
I hear lots of parents complain about schools teaching to standardized tests. I'm wondering whether this is actually bad or blown out of proportion as everyone jumps on the bandwagon? Why is mastering skills viewed as negative?
Kids are not yet as cognitively developed as adults. Too much focus on creative thinking without structure, abstract concepts, social networking, and group activities may be more attractive for adults but not as valuable without counterbalance for kids. I agree that curriculums that only do memorization and drill/kill for ALL grades until high school are bad but in the beginning they provide a foundational vocabularly and familiarity for subject mater that may help kids later when they are ready for more abstract analysis. |
Agree 100% OP. We look at curricula as if we are the students, that fuzzy fun stuff looks great to parents, but may not be the best for young children, and can confuse them. |
I agree that, especially for young children, there is nothing wrong with drills/ rote memorization to learn history, grammar, math - but I think the harm in "teaching to the test" is that it narrows what is taught - e.g., if the test doesn't cover fractions, or prepositions, these items aren't taught. Further, teaching to the test can sometimes involve more instruction on how to game the test than on the subjects covered - more like taking Kaplan than actually taking algebra. Finally, too much emphasis on standardized testing takes time away from other subjects - not only "enrichment" classes but subjects like science, foreign language and social studies that ought to be part of a standard education but that don't show up on standardized tests. |
agree pp. |
Teaching to a test is fine if it is a well researched and well written test - the AP comes to mind.
Good teachers always teach to some "test" - whether it is standardized piece of tripe, or simply the goals the teachers have set for the year. Good teachers think about what their students should accomplish and how to evaluate the students (and the teaching) against those goals. The problem is, the SOL is a crappy test. It tests the wrong things, and has both too much and too little content. Teaching to THAT test is a problem. |
I've never been able to see the difference between teaching children to test well and teaching adults to test well on the LSAT, GRE, GMAT, and MCAT. |
agree with PP. teaching to the test is fine if it's a good test. problem is most state tests are not good because good tests are too expensive. so it's not a question of not needing to measure what students know (and hold schools accountable for teaching students what they need to know), but figuring out how to create better tests and better testing procedures (no need to test and test and test).
and yes, there is a balance between learning skills and learning to think creatively...we need both. |
Mastering skills is not viewed as negative. You're oversimplifying. Read what the majority of education experts have to say about NCLB's effects and you'll get a better understanding of what is happening. |
Many young children are being asked to learn in a way that is not developmentally appropriate. Young children learn best through experiential learning and play. And they require lots of physical activity. To ask a kindergartener to sit at a desk and work on worksheets for extended periods of time is in no way beneficial to them, and may actually hinder learning in the long run. And for older children, studies show that enrichment activities such as art, music, and PE bolster learning and achievement across other subjects. |
and 'teaching to the test' is a bit sad... for example, when your 2nd grader has to come up with 3 reasons why is it important to learn about Egypt and one of his answers is 'because it is on the SOL' that is sad - to already be learning they need it for that test and not to learn it because it is exciting or interesting or.... sorry, rough night working on HW tonight! |