This blog is going to be a little bit of a stream of consciousness. The reason for this different format is
twofold. First, I am still trying to “flesh
out” my ideas and thinking on the subject.
By writing my ideas down it will help me make more sense of them. Secondly, if there is anyone out there
reading this blog, you can contribute to the development of my thinking by
posting comments!
Is the current system of education where “accountability”
and testing are paramount encouraging (or creating) cynicism in teacher
behavior? Let me explain. Currently Pennsylvania is like many States
where teacher evaluations are tied to how well students do on a test. Good, bad or indifferent, this is the system
that teachers finding themselves in. On
top of that, schools and districts are being judged by how well students do on
tests. This puts an incredible amount of
pressure on students to do well on tests and for teachers to do everything in
their power to assure students do well on the tests. Let’s look at the students first.
Imagine being in a system where you have to know the minute
details of photosynthesis to get your diploma (I only mention this because I
live with a biology teacher). What is
the value in knowing the minute details of photosynthesis? I am sure there are very important reasons
that people can give to defend the importance of photosynthesis to our
students. I can also imagine that at
some point Pennsylvania (like other States) convened a group of science
teachers and asked them to answer one question: what is the most valuable things that a
student must know to graduate. I also
assume that these content experts had a difficult time winnowing what they felt
was necessary down to a manageable level.
As I go further in this thought
exercise I can imagine that if I were asked to participate in a similar
exercise for history, I would have a hard time getting to the “necessary”
knowledge base for students. With all of
that being said, it still does not answer a simple question of “why”. Why is this information important for
students in our society? Why do they
have to know this material? Why are we
as a society forcing this down the student’s throats? I do not have the answers to these questions.
Since we have no real good answers to the above questions,
let’s look at the ramifications of the current system by asking this
question: does the current system of “accountability”
produce a cynical response in the way teachers teach? You can also ask two questions that are
closely related: do teachers and school systems teach to a test and is that a
good thing. The answer to the latter two
questions is “of course”; and the answer to the former is yes (in my humble
opinion). Teachers are forced to make
sure that they “get through” the curriculum…regardless (or in spite of) actual
student learning. If someone is going to
be tested on certain information for a Keystone test (Pennsylvania’s end of
course exams), most teachers are going
to make sure that all students are at least exposed to that material. They do this for two reasons. First, they have a moral obligation to do
everything they can to assure that students are placed in the best position to
graduate. In today’s world, that means
passing an end of course exam. We know
the importance of a high school diploma and to assure that students reach that
milestone is important for teachers and society. Second, most people in the workforce want to
keep their jobs. This is a natural (some
would say evolutionary) response. Thus, teachers
are going to make sure that they “cover” everything that will be on a test
because they are being judged on how well students do on the test. Someone might say, “Yea, so what. What is so bad about that”… my answer is simple. By doing everything in their power to make
sure they “cover” everything to make sure students do well on an end of the
year test, the educational system has
placed the institution ahead of the learner. The learner is secondary in this scenario and
there is no chance for them to be the primary concern. If learning
was fundamentally the foundation of the system, then teachers could design
lessons of instruction that assured that students learned the information…even
if it meant that some students did not “cover” all of the material. Teachers would design lessons that allowed
students to “show off” their knowledge in ways other than a test. But that is not the reality of the system we
are in. Teachers must (for the students and
their own sake) teach to the test…the learner be damned. (I want to make something
clear at this point. I realize there are
“alternative” measures for students to prove their knowledge in the current
system. My question is this: who will
take advantage of them after they have failed a tests at least once and truly do
not understand the test questions or the concepts being tested? Not many… most will just give up). So I ask myself…does the current system
encourage a cynical response to learning?
What do you think?
I agree that this whole crazy system is inducing increased cynicism. Teachers around me are pragmatically figuring out how to get through it until the tide changes and it goes away. Hopes are high, even, that the new governor can make some of this go away. Fears of quantitative teacher ratings being made public are being elevated.
ReplyDeleteUsing test scores to quantitatively rank teachers seems to be cloaked in smoke and mirrors. PA will be evaluating teachers on students "growth", although at the high school level, a bio teacher has the students for only year, they take one test, and are gone from that teacher forever. The "growth" is measured by the state's statistical prediction of how the student should do on the bio Keystone, compared to how they actually do. We are expected to trust their calculations. 180 days of lessons and assessments (formative and summative), and it comes down to how a kid does on one day's test.
Coming from engineering, the entire world of education is puzzling to me. The last day of school in my 1st yr of teaching, I walked into the building and there were lines of teachers in front of the three principals' offices. I dutifully got in line, and discovered it was to sign our eval form and everyone was Satisfactory. I almost cried. I never worked so hard in my life, and my "performance review" was 13 seconds while I signed that I was Satisfactory. Utterly demoralizing.
In engineering, I was evaluated qualitatively. I was not evaluated based on how many widgets I designed or how many words were in my reports or how many computer models I ran. My manager walked around, sat in on meetings, reviewed reports, talked to customers -- he just knew what happened in his purview and knew who was working hard and doing a good job and who was phoning it in. More difficult assignments went to those who deserved it. Performance reviews had specific evidence in it but overall they were based on his qualitative professional opinion of my performance. Education seems to think this is not possible, and thus, these crazy workarounds are developed.