen this happen, but it sounds like a fairly clever way for administrators to make assessments of and adjustments to the teaching in a school.
- Teachers have thought this for a very long time,
The kind of testing we're talking about is very recent.
- testing itself can be a learning experience.
Of course it can. It can help people learn how to take tests.
- I'm in education
If it's not an intrusion, could you tell me what you do in education?
The kind of assessment you are talking about is called Formative Assessment. It is what good teachers do every day. Homework, quizzes, and tests can all be forms of formative assessment. Writing an essay on thematic elements of a novel can be an assessment as well, and depending on the level of the student (7th grade English vs. Senior level Literary Analysis) can be either a formative or summative assessment.
Literally every month I have ever taught, my principal has been in the room at least once to evaluate my development, lesson plan, delivery, and adjustments.
I'm a high school math teacher. I have a MA in Teaching and I have been in charge of department level curriculum development based on standards like Common Core.
- The kind of assessment you are talking about is ... what good teachers do every day. ... Literally every month I have ever taught, my principal has been in the room at least once
It sounds like you're in a pretty good school district. Why would you want to deal with the distraction of standardized testing? Is it because of the funding system?
- I have been in charge of department level curriculum development based on standards like Common Core.
Be honest, haven't there been times when you've thought that your school could do better for its students without those standards dictating what you should test for?
We have to consider that the people writing the standards have a lot of experience in deciding what in Math/English etc. should be taught and considered relevant within the subject. They are usually Ph. D level educators and have a lot of experience working with kids and school boards.
In developing these standards they consider input from community and industry leaders to gain outside opinion on what stake holders might find lacking in the current generation of students. i.e. "Why don't graduates know statistics/programming/technical writing?" Or whatever they might see lacking.
And most of the time, I agree with what they're saying. Common Core is a dramatic improvement in many ways over the previous standards and it gives realistic (but previously unheard of) goals for each grade in the major subjects.
We don't find standardized testing to be an enormous distraction. It is not an obstacle but a tool where we can take a step back and assess how well the students did compared to how they entered the classroom (last year's test). Then we can figure out why and try to improve. And even though it is unfortunately being used to guarantee funding under the abortion that is NCLB, and do stupid things like dictate merit-based pay increases, these are symptoms of the problem (legislators and administrators do not understand the processes that lead to consistent education and learning and so we waste our time spinning our wheels with trying new things and old things and just seeing what works or more often doesn't) and we are better off at least making informed decisions with data than not.
In a country where we put plans like No Child Left Behind in action in order to "get ahead," we somehow have come to believe this excludes advancement of the arts. Was the Renaissance not one of the greatest advancement periods? Were the arts not a central part of that movement?
- Was the Renaissance not one of the greatest advancement periods?
Well, not for the poor. Which is sort of the point of NCLB.
But I understand what you mean; it's clear that we haven't gotten ahead -- of China, of Western Europe, in STEM, in standard of living ... any measure you want to throw out. We need a new plan, or maybe no plan at all.
- or maybe no plan at all.
Yeah I know that. It more of a humorous statement than a literal one. Regardless though, it's an interesting thin, to not have a plan. More or less that's what Montessori schools do and students learn a great deal there.
I am not convinced those places work. Paying for an education that would be bettered by intelligent homeschooling? In my experience they basically exist as an "alternative learning environment" for kids who screw up regular school. Do people actually seek them out for the education?
Oh yeah, people seek them out all of the time. It's more than intelligent homeschooling though, although if it were an individual student, I can see how this is applicable.
In Montessori schools, the teacher only provides a guide line as to what the students should learn. They have a curriculum, but it only states what the students should learn by the end of the section as opposed to how to try to get then to learn a concept. So, if the students need to memorize the state capitals, the teacher will allow the students to do it in whatever way they want. In this situation, students often collaborate and work together by their own accord. They aren't forced to, but frequently they'll do it on their own. When students no longer feel motivated to work on one assignment, they move to the next and could return to the first whenever they like. How often have we been in math and thought, "Man, I'm really not in the mood for this. I could do some Bio homework though" or vise versa. In these schools, the students are allowed to do that. While it is "intelligent homeschooling," Montessori schools provide a deeper learning. Because it's a school there are more resources/learning tools than a parent would probably want to buy on their own. And also having peers is an important aspect of it as kids learn to interact with one another in a mature way, even from a young age. The only downfall that I know of is when students leave. They aren't accustomed to the severely stricter guidelines of other institutions and have a difficult time adjusting. In Montessori schools for example, students don't have to ask permission to use the restroom, they just go when they need to (similar to a college classroom). So when their Montessori schooling ends and they enter the public school realm, teachers become very upset with this because they feel as if the students are acting insubordinate. If prices go down by the time I have kids, I intend to have them go to a Montessori school as opposed to public school.
Okay, good answer.
But the problem with this (according to generalizations I can draw and a few observations I've made) is that it caters to those who I would call for want of a better word, losers. Slackers. Kids who don't give a shit. Just imagining my average high school acquaintance -- a few would positively thrive, and the rest would crater. It encourages a lack of order in life, and as you point out, the rest of the world is about order. Going to college from a Montessori would be like moving from a Greek island to Manhattan.
In my opinion, that's why this sort of educational system will never catch on widely. I firmly believe children should attend public school for the social immersion, though, so I'm on the extreme end of this question's spectrum.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. Going to this sort of school does promote a sort of chaotic lifestyle. But, I think that might be a good thing to be honest. In a world with so much order, it might be nice for people to let loose to some extent. Perhaps education is too much of an extreme to accomplish this, but I wouldn't denounce living a somewhat chaotic lifestyle. And actually, both slacker as well as overachievers excel in Montessori schools.
That seems a bit more accurate. I'll talk to my girlfriend about it tonight who is in the teaching business.