What does "teaching to the test" really mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to prepare students for the Virginia Writing SOL. For honors students I'd just say, hey, remember to read carefully and check your work. But for my "standard" classes where there were learning disabilities, English language learners, etc., we would spend a whole month doing practice questions. And yes, I'd teach them strategies like if it's asking which sentence is worded the best and you're not sure, pick the shortest answer. I was often praised by the principal for having higher test scores than other teachers.

No, I didn't become a teacher to teach to a BS test, but my students needed to pass to graduate and if it was all going to come down to a question or two, I was going to help them the best I could. I remember two brothers from West Africa. The older brother didn't have a chance of passing. The younger brother squeezed by with a 403 or whatever the lowest passing grade was that year. He played football and went on to college. He needed to pass that test. Was he a proficient writer? Well, maybe not. But I'm only one person and I did what I could for my students. I'll never forget how I called him up to my desk to tell him his score, and he turned around halfway and said, "I know I didn't pass . . ." and I said, "Oh, you didn't want to hear that YOU PASSED THE SOL?!?!?" and he was so happy.

The SOLs are a whole other animal. The original motivation wasn't bad, but to make them so high-stakes was a terrible mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This 1000%. People don’t understand reading comprehension is really just language comprehension, decoding, vocabulary and background knowledge. You can’t teach a kid to comprehend a text they have no background or vocabulary knowledge of. It’s the old Baseball study that has been proven valid time and time again.

This curriculum, based on Common Core, is especially harmful to low-SES students. Higher-SES students obtain a lot of vocabulary and background knowledge at home. The knowledge/vocabulary gap is not being addressed, which is one of the reasons why schools with largely SES students have higher test scores and why test scores continue to drop at middle and high schools.

This. You can clearly see the achievement gap from 3rd on and it continues to worsen as more time goes by in middle and high school. By the time you hit high school, the percentage of kids on grade level is in the single digits at some if these schools.

Teaching to the test only gets you so far and some improvement in test scores at the low level elementary end. But that is when the buck stops. Without a solid foundational understanding and base content knowledge, there is no building blocks so it’s impossible to learn higher level math, reading comprehension/analysis, writing, science, etc…

Is that achievement gap the result of Common Core or is it the result of a vast resource gap between high- and low-SES students? Is there an alternative curriculum that does a better job at closing that gap?

I ask because closing that gap is the stated goal of so many people within DCPS, that if there is something that works better than Common Core, you should share it with the district with your evidence because I think they'd be more interested than you seem to think.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any magic curriculum that does a good job of addressing this gap, especially for the highest risk kids where truancy and behavioral problems often become the primary obstacles to learning starting in middle elementary. No curriculum is going to help a kid who isn't at school because their parents are not ensuring they go, or because they have been suspended for various behavioral issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This 1000%. People don’t understand reading comprehension is really just language comprehension, decoding, vocabulary and background knowledge. You can’t teach a kid to comprehend a text they have no background or vocabulary knowledge of. It’s the old Baseball study that has been proven valid time and time again.

This curriculum, based on Common Core, is especially harmful to low-SES students. Higher-SES students obtain a lot of vocabulary and background knowledge at home. The knowledge/vocabulary gap is not being addressed, which is one of the reasons why schools with largely SES students have higher test scores and why test scores continue to drop at middle and high schools.

This. You can clearly see the achievement gap from 3rd on and it continues to worsen as more time goes by in middle and high school. By the time you hit high school, the percentage of kids on grade level is in the single digits at some if these schools.

Teaching to the test only gets you so far and some improvement in test scores at the low level elementary end. But that is when the buck stops. Without a solid foundational understanding and base content knowledge, there is no building blocks so it’s impossible to learn higher level math, reading comprehension/analysis, writing, science, etc…

Is that achievement gap the result of Common Core or is it the result of a vast resource gap between high- and low-SES students? Is there an alternative curriculum that does a better job at closing that gap?

I ask because closing that gap is the stated goal of so many people within DCPS, that if there is something that works better than Common Core, you should share it with the district with your evidence because I think they'd be more interested than you seem to think.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any magic curriculum that does a good job of addressing this gap, especially for the highest risk kids where truancy and behavioral problems often become the primary obstacles to learning starting in middle elementary. No curriculum is going to help a kid who isn't at school because their parents are not ensuring they go, or because they have been suspended for various behavioral issues.

Take a look at Core Knowledge. It's Pre-K through 8 Sequence designed to enrich a traditional curriculum. https://www.coreknowledge.org/our-approach/core-knowledge-sequence/

We used to have a Core Knowledge school at DCPS. I taught there for 3 years. DCPS dropped the program and later the school was closed for being under-enrolled.

Believe me, no one at DCPS is interested in a knowledge-building curriculum. They've spent way too much time and money developing the curriculum we now have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is that achievement gap the result of Common Core or is it the result of a vast resource gap between high- and low-SES students?

I don't think it's a resource gap. Smaller schools have fewer resources than larger schools, and schools in affluent neighborhoods are able to offer nice enrichment programs such as theater, instrumental music, etc.

But the DCPS academic curriculum is weak at every DCPS school, rich or poor. A rather sad approach to equity. Low SES students often come into DCPS schools with a word gap and a knowledge gap. What DCPS using Common Core fails to do is address these gaps which results in an ever-widening achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This 1000%. People don’t understand reading comprehension is really just language comprehension, decoding, vocabulary and background knowledge. You can’t teach a kid to comprehend a text they have no background or vocabulary knowledge of. It’s the old Baseball study that has been proven valid time and time again.

This curriculum, based on Common Core, is especially harmful to low-SES students. Higher-SES students obtain a lot of vocabulary and background knowledge at home. The knowledge/vocabulary gap is not being addressed, which is one of the reasons why schools with largely SES students have higher test scores and why test scores continue to drop at middle and high schools.

This. You can clearly see the achievement gap from 3rd on and it continues to worsen as more time goes by in middle and high school. By the time you hit high school, the percentage of kids on grade level is in the single digits at some if these schools.

Teaching to the test only gets you so far and some improvement in test scores at the low level elementary end. But that is when the buck stops. Without a solid foundational understanding and base content knowledge, there is no building blocks so it’s impossible to learn higher level math, reading comprehension/analysis, writing, science, etc…

Is that achievement gap the result of Common Core or is it the result of a vast resource gap between high- and low-SES students? Is there an alternative curriculum that does a better job at closing that gap?

I ask because closing that gap is the stated goal of so many people within DCPS, that if there is something that works better than Common Core, you should share it with the district with your evidence because I think they'd be more interested than you seem to think.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any magic curriculum that does a good job of addressing this gap, especially for the highest risk kids where truancy and behavioral problems often become the primary obstacles to learning starting in middle elementary. No curriculum is going to help a kid who isn't at school because their parents are not ensuring they go, or because they have been suspended for various behavioral issues.

Take a look at Core Knowledge. It's Pre-K through 8 Sequence designed to enrich a traditional curriculum. https://www.coreknowledge.org/our-approach/core-knowledge-sequence/

We used to have a Core Knowledge school at DCPS. I taught there for 3 years. DCPS dropped the program and later the school was closed for being under-enrolled.

Believe me, no one at DCPS is interested in a knowledge-building curriculum. They've spent way too much time and money developing the curriculum we now have.

What was the school? Why was in under-enrolled? What was your experience of teaching Core Knowledge, especially to low-SES students? In what ways was it better than Common Core?

Asking for my own edification. I am aware of DCPS's attachment to its current curriculum but anything is possible on a longer timeline and if there are evidence-based reasons why we should switch, I'd love to know what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But teaching to an internally-administered diagnostic test is not "teaching to the test". It means you use internal testing to assess levels and is simply part of your curriculum. It is not what is meant by "teaching to the test."

Usually when people level the "teaching to the test" criticism, what they mean is that a school is seeking to raise their overall scores on a test like PARCC (the scores for which are made publicly available and thus impact the school's public perception) but teaching kids how to excel on these tests without actually providing a well rounded education. It's usually coupled with criticism of such tests, because if it can be gamed in this way, it must not be a very useful test. You are talking about a total different thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "internally-administered diagnostic test". The diagnostic tests I'm referencing are mandated by DCPS and administered district-wide. The results are analyzed and dissected at each school. The goal is to raise test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the school? Why was in under-enrolled? What was your experience of teaching Core Knowledge, especially to low-SES students? In what ways was it better than Common Core?

Asking for my own edification. I am aware of DCPS's attachment to its current curriculum but anything is possible on a longer timeline and if there are evidence-based reasons why we should switch, I'd love to know what they are.

The school where I taught was Mary Church Terrell Elementary School in Southeast.

A lot of schools in SE and NE were under-enrolled for various reasons. Demographic changes. Proliferation of charters. The lottery. School safety.

I loved teaching this curriculum. My students in Southeast were hungry for knowledge. I didn't patronize them and they thrived on it. I run into my former students all the time. They tell me about how much more they knew than their classmates in middle school and high school. They are proud of the fact that they were reading Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Frederick Douglass in 5th grade.

Here's your reading list:

Natalie Wexler, Elementary Education Has Gone Terribly Wrong https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/the-radical-case-for-teaching-kids-stuff/592765/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&fbclid=IwAR35IuA3ykBDy_IpTv8y6-oBXhhN4zQVjIrodwMxQ7sjuwlrXhRgxF6P-Rk

Daniel Willingham, How to Get Your Mind to Read, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-your-mind-to-read.html

Robert Pondiscio, Don’t Dismiss That 30 Million-Word Gap Quite So Fast. https://www.educationnext.org/dont-dismiss-30-million-word-gap-quite-fast/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But teaching to an internally-administered diagnostic test is not "teaching to the test". It means you use internal testing to assess levels and is simply part of your curriculum. It is not what is meant by "teaching to the test."

Usually when people level the "teaching to the test" criticism, what they mean is that a school is seeking to raise their overall scores on a test like PARCC (the scores for which are made publicly available and thus impact the school's public perception) but teaching kids how to excel on these tests without actually providing a well rounded education. It's usually coupled with criticism of such tests, because if it can be gamed in this way, it must not be a very useful test. You are talking about a total different thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "internally-administered diagnostic test". The diagnostic tests I'm referencing are mandated by DCPS and administered district-wide. The results are analyzed and dissected at each school. The goal is to raise test scores.

Yes, because the district shares a curriculum. The diagnostic tests are part of a curriculum. The goal is to raise test scores in that you want to see that students are progressing through the curriculum, so you expect to see a child score higher on these diagnostic tests at the end of the year than at the beginning.

The test is purely for teaching purposes. It is not used for funding, scores are not publicly distributed, it is simply a tool for teachers to use to assess where students are and whether or not they are progressing.

Though I believe in DC, teachers receive evaluations based on how well their students progress, which can be controversial. But again, not a "teaching to the test" issue.

I really think you just don't understand what is being discussed here. Diagnostic tests are a very standard part of most curriculums. Otherwise how does a teacher figure out what a new student knows? You need a way to figure out whether a kid knows their letter sounds and is ready to work on blends, or if a child needs to be focusing on basic 1-10 arithmetic this year before advancing. How else would you do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was the school? Why was in under-enrolled? What was your experience of teaching Core Knowledge, especially to low-SES students? In what ways was it better than Common Core?

Asking for my own edification. I am aware of DCPS's attachment to its current curriculum but anything is possible on a longer timeline and if there are evidence-based reasons why we should switch, I'd love to know what they are.

The school where I taught was Mary Church Terrell Elementary School in Southeast.

A lot of schools in SE and NE were under-enrolled for various reasons. Demographic changes. Proliferation of charters. The lottery. School safety.

I loved teaching this curriculum. My students in Southeast were hungry for knowledge. I didn't patronize them and they thrived on it. I run into my former students all the time. They tell me about how much more they knew than their classmates in middle school and high school. They are proud of the fact that they were reading Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Frederick Douglass in 5th grade.

Here's your reading list:

Natalie Wexler, Elementary Education Has Gone Terribly Wrong https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/the-radical-case-for-teaching-kids-stuff/592765/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&fbclid=IwAR35IuA3ykBDy_IpTv8y6-oBXhhN4zQVjIrodwMxQ7sjuwlrXhRgxF6P-Rk

Daniel Willingham, How to Get Your Mind to Read, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-your-mind-to-read.html

Robert Pondiscio, Don’t Dismiss That 30 Million-Word Gap Quite So Fast. https://www.educationnext.org/dont-dismiss-30-million-word-gap-quite-fast/

Thank you, I will look into this. It sounds compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But teaching to an internally-administered diagnostic test is not "teaching to the test". It means you use internal testing to assess levels and is simply part of your curriculum. It is not what is meant by "teaching to the test."

Usually when people level the "teaching to the test" criticism, what they mean is that a school is seeking to raise their overall scores on a test like PARCC (the scores for which are made publicly available and thus impact the school's public perception) but teaching kids how to excel on these tests without actually providing a well rounded education. It's usually coupled with criticism of such tests, because if it can be gamed in this way, it must not be a very useful test. You are talking about a total different thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "internally-administered diagnostic test". The diagnostic tests I'm referencing are mandated by DCPS and administered district-wide. The results are analyzed and dissected at each school. The goal is to raise test scores.

Yes, because the district shares a curriculum. The diagnostic tests are part of a curriculum. The goal is to raise test scores in that you want to see that students are progressing through the curriculum, so you expect to see a child score higher on these diagnostic tests at the end of the year than at the beginning.

The test is purely for teaching purposes. It is not used for funding, scores are not publicly distributed, it is simply a tool for teachers to use to assess where students are and whether or not they are progressing.

Though I believe in DC, teachers receive evaluations based on how well their students progress, which can be controversial. But again, not a "teaching to the test" issue.

I really think you just don't understand what is being discussed here. Diagnostic tests are a very standard part of most curriculums. Otherwise how does a teacher figure out what a new student knows? You need a way to figure out whether a kid knows their letter sounds and is ready to work on blends, or if a child needs to be focusing on basic 1-10 arithmetic this year before advancing. How else would you do this?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear actual names of schools that PPs have experience with that "teach to the test" in the manner described here. Teaching only testable material, starting test prep in September, typing and test strategies, etc.

Raymond ES and LaSalle Backus. I have taught at both. I don’t any posters here have stepped one foot in either school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because the district shares a curriculum. The diagnostic tests are part of a curriculum. The goal is to raise test scores in that you want to see that students are progressing through the curriculum, so you expect to see a child score higher on these diagnostic tests at the end of the year than at the beginning.

The test is purely for teaching purposes. It is not used for funding, scores are not publicly distributed, it is simply a tool for teachers to use to assess where students are and whether or not they are progressing.

Though I believe in DC, teachers receive evaluations based on how well their students progress, which can be controversial. But again, not a "teaching to the test" issue.

I really think you just don't understand what is being discussed here. Diagnostic tests are a very standard part of most curriculums. Otherwise how does a teacher figure out what a new student knows? You need a way to figure out whether a kid knows their letter sounds and is ready to work on blends, or if a child needs to be focusing on basic 1-10 arithmetic this year before advancing. How else would you do this?

You're tying yourself in knots trying to make this argument work. Have you ever been inside a DCPS classroom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear actual names of schools that PPs have experience with that "teach to the test" in the manner described here. Teaching only testable material, starting test prep in September, typing and test strategies, etc.

Raymond ES and LaSalle Backus. I have taught at both. I don’t any posters here have stepped one foot in either school.

Apparently with good reason!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear actual names of schools that PPs have experience with that "teach to the test" in the manner described here. Teaching only testable material, starting test prep in September, typing and test strategies, etc.

Raymond ES and LaSalle Backus. I have taught at both. I don’t any posters here have stepped one foot in either school.

Apparently with good reason!

I agree. But the posters acting like this doesn’t happen or that some teachers are exaggerating is ridiculous. They have never been at the schools that do it. Texted an old coworker who is currently at Aiton. They do it too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to hear actual names of schools that PPs have experience with that "teach to the test" in the manner described here. Teaching only testable material, starting test prep in September, typing and test strategies, etc.

Raymond ES and LaSalle Backus. I have taught at both. I don’t any posters here have stepped one foot in either school.

Apparently with good reason!

I agree. But the posters acting like this doesn’t happen or that some teachers are exaggerating is ridiculous. They have never been at the schools that do it. Texted an old coworker who is currently at Aiton. They do it too

It seems like the best way to improve everything would be to find a decent test that focuses on the things DCPS actually wants students to be able to accomplish. Does such a test exist? Like the Regents exam in NY?