Story Idea For Education Journalists

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being at a conference on hosted by the Education Writer's Association and the Carnegie Foundation here in NYC.  It brought together an interesting group of education reporters, teacher bloggers, and education "experts" (=policy people & researchers) to discuss the topic of teacher effectiveness.  The event was quite unique and engaging, though I would have liked to see teachers featured on panels as "education experts" as well.  

At the end of the day we broke into small groups and talked more directly with the reporters about ideas for stories.  Here one I'd like to suggest:

Does innovative teaching lead to better test scores?  

On the one hand, everyone from principals to President Obama is saying that it's bad to "teach to the test."  On the other hand, when it comes time to look at data and evaluate students, teachers and schools, test scores are the measure.  

Many people, including Judy Zimny of ASCD who was a great panel presenter yesterday, have asserted that innovative teaching that excites students around content leads naturally to higher test scores.

In other words, there is no need to teach to the test.  Is that true?  It is a question I've been trying to answer myself.  I see some evidence that it is true, and some evidence it might not be universally true.  What are the factors at play here?

Let's hear from innovative teachers who see big gains in their students' test scores but do not seem to "teach to the test".  What populations do they work with?  What type of schools do they work in?  What do they focus their curriculum on, and to what do they attribute the success of their students on the test?  Are there things these teachers think are important to teach, but leave out, because they aren't tested skills or content?  Where do "soft" skills like collaboration, self-reflection, creativity, and empathy figure into their classrooms and curriculum?  

Let's also hear from teachers who refuse to teach to the test and who may not see huge gains on test scores, but who have been deemed excellent, innovative teachers by other measures, such as National Board Certification, feedback by their colleagues, school leaders, students and parents.  What is their rationale for the choices they make regarding curriculum and teaching style?  What growth do they see in their students, and why don't they think it's being measured accurately or at all or by the standardized test?  I have read blog posts from Bill Ferriter, an expert teacher for sure, who incorporates digital media into his classroom in extraordinary ways and who teaches his students to be global citizens--he has at times mentioned that his students' test scores are lower than those of the other teachers on his hall, because he focuses so much energy on skills he believes are of extreme importance, but do not get tested.  

Finally, I'd like to hear from teachers who do teach to the test, and who would not describe themselves as particularly innovative--both the ones who see their students make gains on the test and those who try and do everything they're told to do, but don't.  How do they conceptualize what they are doing?  How do conditions at their schools factor into their decisions and outcomes?  What does success on the test mean to their students and them? 

Also, what do parents want for their kids?  How do they feel about their child's educational experience in relation to their perception about whether their child is being taught to the test or not?  

 

[image credit: news.xinhuanet.com]

 

Comments

[Peggy Crouch]

This weekend I too, had the pleasure of attending a conference with the EWA. I was one of 13 teachers involved. Mostly I listened to the "experts", as Ariel puts it, on education telling me what has been wrong with education and what needs to change. One discussion involved the aspect of teacher training in our education colleges. There was much concern that teachers were receiving too much theory and not enough practical experiences in the classroom. Although I agree that prospective teachers need to spend more time in the classroom embodying the full responsibilities a teacher has, I also believe that theory is important. The science of teaching has to be based on the theory of learning and development.

Relevant practices that should take place in the classroom are based on important theories. My second certification in education is in TESOL. Chomsky's theory of universal grammar is important in order to understand the nuances of learning a second language. Likewise, Vygotsky's theories of child development are important to start understanding the developmental issues regarding learning.

My fear is that in an attempt to put more emphasis on field/residential experiences, the teaching of theory will be totally put on the back burner. Although the crux of a prospective teachers' experiences needs to be more congruent with the actual classroom experience, it is still important for teachers to understand theory when building their pedagogy of teaching.

The mobile comments made by panel members are a prime example. One member commented on the fact that they walked into a teacher education classroom where the teachers were making mobiles. The reaction from the panel and the audience was clear…[What kind of nonsense is that?]…. I too laughed, then I thought. Wait, that was a class on how to teach! There was a reason for this activity. What was the context? How can we insure that reporters are reporting events/observations in the appropriate context? A mobile of Howard Gardner's 7 intelligences is a perfect example of how a teacher can use the artistic intelligence (theory based) to solidify and demonstrate knowledge and ideas, especially when the verbal /or written explanations accompany such a project. Furthermore, this project, while not developmentally appropriate for adults, would be for an elementary and middle school classroom. Our teachers must be able to put their minds into the minds of the students they teach. How else are we to understand their thinking?

In today's classroom, these types of projects and developmentally appropriate styles of learning are being significantly threatened by the policies made by those who have not studied theory and who do not know and understand the many ways a student can learn. Instead, teachers are being forced, by many districts to forego their educational experiences to raise scores by focusing on passing the high stakes exams.

This brings me to the question Ariel Sacks asks in her

What is my opinion regarding teaching to the test? Do I believe it is necessary? The answer is no, but yes. As of February 20 I have not taught to the test. I am a 5th grade teacher in an inner city school and I strongly believe that if students are taught to read, to have leveled texts available, to hold on to text, to build stamina, to read critically by using their metacognition, and to evaluate story and text, that they will be strong readers. However, I do believe that students need to be given the textual context of tests as a genre. It's another genre in which students need to learn how to navigate. They need the strategies good test takers use to "beat the test maker!" That can be taught in a "testing" genre unit. This unit does not need to take all year. Three weeks, top.
Most importantly I believe that teaching students to read and have a strong number sense will empower them to become life long readers and thinkers. What do I think about those who solely teach to the test and their test scores show improvement? I think that the students only learn how to take tests. They will not become readers who enjoy exploring other worlds and will not learn to think for themselves. Sure, they will pass a test, but that skill will need to be retaught the next year. I feel for these students because they will not experience the joy of learning in and of itself. They will never experience the benefits of a classroom discourse that can raise the bar in their thinking and build their confidence as valid thinkers. They will wait for the next spoon of "knowledge" to be put into their mouth.

[David Ginsburg (aka Coach G)]

Ariel:

Based on my 18 years in urban education--teacher, instructional coach, and administrator--the assertion you referred to by Judy Zimny is right on. Focus on instructional quality, and scores take care of themselves. We as educators--teachers, but especially school leaders--must therefore shift the focus from test preparation to teacher preparation. Not pre-service preparation (another topic altogether), but practical, ongoing, on-the-job support. Support that we know from research (going back to Bruce Joyce's and Beverly Showers' study in the 80s and corroborated by other studies since then)is far more effective when delivered through coaching than traditional training methods.

I'm so glad to have met you at the EWA meeting, and appreciate you following up here on such a critical issue (which I took on too recently in a blog post at Ed Week called “Teaching TO the Test vs. Teaching the Test": http://bit.ly/hVTRrp ).

[Stephen Lazar]

I love this idea, and hope someone takes it on.

[Peter Meyer]

The problem is that no one asks what the tests are based on. State education departments that write tests must first write the curricula. No more standards! No more guides! Give us the specific texts from which the test questions are derived -- then the tests might mean something.