"What's your position on the efficacy of standardized testing? Do you think they're useful? Do you think they serve the function they're said to serve? And do you or your fellow teachers resent having to 'teach the test?'"
In the abstract I agree with standardized testing. The idea is that there is a set curriculum to be taught for any given course. In order for the students to earn their way out of the course, they should be able to demonstrate a minimum knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of that curriculum.
But then there are several reality checks. Some students simply do not test well. I used to think this was a sorry excuse, but in my experience teaching I have found this to be a legitimate area of concern. I have several students who, if you have a face to face discussion with them, they can show that they clearly understand the material. Yet they do not test very well. Sometimes it is test anxiety, where they just freeze up or get so stressed that they cannot think clearly when you put an exam in front of them. You could respond that we live in a society where you have to prove your competence in certain ways, and therefore you better learn how to deal with it. But still, in their case, the test is not really gauging their true understanding of the material. I do not see much alternative to the written test, unless you want to do oral exit interviews for graduation for some students. Interesting idea.
My problem with the TAKS test is that it is not particularly well written, and the coverage is not really fair. Much of the test consists of maps, charts, graphs and other visuals that the students must interpret. These are "social studies skills," but do not really test an understanding of history. Yes, there are history questions on there, but over the years these other skills-based questions have increased in frequency.
Also, in Texas, students take the first half of U.S. History (Age of Exploration through Reconstruction) in the 8th grade. Then it is Geography in 9th, World History in 10th and the second half of U.S. History in 11th (Post-Civil War to now) (12th grade is one semester of Government, one semester of Economics). So the students take the Exit Level Social Studies exam in the 11th grade which covers all of U.S. History (plus the skills). These students have not studied the first half of U.S. History since the 8th grade. It is stupid. They should either rewrite the test or change the order of courses where U.S. History is taken back to back in the two years leading up to the test. (If you are in AP, this is not a problem, became AP U.S. History covers all of U.S. history in one year, 11th grade).
This TAKS issue will not be around for too long, because the EOC's will be given at almost every year/level, and will focus only on that year's curriculum in that course. But with the EOC's, you have more than quadrupled the number of standardized tests a student will need to conquer before graduating. I don't like this scheme (described in detail in Day 13's post).
To more directly answer ANCIANT's questions: I do not object, in principle, to standardized testing. That being said, there are some students who may have mastered the material, but have difficulty expressing that in a standardized format. Perhaps some alternative methods of proving mastery? I don't really resent having to teach to the test. This is because the guidelines are so broad as far as what can be tested, it is really just teaching U.S. History, but making sure that you hit on the things they stress. I generally agree with what they stress, but occasionally you will come across something a little odd. For instance, of the eight dates that they want students to know, one of them is 1957 for the launch of Sputnik (initiating the Space Race). Important, yes. But if you were to choose the eight most important dates in American history, would one of them be Sputnik?
1 comment:
Interesting. Thanks for the post.
I didn't know the actual date (I mean, the year) Sputnik was launched until I read this, so I think you could argue it's not all that crucial a date. I mean, I knew it was in the 50s, obviously. But that's it.
Post a Comment