What does "teaching to the test" really mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a professor in law school who asked the seminar "what does it mean to call someone an 'activist judge'?" After watching us all fumble it he said, "It means a judge who made a ruling you don't agree with."

"Teaching to the test" is a fall back for parents who want to discount good test scores at another school and/or dismiss less good scores at their own school.

I think we might have gone to the same law school

But I agree. If you really don't want your child's school to ever "teach to the test", you should send your child to a school that does not administer standardized tests. Go find a private Montessori or Waldorf school, they will not test your kid and they will not teach them with that test in mind.

All public schools are required to do standardized testing to evaluate the school itself, and many also use it to identify children you need to be accelerated or offered more challenging material, or to help compose learning groups. If you send your child to public school, they will "teach to the test." Some will do it well and some will do it poorly. If your kid attends public school and you are critical of another school for "teaching to the test", unlike your child's school, this is mostly an indication that you don't understand very much about your child's school curriculum.

Was Prof a state Supreme Court litigation expert who taught 3rd year seminar?

[Anonymous]

Where are the parents in all of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

It may be an exaggeration since a lot of the “teaching to test” schools still have very bad scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

It may be an exaggeration since a lot of the “teaching to test” schools still have very bad scores.

Lol that’s how you know it’s an exaggeration. But it’s mostly trotted out when you have a school that performs higher than people think it should for it’s demographics, and people can’t believe that it could actually be the teachers and school itself.

[Anonymous]

I think The Wire showed this concept really well. That teacher is finally starting to engage the kids in some real learning when they have to switch to learning the “form” way to answer tests, starting with the same sentence, ending with the same sentence.

I’m sure it’s an extreme example, but it resonated with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this on the PARCC made my head spin.

I would have gotten that question wrong.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0910-parcc-problem-20190909-m6e6d7uukjbdxdnfnt5ipgvcae-story.html

You would have gotten that question wrong? Seriously? I’m not saying questions aren’t over complicated, but my takeaway was that the article writer was an idiot if he would have just checked E and moved on.

Yes. I haven't taken a test in some years and made the same mistake ad the author. Judge away, I did pass AP calculus once upon a time 25 years ago. But sure, I'm an idiot too.

It sounds like your teacher taught to the test, and you never learned basic concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this on the PARCC made my head spin.

I would have gotten that question wrong.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0910-parcc-problem-20190909-m6e6d7uukjbdxdnfnt5ipgvcae-story.html

You would have gotten that question wrong? Seriously? I’m not saying questions aren’t over complicated, but my takeaway was that the article writer was an idiot if he would have just checked E and moved on.

Yes. I haven't taken a test in some years and made the same mistake ad the author. Judge away, I did pass AP calculus once upon a time 25 years ago. But sure, I'm an idiot too.

It sounds like your teacher taught to the test, and you never learned basic concepts.

Well no, the actual conclusion here is that the PP was NOT taught to the test.

Understanding concepts, but still getting the question wrong due to missing a word/reading quickly/a multi choice answer that has 3 correct answers and you get it wrong because you select one of the three = not being taught to the test, being out of practice taking tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think The Wire showed this concept really well. That teacher is finally starting to engage the kids in some real learning when they have to switch to learning the “form” way to answer tests, starting with the same sentence, ending with the same sentence.

I’m sure it’s an extreme example, but it resonated with me.

Yes, because television doesn't exaggerate for the sake of good story telling and drama...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

It may be an exaggeration since a lot of the “teaching to test” schools still have very bad scores.

Lol that’s how you know it’s an exaggeration. But it’s mostly trotted out when you have a school that performs higher than people think it should for it’s demographics, and people can’t believe that it could actually be the teachers and school itself.

This. A few years ago LT hit it out of the park on PARCC scores. Go back and look at DCUM. The Brent, Maury and other groups that never heard the term "rising tide lifts all ships" went ballistic and were convinced that either there was cheating or LT was just "teaching to the test". Subtext was that poorer and browner kids couldn't possibly have scored that well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

It may be an exaggeration since a lot of the “teaching to test” schools still have very bad scores.

Lol that’s how you know it’s an exaggeration. But it’s mostly trotted out when you have a school that performs higher than people think it should for it’s demographics, and people can’t believe that it could actually be the teachers and school itself.

This. A few years ago LT hit it out of the park on PARCC scores. Go back and look at DCUM. The Brent, Maury and other groups that never heard the term "rising tide lifts all ships" went ballistic and were convinced that either there was cheating or LT was just "teaching to the test". Subtext was that poorer and browner kids couldn't possibly have scored that well.

I noticed there was less of this response this year when LT again had stellar test scores even after the pandemic shut downs and instead people just keep talking about how LT is a great school.

One problem with this attitude that "teaching to the test" is so terrible is that ignores the fact that test-taking skills can be vital life skills for people and can help them down the road. An elementary school that teaches test-taking skills is helping set kids up to do better on college admissions exams which can afford them more options down the road. Great test-taking skills can make it easier to get merit aid for college and can make it easier to pass professional board exams.

A lot of the same UMC people who deride public schools that "teach to the test" will enroll their children in test prep courses and tutoring later on with no sense of irony.

[Anonymous]

Trying to teach to the test doesn't actually work. If you want to raise reading test scores, you actually need to teach more content starting in elementary school. Dedicating most of the school day to reading and math is actually the problem rather than the solution. Reading comprehension is not actually a skill. In order to comprehend a text, students need vocabulary and background knowledge. The best way to develop vocabulary and background knowledge is to teach content, including history geography, science, literature, art history and music appreciation. DCPS leaders still don't get it. So no matter how much time and effort is dedicated to skill building and test prep, the needle doesn't move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

It may be an exaggeration since a lot of the “teaching to test” schools still have very bad scores.

Lol that’s how you know it’s an exaggeration. But it’s mostly trotted out when you have a school that performs higher than people think it should for it’s demographics, and people can’t believe that it could actually be the teachers and school itself.

This. A few years ago LT hit it out of the park on PARCC scores. Go back and look at DCUM. The Brent, Maury and other groups that never heard the term "rising tide lifts all ships" went ballistic and were convinced that either there was cheating or LT was just "teaching to the test". Subtext was that poorer and browner kids couldn't possibly have scored that well.

I noticed there was less of this response this year when LT again had stellar test scores even after the pandemic shut downs and instead people just keep talking about how LT is a great school.

One problem with this attitude that "teaching to the test" is so terrible is that ignores the fact that test-taking skills can be vital life skills for people and can help them down the road. An elementary school that teaches test-taking skills is helping set kids up to do better on college admissions exams which can afford them more options down the road. Great test-taking skills can make it easier to get merit aid for college and can make it easier to pass professional board exams.

A lot of the same UMC people who deride public schools that "teach to the test" will enroll their children in test prep courses and tutoring later on with no sense of irony.

I was just wondering this very same thing. Test-taking skills are necessary for those all-important college admissions exams and professional exams, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the parents in all of this?

It’s gross exaggeration by parents who have never sent their kids to these schools and are spreading unsubstantiated gossip. Does it actually seem realistic that schools just skip big chunks of the standard curriculum for years on end? Of course not. If a cohort seems particularly crappy at test taking, then I’m sure they spend more time on test taking skills and prep. But that doesn’t mean that that’s ALL they do or that the advanced group is stuck doing the same thing. As with all matters, take what you read on DCUM with a very large grain of salt.

It may be an exaggeration since a lot of the “teaching to test” schools still have very bad scores.

Lol that’s how you know it’s an exaggeration. But it’s mostly trotted out when you have a school that performs higher than people think it should for it’s demographics, and people can’t believe that it could actually be the teachers and school itself.

This. A few years ago LT hit it out of the park on PARCC scores. Go back and look at DCUM. The Brent, Maury and other groups that never heard the term "rising tide lifts all ships" went ballistic and were convinced that either there was cheating or LT was just "teaching to the test". Subtext was that poorer and browner kids couldn't possibly have scored that well.

I noticed there was less of this response this year when LT again had stellar test scores even after the pandemic shut downs and instead people just keep talking about how LT is a great school.

One problem with this attitude that "teaching to the test" is so terrible is that ignores the fact that test-taking skills can be vital life skills for people and can help them down the road. An elementary school that teaches test-taking skills is helping set kids up to do better on college admissions exams which can afford them more options down the road. Great test-taking skills can make it easier to get merit aid for college and can make it easier to pass professional board exams.

A lot of the same UMC people who deride public schools that "teach to the test" will enroll their children in test prep courses and tutoring later on with no sense of irony.

I was just wondering this very same thing. Test-taking skills are necessary for those all-important college admissions exams and professional exams, no?

Depends on the test. Does the test adequately measure the skill it's trying to measure? Does it cover a broad enough array of topics and skills and concepts?

Is the tests designed just to measure how well a kid can piece together deceptive question trickery? Is it that important to spend a lot of time just teaching kids how to read and evaluate test question logic in 3rd grade vs. teaching basic concepts? I would answer that question differently for a 6th grader vs. a 3rd grader.

I don't think the PARCC is a good test in elementary school after reading sample questions above. I don't think the PARCC is a good evaluation of a 3rd grader's ability to write if its evaluation really depends on a 3rd grader's ability to type. Should my 3rd grader spend some time learning to type? Yes. Should their writing score depend on their ability to type? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to teach to the test doesn't actually work. If you want to raise reading test scores, you actually need to teach more content starting in elementary school. Dedicating most of the school day to reading and math is actually the problem rather than the solution. Reading comprehension is not actually a skill. In order to comprehend a text, students need vocabulary and background knowledge. The best way to develop vocabulary and background knowledge is to teach content, including history geography, science, literature, art history and music appreciation. DCPS leaders still don't get it. So no matter how much time and effort is dedicated to skill building and test prep, the needle doesn't move.

So spot on.