Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching to the test translates to me there is only a surface understanding of material, emphasis on regurgitation at the expense of creativity, and limited exposure to composition/rhetoric.

It's reading and elementary math. What kind of creativity and rhetoric are you expecting from multiplication and grammar? If anything, I'd say MORE reinforcement of the fundamentals to ensure complete mastery is better for 95% of kids.

This is not what elementary math is. Multiplication by algorithm is one of about 20 standards students need to accomplish. Just bc you picked the most straightforward skill, does not make it so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is advanced you don’t want him be in a school that spend their time teaching to test.

Why?

Why do you think the school need to teach to test?

Anonymous wrote:Teaching to the test translates to me there is only a surface understanding of material, emphasis on regurgitation at the expense of creativity, and limited exposure to composition/rhetoric.

It's reading and elementary math. What kind of creativity and rhetoric are you expecting from multiplication and grammar? If anything, I'd say MORE reinforcement of the fundamentals to ensure complete mastery is better for 95% of kids.

Teaching to the test translates to me there is only a surface understanding of material, emphasis on regurgitation at the expense of creativity, and limited exposure to composition/rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is advanced you don’t want him be in a school that spend their time teaching to test.

Why?

If your kid is advanced you don’t want him be in a school that spend their time teaching to test.

Just about everything DCPS is doing in math and language arts is teaching to the text.

Thanks, PP. That tracks with my impression as well. Good to think about how it's different for middle and high school.

I think it very much depends on what school level you are talking about, as well as what test is being taught to.

I think teaching to the test at the elementary level generally is just making sure kids are actually learning foundational skills in reading, writing, and math. As long as the school is well rounded and is also offering the arts, physical education, and other valuable instruction, and is a warm and welcoming place for kids, I don't actually mind if the curriculum is geared toward ensuring students can perform well on a test like PARCC. It's a way of ensuring some baseline knowledge, which is really valuable in ES.

I have mixed feelings about the practice in MS and HS. My observation is that this can make school at these levels really unpleasant for a lot of kids. Also, there are aspects of education at the HS level, in particular, that are very hard to test for on standardized tests. For math and reading comprehension? Sure, a test is going to usefully evaluate your skill level. For writing and critical thinking, it's much harder to do, and kids can learn to write test responses that satisfy the testing rubric enough to score well, without actually acquiring strong writing and critical thinking skills. A school that is unaware of this weakness in testing at this level would concern me. That doesn't me I don't think they should teach to the test, but it means that they better be teaching beyond the test as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the test is a good test, then teaching to the test is one way to insure mastery of the material. If the test is a bad test, then it may be possible to do well on the test without understanding the material.

Most standardized tests are not robust to test specific prep. This is why prep courses can improve scores so much without actually teaching you anything useful.

This!

How does that apply in the context of DCPS schools?

Anonymous wrote:If the test is a good test, then teaching to the test is one way to insure mastery of the material. If the test is a bad test, then it may be possible to do well on the test without understanding the material.

Most standardized tests are not robust to test specific prep. This is why prep courses can improve scores so much without actually teaching you anything useful.

This!

Sometimes it means practicing the actual physical skills for the test, like using the computer.

If the test is a good test, then teaching to the test is one way to insure mastery of the material. If the test is a bad test, then it may be possible to do well on the test without understanding the material.

Most standardized tests are not robust to test specific prep. This is why prep courses can improve scores so much without actually teaching you anything useful.

Getting practice passages and questions and basically doing those together and independently for a good portion of the year.

Forgive my ignorance, we're still in pre-testing grades at our DCPS. I hear comments occasionally that certain DCPS schools only "look" good because they spend all of their time teaching to the test. But when you're talking basic reading and math (which is taught with a standard curriculum), aren't we just talking about teaching how to read and write, and do math according to the new methods, regardless of whether that's for the purpose of test taking or just for general learning purposes? If you're doing practice test questions for math, isn't that just math practice anyways? I think I'm missing something and I'm not sure what. If my future third grader learns 3rd grade math and ELA standards by the end of the year, why does it matter if they do that by practicing for a test? Please help me understand.