Why I Will Not Teach to the Test

To Teach.. or Not To Teach (to the test)- That is the Question

In the article, Why I Will Not Teach to the Test, by Kelly Gallagher, the question of should we teach to the test is asked. Mr. Gallagher provided reasonings as to why we as teachers should not focus our instruction solely on the standardized test.

1. In order for students to reach a thorough understanding of the standards, it may take up to a year for each. In order for our students to master each of the standards we would need to go from a system that is set up for kindergarten through twelfth grade to a system that would range from kindergarten through twenty-second grade
2. Although the results of a study testing the outcome of student performance on the end of year test showed that those students who were exposed to all of the standards performed better than those who were taught some of the standards more in depth; later results showed that those students who were taught more thoroughly out-performed their counterparts in college.
3. Many countries who we compete with academically focus on in depth, higher order thinking, where students must rationalize their beliefs through writing; whereas we focus choosing the right answer on a multiple choice test.
4. Multiple choice tests do not allow students to prove their knowledge. It only proves that they selected the correct answer; be it through knowledge or guessing. We should have the students perform written assessments that value critical thinking.

Mr. Gallagher also argues that "value added" assessments should not be performed on a broken system. Before we can assess teachers, we need to fix our education system- making in comparative to those of high achieving countries.

Implications as an Administrator
As an administrator, I would urge my teachers to create opportunities for higher order, critical thinking. Although our state focuses on the results of standardized tests, our role as educators is to ensure that our students are life-long learners. This means that we base our instruction on what is going to allow our students to achieve long-term educational success- not a "Met" or "Exemplary" for one year.

Citation
Gallagher, K. (November 12, 2010). Why I Will Not Teach to the Test. Retrieved from
        http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/17/12gallagher_ep.h30.html?r=1682084091

Think Big, Bigger... and Smaller

"I Would Like a Grande, Venti... Maybe a Short..."

The world of educational interventions is somewhat like ordering a coffee at Starbucks for the first time. For many, it is a daunting task that is filled with uncertainty. With the NCLB deadline quickly approaching, schools are racing to close the educational gaps for students. Many feel that this change requires a tremendous overhaul of the public school system. In many regards it does, and in fact, we are not doing enough.

Think Big, Bigger... and Smaller by Richard E. Nesbett states that many times in education we provide large, expensive interventions (such as HeadStart) that show minimal long term results in reducing the educational gaps of students. The article provides examples of even larger, more expensive programs that have shown greater impact on student performance than the commonly used Head Start program.

• High/Scope Perry Program- ages 3-4, targets low income African American students, provides 2 and 1/2 hours of quality instruction each week, weekly homevisits
• Abcederain Project- infancy to 5 years, full day, year round, low child-teacher ratio

These two alternatives have highly skilled employees with considerable experiences. The effects of these programs proved to be worth the additional funding.

The article also provided information on the current interventions used in public schools. Vouchers, Charter Schools, and Whole School Interventions, all show little to no influence over improving achievement gaps. However, the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) program, a program requires longer hours and more teacher responsibilty (home visits), shows great strides in reducing that gap.

Smaller interventions have also proven to close the achievement gap. For example, first year Junior High School students were partnered with college students. One group (control), was taught lessons pertaining to drugs and refraining from the use; while the second group (experimental) was taught lessons dealing with the "expandable nature of intelligence". Both male and female students who were exposed to this intervention performed much higher than their counterparts.

Implications as an Adminstrator
As an administrator, I would look at the population and needs of my school. In addition to that, I would need to look at the available funding and support of my staff. If my staff was willing to put in extra hours with the students, and I was able to fund this effort, I would definitely look at interventions that are "Venti". However, if the teacher support and funding is not available, I would look into using interventions that are considered "Short" in comparison. One size does not fit all, the plans that are in place to close the achievement gaps are not enough. My job as an administrator is to think outside of the box and develop a plan that will work for my population.

Citation
Nesbett, R.E. (November 2010). Think Big, Bigger... and Smaller. Retrieved from
           http://ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov10/vol68/num03/Think-Big,-Bigger-%E2%80%A6-and-Smaller.aspx