We have made schools 'better." We have made them safer for being different, we've expanded the access to technology, we're even feeding the hungry-- to a degree. But we've also narrowed the scope for children in the U.S. While we've stopped using 'humiliation' as a teaching tool, we have eliminated many of the extra-curricular activities that made learning worth while. We're constantly finding new material... but rarely permitting time for students to 'percolate their understanding' into some kind of sythesis... unless they demonstrate some either mathematical or engineering genius-- then, THEN they get to have 'play time' with their new knowledge.
Teachers in the U.S. are charged with bringing students along to meeting the 'standards' defined in the high stakes tests that the whole country takes.
I find two difficulties in the use and drive of the testing.
The tests assume that 'all children of an age should be capable of answering these questions...' when the tests are not always 'well written' and leave the choices ambiguous-- so the student isn't just demonstrating knowledge, but the ability to read the mind of the test writer as to which 'answer' is best... rather than give the student an opportunity to support the choice they might make. Logic is personal unless the subject is math. We see the world, not as it is... but how we are... and choices are based on internal codes... not necessarily upon hard-wired logic.
And... our kids... our students... are not widgets. If a student is not capable of a thing at this time, that doesn't mean the child is defective... just not ready for this set of either skills or understanding. When we rear our children, we can see the genius of each one... and that the abilities of each are utterly unique. One child may connect others... another lives to build... this one sees the great patterns and finds connections... that one picks everything apart. In the U.S., we insist on 'batching' our kids by age group. It is heinous, in many ways.
Mixing groups of kids works for many things. Yes, students with higher skills will often share their knowledge. Yet... there is also that 'dependency' that can develop among a group of students... the cute boy that gets the girls to do his work... the mean girl that isn't the smartest, but belittles the smart kids for not being... what ever she thinks the world ought. As teachers, we are to 'monitor' for these activities... but kids learn to mask, to avoid detection. We can, as professionals, develop our 'eye' for problem-children-- and every classroom has them, to monitor and short-circuit difficulties. Use of Top 20 training (http://www.top20training.com/) develops students' interactive skills and roles within the group. Students find opportunity to practice for each member in the variety of roles, rather than reliance upon either inherent strength or weakness, and expand their skill sets to include each 'role'. When the leadership of a group is shared, the 'smart kid' in the group is not perpetually responsible for the group's success. The 'cute kid' doesn't get a pass with the opposite gender. The mean girl must both lead and follow, do work, and contribute to see the 'group' succeed. Further. Top 20 teaches intra-personal skills, as well- how to recognize when one is 'falling into' someone else's emotional tornado, or to recognize 'distraction' for what it is... and pull out of distraction to focus on the goal, and most of all-- that failure is an event we all experience. Failure is not one's identity. Failure is the result of an experiment... something must change to achieve success. Persistence is demonstrated every time a student struggles with a skill that is difficult. We are much more than simply the 'score' of any test.
I go back to Top 20 because, unlike 'natural consequences' or whichever behavior bandwagon someone has promoted, the system actually teaches the parts... rather than assume students 'must know, because you are X years old...' The assumptions of my district... my state... my nation... about batching children by age is proving to be ridiculous. Our children can only learn what they have lived or been taught- and we are narrowing the subject matter they're exposed to for the potential results on a test. We've lost home economics... shop classes... language courses... theater... all to expand the 'reading skills' because the test said the students weren't getting ahead fast enough. So, rather than develop a course where skills are applied, the student is locked into another classroom with a different teacher to pound away at a skill that has little meaning to him/her in real life.
Which brings me back to testing. We are testing a narrow category of skills. We are only permitting students to respond in a single way- and our grown-up assumption is that if students have been properly 'taught', then they will answer correctly. It isn't true.
The test is a single application. It doesn't make space for the variety of children that walk into a given classroom, nor the circumstance from which that child arrived 'TODAY'... the test is written by adults, and often test writers are too long away from children to parse the variations that arise from the use of certain words... or relationships from the writing or reading piece.
Focusing on the 'ranking' of the test result is pulling the parts of education that everyone loves-- exploration, discussion, evaluation... out of the curriculum for the narrower parts- identify, select, choose... and then limits the choices.
What is infuriating as a teacher of children, is that our research demonstrates the fallacies of the 'test'... yet our system has wedded itself to the thing as if IT will solve the problems that face our children. The test does not solve hunger, or homelessness, poverty or job loss. Passing the test is not a ticket out... it merely 'clocks' a position in time... and yet we treat it as the goal.
Teachers are professionals. We do what we're asked. We try to 'teach' on the side of these absurd goals of minimizing knowledge and understanding to these frantic hours of 'the test' so our schools can be judged worthy or failing. Teachers want for their students find a place in the greater society... and if the test is going to be the way to that place, we teach the skills required. Yet, we're aware of what is missing. And the resentment for what's been tossed to build this narrow skills set is festering. How can the research show us new and exciting ways to expand our students minds, yet the Powers That Be insist that we stick to the test?
No comments:
Post a Comment