'Teaching to the test': Part III

Ishmael

Literotica Guru
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Posts
84,005
Thomas Sowell

August 22, 2002

'Teaching to the test': Part III

While we ought to learn from our own experiences, it is even better to learn from other people's experiences, saving ourselves the painful costs of the lessons. In the case of the dominant educational fads of our times, many have been tried out before in other countries. Their failures there should have warned us that they were likely to fail here as well.

Our education establishment's objections to "teaching to the test" are echoes of what was said and done in China during the 1950s and 1960s, when examinations were de-emphasized and non-academic criteria and social "relevance" were given more weight. In 1967, examinations were abolished.

This was an even bigger step in China than it would be in the United States, for China had had extensive examinations for more than a thousand years. Not only were there academic examinations, for centuries most Chinese civil servants were also selected by examinations.

A decade after academic examinations were abolished in China, the Ministry of Education announced that college entrance examinations "will be restored and admittance based on their results." Why? Because "the quality of education has declined sharply" in the absence of examinations and this had "retarded the development of a whole generation of young people."

Mao's successor, Deng Xiaoping, complained about "the deterioration of academic standards" and said, "schools have not paid attention to educational standards and instead overemphasized practical work; students' knowledge of theory and basic skills in their area of specialization have been disregarded."

None of these failing educational fads was unique to China. They went back to the teachings of John Dewey, whose "progressive" ideas shaped developments in American schools -- and especially American schools of education, where future teachers were trained. Moreover, Dewey's ideas were tried out on a large scale in the
Soviet Union in the 1920s, before they had achieved similar influence in the United States.

During a visit to the Soviet Union in 1928, Dewey reported "the marvelous development of progressive educational ideas and practice under the fostering care of the Bolshevik government." He noted that the Soviets had broken down the barriers between school and society, which he had urged others to do, and said, "I can only pay my tribute to the liberating effect of active participation in social life upon the attitude of the students."

Here we see the early genesis of the current idea in today's American schools that the children there should be promoting causes, writing public figures and otherwise "participating" in the arena of social and political issues. Another progressive educator, W.H. Kilpatrick, was likewise exhilarated to find that his books were being used in Soviet teacher training programs.

Kilpatrick was also delighted to learn that the three Rs were not being taught directly but were being learned "incidentally from tasks at hand." Here was the basic principle behind today's "discovery learning."

Even as visiting progressive educators from America were gushing over the use of their ideas in Soviet schools, the bad educational consequences were turning the Soviet government leadership against these fads. The commissar who had imposed progressive education on Soviet schools was removed shortly after John Dewey's
visit.

When the romantic notions of progressive education didn't work, the Soviet and Chinese governments were able to get rid of them because they were not hamstrung by teachers' unions. They were able to restore "teaching to the test"-- which was not very romantic, but it worked.

The "barriers between school and society," which Dewey lamented, existed for a reason. Schools are not a microcosm of society, any more than an eye is a microcosm of the body. The eye is a specialized organ which does something that no other part of the body does. That is its whole significance.

You don't use your eyes to lift packages or steer automobiles. Specialized organs have important things to do in their own specialties. So do schools, which need to stick to their special work as well, not become social or political gadflies.
 
You're difficult to keep up with, I was just looking for Part II when this popped up <going up to read>
 
Yes. Meet a core curiculum based on high standards and use whatever extra time is available for the other things.
 
I copied this from the 'part II' thread.

--------------------------------------------------




Actually, increasing the school year has had little or no effect.

A longer indoctrination period immersed in failed educational philosophies will yeild no significant improvement in the result. Like trying to drive a nail with the claw of the hammer. No matter how much time you spend, your not going to do a very good job of it. And the fact that many foriegn schools have longer school years is NOT a benchmark unless you care to study the educational philosophy and the quality of the teachers as well.

The nut of the problem is that the public school system is a monopoly. And like all monopolies it tends to be big, top heavy, wasteful, and unresponsive. As the trend in this country was for larger and larger school districts, local
control fell away. Much of this was due to court ordered busing. (Which is another subject altogether.) Regardless of the cause, what once was a local school responsive to the needs of the immediate community became a county wide system attempting to cater to the entire area. Not very likely to happen. Further, the better teachers
transfered to the suburban schools while the teachers of lesser capabilities were trickled down to the inner city classrooms. This was a result of the tenure system coupled with the financial and political clout of the suburban mom's and dad's.

This trend towards centralization seemed to make sense, it actually exasperated the problem. The problem became even worse in the 70's when the Dept. of Education was formed. This further homoginized the schools because federal dollars were now tied to the cirricula and other social programs that the schools were mandated to provide
inorder to 'feed at the trough'.

The bureauacracy became self sustaining at that point. It began to feed on itself and what was lost was the children. The behavior of the system is primarily focused on it's own well being and welfare, not that of the children that it is supposed to be educating. Why else is there such an uproar over voucher's? If the goal is to make sure that each child gets the best possible education, shouldn't the educators be in favor of each child attending a school that is best suited for that childs learning? Apparently that isn't the case.

As the article points out, many of these 'progressive' ideas have been tried and discarded as non-productive. But some how we continue to strive to make them work. "If only we had more time." "If only we had more money." "If
only we had more control." Much like the welfare state that proceeded it, the state of education is a failure because the philosphy behind the education is a failure. And all the time, money, or control in the world won't change that.

Ishmael

--------------------------------------------------

Now, to answer your question. Or not answer it as it were. Go to the NEA web site. Read their positions and ask yourself, are these in the best interests of the children, or the members?
 
Okay, here's the deal.

I'm going to find and copy and paste my explanation for the problems with the tests. The norm-referenced tests that are the tests that are in use today.

The new tests that will be required under Pres. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" are criterion referenced tests.


Until you understand the difference, you cannot understand the problems with testing.

It may take a bit, search isn't cooperating tonight.
 
morninggirl5 said:
Okay, here's the deal.

I'm going to find and copy and paste my explanation for the problems with the tests. The norm-referenced tests that are the tests that are in use today.

The new tests that will be required under Pres. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" are criterion referenced tests.


Until you understand the difference, you cannot understand the problems with testing.

It may take a bit, search isn't cooperating tonight.

MG, believe it or not I do understand the difference.

It's similar to the difference between grading on a curve and grading on the absolute retention of material taught.

From my standpoint, the criteria based is better only if it is used as an indication of the school. Not the individual student. The two sigma curve still works.

Ishmael
 
I wish I could clone myself so one of me could stay home and home-school the munchkin. Leave it to Gov't, and they will F* it up!!!!
 
Okay, here is my previous posting about standardized tests. I just don't have the brain power to do anything but c&p tonight.

morninggirl5 said:
Then why are so many students still failing graduation tests? Todd, the tests have been proven to be biased..... and the reason they are biased is because of the Reader Response Theory. We all interpret what we read based on our own experiences and backgrounds. Here is one example of what I'm talking about and you tell me how to eliminate this bias.

One of the questions on the 1st grade ITBS practice shows a picture of a picnic table, a camper, a couple of tents and people having a meal at the picnic table.

The questions is stated as: What are these people doing?
a. shopping b. cooking c. camping d. none of these

Now, I'm sure you're thinking it's obvious the answer is c. camping. But for the students I was observing, an equal number chose d. They had never been camping in their lives BUT they had been on a field trip to the circus where they saw the "behind the scenes" areas which included campers, tents, and circus employees having lunch at picnic tables.

The bias here is simple and related to only one incident, but the fact remains the standardized tests we use today are biased against minorities and the poor. It has been shown in study after study that the single greatest predictor of a child's performance on a standardized test will be his parent's wealth or lack thereof.

Also, the tests don't teach what's being taught in the classroom. For example, the 6th grade Social Studies portion of the ITBS was analyzed to determine if it would be appropriate to judge teachers' performance based on scores. The teachers in Tennesssee (where this was being considered) found that less than 15% of the content on the test was included in the 6th grade curriculum. In order for these tests to be standardized, they have to have a wide range of scores and those ranges are only possible if you take out the questions the students know the answers to.


morninggirl5 said:


The test is one of the standardized tests used in the country, Iowa Test of Basic Skills and it's the most widely used of the tests. The curriculum isn't the problem in most instances, it's the test. They are designed to get a wide range of scores because the scores are reported not as a percentage correct but rather as a percentile score. If you score 80 on the test that means you scored better than 79% of the students in the same grade level taking the test. It is impossible with this model (and it's the one all the accountability reformers use) for all schools to improve. Someone is going to have the lower scores or everyone will have a score of 0, meaning every school (student) did equally well.
These are the tests we are using today.

The test you are advocating are Criterion Referenced Tests, those that are directly related to the curriculum and what is being taught in the classroom. Students have to get a certain percentage of correct responses to pass the test. The teachers would know exactly what is on the test and can teach those concepts in their classrooms. These tests are becoming more popular (Gwinnett Co, Georgia is implementing a program using these tests now) but the other tests are still required by the state and it is these tests that determine school funding, teacher performance, and "underperforming" schools.

My concern throughout this discussion is that we get away from tests as a measure of a child's education. We have allowed the belief that a test is the be all and end all to indoctrinate our society so completely that there are now parents making decisions about their child's education based on a test score. A score of 80th percentile or even 80% correct does not give me the information I want to have about a child's knowledge. It does not tell us if the child can apply that learning to a new situation, if the child comprehends the underlying concepts or they merely memorized an answer or process.

One thing you said in your original posting was that you performed better on multiple choice tests rather than essay. My guess would be that you perform better on multiple choice tests because you use your basic knowledge about the question and the possible answers, along with your reasoning abilities to determine which answers are reasonable then choose the one you believe is most correct. That is how a "thinking" person approaches these tests. Students who have been taught only to regurgitate information, however, cannot go through this process and when they don't know the answer, they guess randomly. Both of you may get the correct answer, but did either of you really learn the information requested?
 
morninggirl5 said:
Okay, here is my previous posting about standardized tests. I just don't have the brain power to do anything but c&p tonight.

I'm even lazier than you are tonight -- I just bumped two of the threads where you and I discussed education reform and testing.
 
Yes, Ish, a longer school year combined with other changes. I'm an advocate of choice and I believe in the primacy of teaching effective basic skills as a starting point.
 
Back
Top