Teach to the Test

[CalicoPenn]

"When you hear about teacher going on strike it seems like its always for more salary. Could they threaten to strike because the tests need to be improved?"

 

That gets to the heart of the issue in Wisconsin, doesn't it? The Guv wants to eliminate teachers rights to collectively bargain for everything except salary. What would be eliminated? One that comes up is to agree to class sizes in a contract. Study after study has shown that smaller class sizes leads to better learning and this is one of the things teachers fight for in their contracts. When they fight for optimum class sizes, it benefits the students. If the optimum class size is 20, and there are 100 students in a grade, that means 5 teachers - those that think the teachers are only trying to keep someone employes will push for 25 per class to eliminate a teacher to save money. Sure, it saves money, but the education that the students get is compromised. Who is looking out for the well-being of the students in this case?

 

There is no doubt that when teachers strike, the issue that is reported in the media boils down to money - but that's because of what the media reports - they don't like to report on the "minor" issues like class sizes, and preparation days, and educational benefits (cost sharing of continuing education) because things like that don't generate the controversy that teachers demanding a 5% increase over 3 years as opposed to a school boards offer of 2% over 3 years does.

 

 

[Lisabob]

No, they could not threaten to strike unless the tests improve. Why? Because you can't strike over stuff that isn't bargainable to begin with, and the tests are not written by the school districts. They are typically written either by the state ed dept or by some outside testing company. Teachers, and their unions, have no say in these tests. That is why you hear them complain a lot, but you don't see them fixing it - because it isn't under their control and it is not a negotiable contract matter.

 

 

[Beavah]

So, do Medical Schools teach to the Medical Certification test?

Law Schools teach to the "Bar"

Accounting School to the CPA

 

I can only speak to one of those, eh? But I expect da same holds for the others. Only da lowest tier schools would ever teach to the test.. For one, da tests differ between states, and da best schools are preparin' folks for multi state practice.

 

But what yeh want out of any of those schools is to be prepared for practice, not for a test. So that's what all da good schools teach to. Whether it's da bar exam or the boards or the CPA exam, those are only partial measures of basic knowledge. They aren't comprehensive, and they aren't anything more than basic knowledge for da field. That's why yeh have extended internship periods for all of 'em even after yeh take the test. Good schools prepare yeh for da practice in those internship periods and beyond.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, I think that was the point I was trying to make. You don't teach for the test, you teach the field of study.

 

Are we saying the content and questions are known? Is that a problem with having "A" test or having "That" test?

 

For Elementary Schools that content should be Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic (the old stannards)and others but at the very least those and yet that still seems to be struggle regardless of class size

 

LisaBob, you said the tests were poor, I asked why not have the Unions work to change them and the reason is because they can't be negotiated? Unions never publicly talk about things they can't negotiate? The President of the United States cannot introduce legislation, yet they always seem to have their pet Legislation. They figure out a way. If its an educational issue then the teachers need to talk about it, maybe they can't negotiate at contract time, but it certainly can be debated in the press. Now, that would impress me

[Lisabob]

OGE it is debated in public forums by teacher unions all the time. Take a close look at NEA or AFT and their stances on NCLB, for example. Both have played a very active role in trying to shape this debate and improve the testing regime. It could just be that you (and most of our media) haven't been paying much attention to this, which is understandable enough - people generally pay attention to their relatively narrowly defined interests. I know practically nothing about Xray technologist training, for example.

 

But you asked specifically, why don't we hear teachers talking about standardized tests when we hear about contract negotiations or strikes? And the answer there is because standardized testing is a broader policy issue and not a contract issue.

[Eagle92]

Beav,

 

Hasn't there been folks who did not attend law school and pass the bar?

 

Thought I read a book and saw a movie about one such guy?

[packsaddle]

"...prepared for practice."

Heck, I don't want anyone practicing on me! I want a REAL doctor or whatever professional. They should get whatever practice they need while still at school.

 

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[clemlaw]

>>>>>>Hasn't there been folks who did not attend law school and pass the bar?

 

Thought I read a book and saw a movie about one such guy?

 

[SeattlePioneer]

For decades liberals and Democrats were weeping and wailing about the dismal performance of minorities in public schools.

 

At the same time, elite programs were being set up to give the sprigs of the middle class a premium education rather than being consigned to the education the rest of the dregs received.

 

It was a conveniently hypocritical method that allowed the academic performance of minorities to remain low for decades.

 

Then George Bush had the NERVE to take the idea of improved academic performance for all SERIOUSLY! He put the screws to public schools, who were induced to start improving education for the dregs, often at the expense of those privileged elites.

 

And not surprisingly, the elites HOWL!

 

That's most of what's going on.

 

Of course, the elites howl about whatever is convenient to howl about. Democrats imposed oodles of unfunded mandates on public education, but those were LEFT WING mandates, so they get a pass. But an unfunded mandate by Republicans, especially one that bites the elite students, is obviously something to complain about.

 

Complaints about "teaching to the test" are just another type of partisan warfare.

[Lisabob]

Huh?

 

Seattle, I simply do not understand where you are coming from on that one.

 

NCLB was the single biggest expansion of federal government involvement in k-12 education in decades so it is probably not surprising that people talk a lot about it. And while I think NCLB is deeply and fundamentally flawed (largely because the way it is set up, it can't possibly ever deliver what it promises), I don't have a problem with holding schools - particularly chronically failing schools - accountable. I just don't think NCLB does an adequate job of this and I also don't think that we, as a society, are willing to fund the kinds of reforms that would make it more viable.

 

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

No one who paid attention to NCLB believes that it was a serious attempt at anything.

[jrush]

"teaching to the test" always gets a bad rap, but fact is, standardized test taking is a skill which must be taught. Many students do poorly on tests not because the actual material isn't being taught, but they they don't have the commensurate time management and reading comprehension skills.

 

Certification tests are a different matter, but if a student can be taught how to do well on those "grade level" bubble tests, they will tend to do well on subject-specific tests.

[Engineer61]

In my state, it is the "dirty little secret" that the teachers (who are paid on performance) teach to the state's standards test.

 

Teaching to test is a reference to elementary and high school students not colleges and universities.

 

What does it mean?

 

I'll use Math as an example.

 

Say that the standard for a specific grade is that the students should be able to pass multiplication to '9'... 1x1 to 9x9. The teachers will pound that range...and that range only...even if the class is capable of learning to '12x12'.

 

Teaching to the test means that you don't push the students to what they can do, only to what the need to do.

 

That is the failing of performance based merit pay for primary/secondary educators.

 

But hey....what do I know...

[OldGreyEagle]

So the answer is still improve the test? Expand it to include 123 X 674?

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Engineer 61,

 

 

The question is --- who are the public schools there to teach?

 

 

There is a minority of students who can benefit hugely from a quality education.

 

Perhaps the majority can benefit moderately from an academic education.

 

And then there is a substantial minority who will benefit little or nothing.

 

 

So --- who are you gonna teach?

 

The approach of public education in recent decades has been to keep the substantial minority in school, occupying desks and sucking up resources, but accepting that they aren't going to learn much.

 

The middle and upper class elite have created premium education for their children which excludes the rest.

 

 

And that status quo also featured Democrats wringing the hands and rending their garments about the lack of achievement by those on the bottom while more or less ignoring them on purpose.

 

THE NCLB law challenged that hypocrisy by placing some real power and force behind educating those at the bottom at the expense of stripping away resources from those at the top.

 

It's the parents of those at the top who perceive a decline in educational standards, and they are correct. But the resources went to those on the bottom. But those parents of course don't care about real educational equality (which is an imaginary idea anyway). They breally only care about THEIR children ---not that that's much of a surprise.

 

 

THE NCLB program stripped away the hypocrisy of the liberal middle class and upper class. But the parents at the bottom lack the skill and power to protect their children, so the upper and middle classes have been getting away with attacking NCLB.

 

 

The real problem though is the idea of a "democratic" education system. Few things are ingherently LESS democratic than the ability to benefit from an academic education. You simply aren't going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and there are a lot of sows ears attending public schools.

 

We are willing to recognize that at the college and university level, where the majority are excluded and people are sorted rather harshly by their achievement, ability and motivation. But public schools aren't willing to do that and they inherently waste huge amounts of resources on the uneducable and those not interested or motivated to be educated.