Bad teachers or the system

[SWTXBelle]

I may have an interesting perspective. I taught college for 12 years, and then AP English at a private school for 7. I currently homeschool my 17 year old and am on the board of a private school. When I graduated with a B.A. in English, I had twice as many English courses as someone who graduated with his/her education certificate. I never planned to teach, but God had other plans . . . and when I looked into 1.) going to graduate school to get my M.A. and education certificate or 2.) getting a M.A. in English and teaching college - it would have taken twice as long to be certified to teach, and the courses included a 3 hour course in making bulletin boards. No lie. I worked at a public high school whilst in graduate school, which made it easy to chose.
I was fortunate to work at a private school where the headmaster believed in hiring the best possible teachers and LETTING THEM TEACH. I was able to be creative and adjust my plans to suit individual students and classes. Many people are surprised to learn that private school teachers get paid LESS than public school teachers. But my sanity is worth something. As for measures of success - I have a file of Thank You letters from students who went on to be successful students at Yale, Harvard, U of Chicago, Westpoint, Stanford, . . .just about any top school you can name. My Scholastic Writing Award participants have won national Gold and Silver awards. Our school academic team was the state champion for the three years I coached it. We had an exceptional number of National Merit scholars and award winners. You get the picture. The biggest measure of success of course is students re-enrolling. If the parents don't think it is worth the money, they will not support a private school.
My sister-in-law works at a public school in Texas. She has to spend so much time prepping for tests in the spring that she sometimes doesn't get to teach science. Think about that for a minute.
I homeschool my daughter because I know that it is impossible for a teacher with over 20 students in a class to meet all their needs. I knew I couldn't when I was teaching college. If I pitched my class to the top 10%, I'd lose the other 90%. If I gave the bottom 10% what they needed, everyone else would be bored to death. And if I pitched to the middle, I'd lose the bottom and the top. In college it is possible to ignore the bottom 10 - 25% - they are ill-equipped for higher education, and will drop. Because I taught English, I was able to let the top 10% distinguish themselves with their writing. Some of the middle students were stunned to discover that they would not get a B for breathing. Many received their first Cs and Ds from me. I'd point out that C is average - so the majority of my students should, in theory, receive a C. I graded each paper on its individual merits, so it was possible there would be more Bs or Ds than Cs. Many of these students -who couldn't even write a grammatically correct sentence - had been receiving passing grades in high school.
But a teacher in a public school does not have the luxury of ignoring the students who need him/her most. I do not envy them the administrative hoops they have to jump through, the burdens placed on them by the educational theory du jour, and the often antagonistic attitude parents display. Read Teachers Have It Easy: The Big Sacrifices and Small Salaries of America's Teachers a really good, through assesment of the problems, and an exploration of some possible solutions, associated with public education today.
My daughter has been tested with the Stanford Achievement Tests every year until this year - she's a junior, and she took the ACT today. She has consistently been in the 95 - 98 percentile. She is a solid writer, and has read an amazing amount of literature. Because she has been able to work at her own pace, she has really finished a standard high school curriculum already. She did not want to go to college as a 17 year old, so we will spend the next year doing college-level work and visiting colleges.
I am not alone - literally thousands of parents are opting out of a system that is unable, or unwilling, to change. I could go on, but instead recommend An Underground History of American Education to anyone who wants to know how we ended up in this mess. I wish I knew the magic wand to wave and make it better. I don't, but I do believe the first thing we must do is admit what we are doing now IS NOT WORKING.

[KSig RC]

You're right - that is an interesting perspective. I think more teachers should put in the effort and thought you did - I'm sure some don't have the opportunity, but I think you're probably better at what you do than many, as well.

One thing:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My sister-in-law works at a public school in Texas. She has to spend so much time prepping for tests in the spring that she sometimes doesn't get to teach science. Think about that for a minute.

This concept baffles me - the point of testing is to see where students stand in terms of learning. Preparing for the test should be the same thing as teaching them - in an ideal world, the test could be given at any given point and test information up to that point. I just don't get how this happens - that's not at all the intention behind any concept of testing.

Charges of "teaching to the test" are inane and generally incorrect - what requires this much time?

[SWTXBelle]

Well, having been in TX when the original NCLB system was implemented, I have to say it invited abuse. Teachers were assured that testing would not be considered in hiring/firing/advances - but then it was. Widespread cheating was found - and what amazed me was not that they found it, but that they did not find more. Principals felt pressure to deliver test results, and they passed on the pressure to the teachers. They say they don't teach to the test - but then have pep rallies and reward systems geared specifically to the test. You pass by schools - and their signs are all about the testing, they have banners painted and posted on their fences, and the entire school is held hostage to the test for the weeks before and during the testing itself. You cannot have a system of punishments (and that's how they are perceived) for schools with poor performance and then be surprised when there is cheating and teaching to the test.
Accountability is good - but education is far too complex to be reduced to fill-in-the-circle kind of tests. Maybe the problem is that the test is too generalized - in other words, that it is expected to be a one-size-fits-all.
My husband is headmaster at a 2 yr. old private school. We test the kids every year with the Stanford Achievement Test - but specifically to be able to gauge progress against a norm, and to fine-tune the next year's curriculum to address any perceived shortcomings. The class results aren't what we are looking for - it's the individual student's results that we use. And - FYI - 2/3 of our students are ESL, and in the 2 years we've had them, they've made incredible progress. I was brought to tears when discussing the results with a mother.(I oversee administration of the tests) Her son had been held back in public school, and you could tell he had adopted a strategy of just "tuning out" when he didn't understand something. You can't do that when you are in a class of 2 students! He has made enormous strides forward, because he doesn't have an option to tune out any more.
There has got to be a way to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable - but I don't think NCLB is the answer.

[AchtungBaby80]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Charges of "teaching to the test" are inane and generally incorrect - what requires this much time?

That's not what I've seen. In all the schools I subbed in and especially the ones where I student taught, there was a lot of "teaching to the test" going on...and the worst one was a school with extremely high schores (of the top-ten-in-the-state variety). I guess that tactic worked, but the teachers weren't very happy about it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AchtungBaby80

That's not what I've seen. In all the schools I subbed in and especially the ones where I student taught, there was a lot of "teaching to the test" going on...and the worst one was a school with extremely high schores (of the top-ten-in-the-state variety). I guess that tactic worked, but the teachers weren't very happy about it.

What does "teaching to the test" even mean?

I'm asking in earnest - I don't know how you can 'teach to the test' for something like history or math. Even in English classes, where these charges pop up most, the rhetorical devices and vocabulary that are the root of these charges are fantastic writing skills on their own right.

How can "teaching to the test" be different from "learning"?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Charges of "teaching to the test" are inane and generally incorrect - what requires this much time?

If the tests are good, I agree with you.

When you have a valid curriculum test carefully aligned with what teachers are supposed to teaching and appropriate for the methods they are supposed to be using, the test at the end should measure student learning and shouldn't need a bunch of crammed in test specific teaching.

But oftentimes, the curriculum and methods that teachers have been taught and required to use do not match up with what will be tested, and so, they are directed as a separate exercise to review or cram certain information in before the test.

I'm not to the SWTX Belle level that the whole system should be thrown out, at least I'm not today, but I think the present system needs huge reform.

As much as I take the teachers' "side" 95% of the time, I think good tests are essential to reform, and the "testing isn't really education" stuff is part of what is holding progress back. What you do with kids everyday for 180 days should somehow be measurable. It's certainly measurable in the tax dollars spent on it. The tests we have now may be a part of the problems, but GOOD tests are probably part of the answer.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

What does "teaching to the test" even mean?

I'm asking in earnest - I don't know how you can 'teach to the test' for something like history or math. Even in English classes, where these charges pop up most, the rhetorical devices and vocabulary that are the root of these charges are fantastic writing skills on their own right.

How can "teaching to the test" be different from "learning"?

Teaching to the test can be different from learning when the test aren't lined up well with what you are supposed to teach for any reason.

It can also happen when you are aware that for testing purposes, distinctions are made that most reasonable people wouldn't have emphasized, which at least in Georgia seems to happen a lot.

(Our tests in Georgia are not good ones and they all have big curves, so the little distinctions don't seem to matter too much.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Teaching to the test can be different from learning when the test aren't lined up well with what you are supposed to teach for any reason.

Not to be outcome-oriented, but it seems like the very nature of the word 'test' means that the test determines "what you are supposed to teach" . . . however, I can agree that some tests are poorly designed.

This is inordinately vague, though - can I get a specific example?

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

It can also happen when you are aware that for testing purposes, distinctions are made that most reasonable people wouldn't have emphasized, which at least in Georgia seems to happen a lot.

Again, could I get an example? Basically, what you're saying here is that the response options are somehow poor choices to answer a given question? Or that the questions are phrased in a way that is not natural for examination of a given fact?

[carnation]

Oh, don't even get me going on standardized testing. Every piece of paper our kids have brought home since January reminded us to send them to bed on time and give them good breakfasts--and the tests aren't even until next week.I know we have to have them--especially the SAT because some schools, which I have taught in, try to force the teachers to hand out A's like candy so the kids will want to go to college and the school system will look good. (Then they flunk out after the first semester in college.) Somehow you have to see where everyone is in their learning.

I have taught all levels from middle school to college. I've been appalled at the government's idea that all kids, even the mentally handicapped, are going to be able to reach "X" standard. It's been heartbreaking, over the years, to watch programs that were heralded as being what would bring all kids up to par fail fall by the wayside. The truth is that not all kids will make it scholastically. Maybe they're intellectually unable, they have a horrible home life, they don't care, who knows?

My sister teaches several kids who came to her district as Katrina refugees. They want to sleep in class, they're absent for days at a time, they want to know why her school doesn't have 2 hour-long recesses like their old schools did, they refuse to do classwork and homework. And the government thinks that these kids are going to meet the standard they've imposed? I wish they could. I doubt they will.

This post has rambled but it comes from a teacher who's been around for a long, long time! I just have so many thoughts about all this...

[carnation]

Sorry for the double post, but this email I got says it all:
__________________________________________________ __

Here's the football version of what is going on in
education. If you're not an educator, this may not make a
lot of sense to you, but send it to your friends who are in
education. They will love it.

No Child Left Behind -- Football Version

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win
the championship. If a team does not win the championship,
they will be on probation until they are the champions, and
coaches will be held accountable. If, after two years, they
have not won the championship, their footballs and equipment
will be taken away until they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football
skills at the same time even if they do not have the same
conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO
exceptions will be made for lack of intere st in football,
lack of desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities
or disabilities from themselves or their parents.
ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own,
without instruction. This is because the coaches will be
using all their instructional time for the athletes who
aren't interested in football, have limited athletic
ability, or whose parents don't like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will
only be kept in the 3rd, 8th, and 11th games. It will
create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to
have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the
same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child
gets left behind. If parents do not like this new law, they
are encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private
schools that can screen out the non-athletes and prevent
their children from having to go to school with bad football
players.

[ASUADPi]

I definately agree that it is stupid to hold all children up to the same standards.

That is why there are lawsuits! NCLB is trumping IDEA, which has been around longer!

In Arizona students take the AIMS test. The kids scores determine if we make AYP or not. We can't teach to the test because 1) they change it every year and 2) they make it harder every year.

In Tuesday's AZ Republic they had a sample of 15 questions from a 5th grade AIMS. Here I am, 28, Master Degree. I got 11 questions right and I was only exceeding. The questions were ridiculously hard! My first thoughs were "OMG if I barely exceeded on this "test" and I'm more educated than the kids, they are going to FAIL!!!"

Here's the stupid part of AIMS. Because of NCLB all sped students (SLD, MIMR labels, which most sped kids are SLD and MIMR) HAVE TO take AIMS on GRADE LEVEL. You are therefore asking a child who can only read at 1st grade to take a 3rd grade AIMS were in reality the reading level on the 3rd grade AIMS is 4.0-4.5. WTF?!?

Even worse is that if high school seniors DO NOT PASS AIMS they DO NOT GET TO GRADUATE!!!! There are tons of lawsuits right not against the Department of Education because of this rule. Especially from the parents of Sped students.

Some kids don't Standardize test well, whether they are sped or not, and it is completely unfair to say to a child "yes, you have a 4.0 but because you didn't pass AIMS you can't graduate". That is complete and utter BS!

I'm glad that parents are suing, hell as a teacher (with no children yet) I'd love to sue our state for their utter stupidity. Hell, I'd love to sue or stupid President and congress for their utter stupidity in NCLB!

[AGDee]

I think that email is a great analogy, carnation, for educators and non-educators alike.

ETA: It just dawned on me, while reading ASUADPi's post that, since states develop their own tests for their schools, but the Feds are the ones who developed NCLB, what motivation is there for a state to make their tests more and more difficult? It would seem that states would be motivated to make tests that most of their students could pass to ensure continued Federal funding and make their states look good. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know what might prevent that...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not to be outcome-oriented, but it seems like the very nature of the word 'test' means that the test determines "what you are supposed to teach" . . . however, I can agree that some tests are poorly designed.

This is inordinately vague, though - can I get a specific example?

Again, could I get an example? Basically, what you're saying here is that the response options are somehow poor choices to answer a given question? Or that the questions are phrased in a way that is not natural for examination of a given fact?

I PMed you one example, but I'd invite anyone really interested to look at the any of the high school Georgia Performance Standards* (the curriculum) that can been found online and then to pull the End Of Course Test review guide for the same course, and look at the sample test questions. There's a bit of mystery to how one gets from one to the other.

To the second part: yes, both of the ideas you suggest are likely to happen, and sometimes, the "facts" tested might be considered wrong by people with a higher level of expertise.

As far as the first point, the tests aren't supposed to have replaced the curriculum, especially perhaps the local requirements added to the curriculum. Your job as a teacher probably depends most, if it depends on anything at all, on doing what the people in your building expect to see. If those expectations aren't related closely to the test, well, you can imagine that there's a problem.

*If you look and read them, you may want to think about how little of the curriculum would be measured by the SAT or ACT, and yet the schools are supposedly doing poorly because the kids don't do well on those tests.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

Even worse is that if high school seniors DO NOT PASS AIMS they DO NOT GET TO GRADUATE!!!! There are tons of lawsuits right not against the Department of Education because of this rule. Especially from the parents of Sped students.

Some kids don't Standardize test well, whether they are sped or not, and it is completely unfair to say to a child "yes, you have a 4.0 but because you didn't pass AIMS you can't graduate". That is complete and utter BS!

I'm sympathetic to your frustration because I'm sure that it's hard to work hard with special education kids all day knowing that no matter what, they are going to fail. But have you ever thought about how it's might be a mistake to pretend that the kids have mastered skills they haven't? Even if the tests are above their level, why should they get credit for having done third grade work, if they only read at a 1st grade level? You're just lying to them and their parents about what their abilities are if you pretend this. It's not really picking on them or you to acknowledge that they aren't on level: they're disabled: most of us don't expect them to be on level.

But if we didn't test them, do you know how much money would dry up for you programs? Do you recognize that the money, even at the district level, is going to follow what's being measured when the school gets graded?

On a separate and maybe harsher note:

Should everyone who attends and gets good grades with any modifications that it takes to get them be allowed to get a regular diploma? What does earning a diploma mean? Attendance? A willingness to try to do the work with help?

I agree that sometimes the tests are bad tests, but really shouldn't a high school diploma mean that even a disabled kid has a certain level of independent mastery?

And this maybe harshest of all, but I don't buy the idea of a kid with a 4.0 who merely tests so poorly, despite knowing the material, that she can't pass a graduation test. If your school allowed you to get straight As without taking tests, there's something wrong right there. If you took those tests, you should get over some of your anxiety. Anxiety is not a good enough reason to say that a kid doesn't have to prove to the outside world what she knows.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

ETA: It just dawned on me, while reading ASUADPi's post that, since states develop their own tests for their schools, but the Feds are the ones who developed NCLB, what motivation is there for a state to make their tests more and more difficult? It would seem that states would be motivated to make tests that most of their students could pass to ensure continued Federal funding and make their states look good. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know what might prevent that...

When NCLB started, states submitted their plans for the tests they would use. In some cases, like Georgia's graduation test, the tests in place weren't rigorous enough, so they had to add harder questions for NCLB.

(It's interesting because the new questions count towards the NCLB data, but not towards the kids' graduation test scores. It could hurt the school, but not the kid, in other words. Go Georgia!)

So states would probably get "caught" if they went back and dumbed it down, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be a NCLB incentive for a state making the test harder.

(And this is one of those cases where I think states and districts are blaming NCLB for something that it isn't really responsible for. I encourage all teachers to look carefully at what your district says NCLB requires; you're often being lied to. Your district has decided to address a certain issue a certain way, but NCLB probably didn't mandate that plan.)