Bob Shepherd, our resident scholar, wrote this insightful comment:
Anyone who has taught high-school kids knows that they are extremely emotionally unstable. It’s a difficult time. It’s the time in which we all struggle with establishing an identity that will be acceptable to/accepted by the others around us. One way in which kids do that is by rebelling against their parents and teachers and older authorities in general. This rebellion can take forms both positive and negative.
On the positive side, many turn to resistance against how older people have messed things up for them–have given them human-caused climate change or dying oceans or Trump and his stupid wall. On the negative side, many turn to destructive behaviors of which older people disapprove–drinking and drugs and petty theft (shoplifting) and dangerous sexual experimentation for which they are not ready physically or emotionally. High-school kids tend to be extreme about everything–extremely idealistic and extremely inclined to go further, in their beliefs about the world, than their actual knowledge and experience rationally allow. They are sensitive and volatile and more than a little bit crazy, like caged tigers.
For a long time, great teachers in the humanities (English, history, art, theatre, music, languages) and in the sciences approached as a humane undertaking were able to harness that youthful idealism, that desire to define themselves as change agents over and against the adult world. In every classroom, there is the overt curriculum and then there are the hidden curricula that get taught incidentally. An extremely important part of the hidden curriculum in those classes in high school was always that a great teacher would use great cultural products from the past to harness that idealism and desire for an identity: “I am a writer, a musician, a linguist, a historian, a biologist, in the making,” the student would learn to say of him or herself. “I am Yolanda the poet.” An English class in which the overt curriculum as, say, study of Slaughterhouse Five, would become one in which, because the class was focused on what authors had to say, the hidden curriculum taught that people do (and rationalize to themselves) really stupid and evil things in war. And the kids would get all fired up about that. One in which the overt curriculum as American literature of the Puritan Era would become one in which the hidden curriculum taught Puritan values like individualism and local government and rebellion against tyranny and the horrors that can occur when people don’t practice acceptance and toleration (e.g., the genocide against the indigenous population in the Americas). And because kids were getting something from it–a sense of their own identity or a purpose or cause to be fired up about, they would learn that learning itself was of value. And what would last and be important from that high-school experience–what would not, perhaps, bear its fruit for years but would, indeed, bear fruit, would be that learning.
Not so now. English class has become all about applying item x from the Gates/Coleman bullet list to text snippet y in preparation for the ALL IMPORTANT test that will determine whether the kid will be acceptable for advancement. Kids have been robbed, by Ed Deform, by this testing mania, of humane education, of the hidden curriculum that taught them, most importantly, to become intrinsically motivated, life-long learners. No one ever got fired up by a set of test prep exercises.
We have an epidemic, now, in the US of high-school kids who are extraordinarily stressed out, who don’t see a future for themselves, who cut themselves and suffer from depression and anorexia, who commit suicide. If you teach in a high-school, you see this all the time, but especially at the end of the year, as testing season approaches. The kids, having been herded and cajoled and threatened all year; having spent a year sitting in class for an hour, getting up and moving for three minutes, sitting in another, and doing this six or seven times a day; now face the very real prospect of failure on invalid, capricious standardized tests, and they are stressed, stressed, stressed and ANGRY. The testing is AN ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN.
An entire generation of students has now been subjected to the standards-and-testing regime. And the results are in. We now KNOW that it has fulfilled NONE of its promises. It hasn’t improved learning outcomes. It hasn’t closed achievement gaps. But it has narrowed and distorted curricula and pedagogy and made our children SICK.
Enough. Standardized testing is a vampire that sucks the lifeblood out of education. Put a stake in it.

“Anyone who has taught high-school kids knows that they are extremely emotionally unstable”
Middle school children are even more emotionally unstable because they have been hit with an emotional roller coaster as their brains start to change into the adolescent phase of their life that can start as early as 12 and last until 25.
By 10th grade in high school, adolescents are starting to develop coping mechanisms to survive the shock to their minds and bodies. But high stakes, rank and punish tests can upset that development and growth causing a roller coaster of dangerous emotions.
LikeLike
Thank you, Bob. I just sent this, with a few comments of my own, to blockhead Senator Niemeyer [R-IN] and Representative Chyung [D-IN]. Chyung wants more money for public education but I don’t know where he stands on high stakes testing.
LikeLike
I ALWAYS get this automated reply and never hear from him again until he sends out either a carefully worded email or informational news letter.
……………………………………………….
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Your communication is important. Due to the high volume of e-mails I receive, I may not be able to respond immediately but I do see every email.
Your comments help guide me in the legislative process and I value your communication.
Senator Rick Niemeyer
Indiana State Senate
LikeLike
Thank you, Carol!!!
LikeLike
thank you for this important critique.
LikeLike
Bob,
I mostly agree. But it seems to me you cloud the issue by inveighing against “standardized tests” rather than these particular types of standardized tests. If the tests demanded familiarity of Slaughterhouse Five, The Scarlet Letter and other great literature instead of raw abilities like “complex text reading skill” they wouldn’t be so invidious, don’t you think? Schools would start teaching the great literature for its content not as mere grist for skills exercises, as they’re doing now. The root of this error, it seems to me, is a misunderstanding of what the mind is. People think it’s a muscle that should be strengthened with exercise. But it’s not. It’s more like an Amazon warehouse with robots that can retrieve items at lightning speed. The more that’s in the warehouse, the better it’s able to deal with demands put upon it. Standardized tests that encouraged teachers to put stuff in the warehouse could be beneficial. What’s so evil about these tests is that they militate against stocking the brain and instead lead schools down the fruitless path of painful mental workouts –Lumosity, the discredited brain training program, as national curriculum. It’s pain without gain –I’d call that abuse.
LikeLike
Ponderosa, the only standardized tests we need in K-12 are certain standardized DIAGNOSTIC tests to be used with individual students who are exceptional and need to be studied in order to develop, for them, individualized interventions. The rest of the standardized tests are a curriculum-and-pedagogy-distorting waste of time and energy and resources, and in ELA, the current standardized tests are completely invalid.
BTW, you will be interested to know that in its early days, Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Foundation created a test of his cultural literacy list (the list at the back of the Cultural Literacy trade book). Because it simply tested dichotomous knowledge of items on the list (you know it or you don’t), it at least validly tested what it claimed to test, as the current ELA standardized tests don’t and cannot, given the vagueness and abstractness and broadness of the laughable Common [sic] Core [sic] “standards.”
And, it’s important not to underestimate how much the current standardized tests have warped/distorted/devolved our pedagogy and curricula. These tests are a real and present danger–a danger to pedagogy and curricula and a danger to our kids.
They are child abuse, and anyone who supports them is complicit in child abuse.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree!
LikeLike
It sounds like you’re agreeing with me: these tests are bad. A test more like Hirsch’s knowledge test would not be so harmful. What’s bad about these tests is that they’re based on a faulty conception of how to develop the mind.
LikeLike
My hesitation, Ponderosa, is for two reasons: a desire not to impose upon curricular and pedagogical innovation the prior restraint of a standardized vehicle, and a desire not to create a one-size-fits-all system applying to all kids, who differ and need to be treated differently, especially in high school. A highly diverse economy needs the diversity that kids bring to the undertaking of educating them, and if we were sane, we would identify this and nurture it and build upon it instead of treating kids as widgets to be identically milled. They are not widgets.
LikeLike
I’m not advocating for standardized tests. I’m only trying to put my finger on why the current standardized tests are so bad. If suddenly the tests were changed to focus on a list of excellent literature, American education would get dramatically better overnight, don’t you think? If we added geography knowledge, science knowledge, arts knowledge, and history knowledge to the tests, we’d have a friggin’ educational renaissance in this country, no? It’s not standardized tests per se that are wrecking American education; it’s these tests’ egregious design.
LikeLike
I agree, Ponderosa, with the reservations mentioned above. Standardized tests of content knowledge would be a VAST improvement.
LikeLike
Egad. As horrible as the current standardized tests are, they are a thousand times better than what you are proposing. I can’t imagine a standardized literature test that would test for content. “In ‘The Great Gatsby”, what relationship are Daisy and Nick?
A. Brother and sister
B. Lovers
C. Cousins
D. Who the F— cares?
Or do you want more interpretative questions? “Which of the below best summarizes the point of Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ soliloquy?”
Seriously? This is how you want literature taught? You actually want students to learn the one “right’ answer in literature of all things?
SMH
LikeLike
Dienne77: I used to ask just such questions of young university graduates who were applying for positions as literature editors in publishing houses I worked for. Name a work by John Milton other than Paradise Lost. Which is best described as episodic, the Iliad or the Odyssey, and why? Describe a couple key principles of the New Criticism. What are the essential, or defining, characteristics of a pastoral poem? What is terza rima? How does Naturalism differ from other forms of Realism? What is your favorite short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne? by Flannery O’Connor? Your favorite poem by Yeats? by Billy Collins or Robert Pinsky? What are the parts of a metaphor? Name a famous Japanese poet. a famous Norwegian playwright. What is a dactyl? a montage? a soliloquy? Name a famous slave narrative. And so on. Those questions, for that purpose, were illuminating. I didn’t expect them to have been everywhere, but I did expect them at least to have some sort of map in their heads. Of course, I was most interested in applicants’ character and the quality of their thinking. So, I would ask those questions too. Why might Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” have been so controversial among parents that it was kicked out of most high-school textbooks? Randall Jarrell said that a work–by which he meant a work of literature–is a world. What on Earth could he have meant by that?
LikeLike
And I was fine with an answer like, “You know, I haven’t read Collins or Pinsky.” Honesty. Goes a long way
LikeLike
Ponderosa,
I value knowledge as much as you do.
Wouldn’t you rather assess knowledge with essay questions rather than a standardized test with bubbles and four answers?
LikeLike
First of all I’d like to say that I don’t think testing is that important. The most important thing is teaching. If teaching is done well, kids will learn. It’s almost superfluous to test. The greatest value of the test, IMHO, is that it provides what the cognitive scientists call “distributed practice”–that is, it forces one to recall what you’ve learned; this helps embed knowledge in long-term memory.
Yes, I think essays are the best way to test knowledge –or to get the brain to process knowledge in a way that organizes it and embeds it better in the mind. I used to pride myself on giving essay tests. But when you have 190 students, as I do, a two essay history test takes about 13 hours to grade (at 4 min/test). This annihilates at least one whole weekend. I won’t do that to myself anymore.
I don’t abhor multiple choice tests. They’re not great, but they’re not necessarily bad –unless you write them in the most inane, nitpicking possible way, as Dienne77 seems to think is always the case.
LikeLike
The older I get, the more I despise multiple choice tests. I spent seven years on the National Assessment Governing Board and reviewed thousands of test questions. They were simple-minded, trivial, and stupid. In history and literature, there are very few “right answers,” other than asking “who wrote that book?”
LikeLike
So Ponderosa, give me some examples of questions you would ask in a multiple choice format about literature. The only possibilities I see are either Trivial Pursuit-type factual questions about characters, setting, plot details, etc., or questions about interpretation, which, as I said, require one right answer. If you have a valid multiple-choice way to test knowledge of literature besides those two choices, I’m all ears and I breathlessly await your expertise.
LikeLike
How do I find myself defending multiple choice tests, a subject on which I have no strong opinion? My original point was that, given national tests, it would be far better if they induced the teaching of content instead of unteachable skills. A multiple choice question about the plot of a classic American novel, shallow as it might be, would at least have the virtue of prompting schools to teach classic American novels, and teach them for their contents instead of for the sole sake of “building up literacy skills” which is the dismal situation now.
LikeLike
Dienne, I emphatically would not defend multiple-choice standardized tests on literature facts. Which of the following is an allegory? Who wrote “The Grapes of Wrath?” In which period was the play “Everyman” created? And so on. I don’t think anyone would (though such questions used to appear on the Graduate Record Examination in English). But at least such tests would be honest, unlike the current ELA standardized tests, which do not validly measure what they purport to measure, mastery of the vague, abstract, incredibly broad “skills” on the puerile Gates/Coleman bullet list.
LikeLike
I was on the Academic Decathlon team senior year and for literature we had to read WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The test is exactly what you’re talking about – multiple choice questions. Stupid, trivial stuff about the plot, characters, setting, author, etc. I hated the book, I think precisely because we had to read it to memorize all that kind of garbage and never was there any kind of discussion of interpretive aspects like we would have had in a literature class. It’s one thing to do that for a stupid competition like Decathlon, but you want to turn literature class into that all the time just because it would force kids to read classic works.
Again, SMH.
LikeLike
The biggest problem with tests is the time factor. Kids are forced to whip out answers quickly without thinking. That’s what multiple choice test are particularly designed for.
What if a student is thoughtful but slower thinker? Why punish her with such tests?
Why not give time for a kid to figure things out? But if giving time is reasonable then why not engage in helpful conversation if the kid cannot figure it all out by herself? And then we realize, this doesn’t sound like a test anymore. Sound more like real life—exactly as teaching should be.
LikeLike
Thank you, Dienne, for defending reading for the reasons that people actually want to read. I always explain to my students that works of literature don’t “mean” in the same way that other works do. When you read a work of literature, you enter into an imaginary world created by its author, you have an experience there, and that experience has significance to you, or it doesn’t. And that significance is its primary “meaning.” The teacher who treats a poem as a hunt for a blithering generality that is its “meaning” misses the point. And so does the one who treats the poem primarily as an opportunity to hunt for examples of literary techniques and structures. Yes, when Robert Browning wrote “Andrea del Sarto,” he might have had an intention to communicate the generality that “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp,” but the poem is so much more than that intention, and, in fact, the man’s overreach in his love life is the very point of the poem, which like life, isn’t pat, isn’t simple, isn’t expressible in a distillate. Here we have an elderly man, a painter, whose young wife is getting dolled up to go out for the evening with a young man who is also a painter, a young painter whose work is known for its fieriness and its passion. The poem is a 19th-century equivalent of Kenneth Roger’s “Ruby, Don’t Take Your Love to Town” or the Police’s “Roxanne.” And we enter into the mind of this elderly man and view the world through his eyes. We inhabit him. And the experience is sad and pathetic and wrenching, and at the same time that we judge his man, we sympathize with him because of his tenderness toward his wife and model, because of his humble critique of the lifeless perfection of his own work, because of his unspoken but ringing wretchedness. The monologue is life condensed and heightened so that we get a whole interaction between two people over a long time in a short compass. I you enter into this poem and have its experience, that experience is profoundly moving, and we learn a lot. Perhaps we accept that what he says of art is true, that it must embody a yearning beyond the artist’s capability, but at the same time, we see what just such yearning has led to in this old man’s life. He’s the unhappy old fellow who was unfortunate enough to get what he asked for, for a time. W. H. Auden wrote that poetry is the clear expression of mixed emotions. This poem beautifully illustrates that. It would be criminal to reduce it to some multiple-choice test questions.
LikeLike
There is a world of difference between teaching isolated facts about literature and teaching kids how works of literature function, how they work, in order to facilitate their seeing. Years ago, a young man who was spirited and smart but flunking out of all his classes popped into my classroom during my prep period. I was grading papers and listening to Glenn Gould play The Art of the Fugue. He said, “That crap [by which I suppose he meant something as large as classical music generally] all sounds alike.” And I thought, yes, to you it probably does. It is undifferentiated noise. Or, to take another example, I once had a botanist friend describe to me the varieties of grass on my lawn and how they were interacting with one another, and I could never look at the lawn again without seeing those varieties and interactions where before I had seen an undifferentiated mass. It is wholly legitimate to teach the facts of how works work in order to enable seeing, and it’s not sensible to dismiss all learning of “mere facts” because of that. If they are learned in the right ways, knowing those facts helps people to see (hear, experience vicariously) what’s there.
LikeLike
What’s this focus on testing, Ponderosa?
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing this.
LikeLike
Thank you for this, Bob! We need an army of us old war horses! Here’s a paragraph from my book: “Good Behavior and Audacity”:
Here is where I permit myself a tirade. Testing. I have the chops to say what I am going to say. I’ve spent years in the classroom, and I share my concern with tens of thousands of teachers who have observed classrooms numbed by incessant test preparation. I’ve witnessed the terror in seven-year-old faces, the tears, the vomiting, the quivering chins, and the shaking hands (as though today’s children did not have enough cause for stress in their innocence). I’ve seen teenagers wilt with boredom after hours of studying test-taking skills and simply disappear into daydreams or rebel with outrageous behaviors. I know brilliant adults who have internalized a “below average” assessment of their own intellect for their entire lives because of one totally irrelevant SAT or IQ score. I’ve attended days of professional development, with free lunch provided, teaching me how to legally boost test scores. I know all the tricks. It’s legal but it’s still cheating! None of it, not one second of it, constitutes what I consider education.
LikeLike
Beautifully said, Ms. Lithgow! And spot on. And yes, test prep improves test scores, up to a point. It familiarizes kids with the formats of the tests and gives them some tricks to apply to answering the questions. That’s why test prep companies can offer money-back guarantees if their test prep classes don’t result in point increases on tests like the SAT. But what a waste of dis’ time and emotional energy!!! People not in the classroom or in the educational publishing biz fail to understand the extent to which the test prep has metastasized throughout our curricula–pushing out quality instruction. The opportunity costs of this are breathtaking.
LikeLike
The federal standardized testing has had horrific effects on K-12 education, and it will not end until we see MASSIVE nonviolent resistance of the kind that could best be organized by our teachers’ unions. The union leaders need to understand that they have a moral obligation, an obligation to the next generation of kids, to lead this resistance, and the time is ripe. The kids and parents and teachers hate these tests, for good reason. And, a lot more teachers hate them than will admit to this because many live in fear of the Occupation forces in their schools. Teachers talk about this among themselves and then dutifully put up their “data walls” and conduct their “data chats” because otherwise, they will be fired.
LikeLike
I really don’t focus on the tests and can’t imagine any ELA teacher who would. My goal is to get them to be better thinkers and as a result better writers. I have come to see writing as the core of this problem. I highly recommend the Hochman/Wexler Writing Revolution as a way to get students to focus on what is important in the text. Making students respond to texts on daily basis has increased student fluency and acumen in a way I would never have expected. I’ve been teaching a long time, but I am always available to new ways of pedagogical development.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Abby. I will have a look at the Hochman/Wexler book. You must have good administrators. Unfortunately, a lot of these people run very test preppy schools.
LikeLike
Just started looking through this. I love all the sentence expansion and combining exercises. Really valuable.
LikeLike
Far too little attention is given to these kinds of exercises for increasing syntactic fluency–the ability to parse, in reading, and to produce, in writing, sentences with syntactic variety and sophistication.
LikeLike
Check out her book The Knowledge Gap. She mentions our blog hostess many times. She agrees with you that core content needs to be taught in elementary school. I have to say I agree. Imagine advanced 6th grade students who do not know what a verb is who Thomas Jefferson was?
LikeLike
I’m going to like this book. I had the wonderful opportunity to read and comment on the prepublication version of Hirsch’s The Knowledge Deficit. Thanks, again, Abby, for the suggestions.
LikeLike
Again, if the Common Core standards are so [sic] bad, then would you agree that the Massachusetts standards from the past was just as bad?
Example:
Grades 7-8
For imaginative/literary texts:
8.23: Use knowledge of genre characteristics to analyze a text.
8.24: Interpret mood and tone, and give supporting evidence in a text.
8.25: Interpret a character’s traits, emotions, or motivation and give supporting evidence from a text.
For informational/expository texts:
8.26: Recognize organizational structures and use of arguments for and against an issue.
8.27: Identify evidence used to support an argument.
8.28: Distinguish between the concepts of theme in a literary work and author’s purpose in an expository text.
Although, admittedly I like the Massachusetts standards better than the CCSS, they are not that different.
LikeLike
You make a good point: the ELA standards that came before CCSS were often quite bad too. The fundamental error is that these ELA standards are both based on the idea that there are teachable generic literacy skills like the ability to find supporting evidence or find the main idea. As if finding supporting evidence in The Babysitters Club will empower one to find supporting evidence in Madame Bovary! Finding evidence or the main idea is easy if you understand the text. And understanding the text is a function of background knowledge, including vocab knowledge. The focus of school, therefore, should be to build up background knowledge, not try to build mythological “literacy skills”.
LikeLike
But the old Massachusetts standards had students listed in the top five of NAEP.
LikeLike
Imagine, instead of these state lists, an open-source national wiki of COMPETING curriculum maps, reading lists, teaching materials, annotated public domain texts, diagnostic and formative tests and quizzes, etc., continuously added to by teacher/practitioners, researchers, and academic subject-matter experts from which teachers and administrators at the building level could freely choose. Lists of vague, abstract ELA “skills” were never a good idea.
But the CC$$, paid for by Gates in order to have one set of national standards to key depersonalized education software to so that that software could be sold “at scale,” are particularly bad. They were hacked together by Coleman et al. based on a cursory (and profoundly amateurish and uninformed) review of the lowest-common-denominator groupthink of the previous state standards. Here, critiques of a couple of these “standards,” at random, but the same could be done with almost all of the “standards” on the Gates/Coleman bullet list:
LikeLike
Again, the Massachusetts standards are celebrated for getting students in the top five NAEP. They delve deeper into literature, yes, but are just as vague.
If a school followed the old Massachusetts standards today, no one would realize that they weren’t following the CCSS. That’s the reality. They are that closely related.
I appreciate aspects of the CCSS because they do address things every person needs to know today – either for a job, reading / watching the news, or voting in an election. But… as always in education we go to extremes.
Plus, I agree that with all standards, that element of “vague” opens up a loophole for administrators to misinterpret or “dumb down” the curriculum so they can check all the right boxes.
LikeLike
There are many, many problems to be discussed, here, but I’m mention just three of them.
First, in the past, educational materials developers would start with the content that they wanted to teach (e.g., characterization or plotting in a short story) and develop a coherent unit to do that. Now, every publisher starts every project with a list of these puerile “standards” in the far left column of an Excel spreadsheet, and then they fill in, in columns to the right, where these are “covered” in the rest of the program. In other words, because the tests are all-important, these “standards” have become the de facto curriculum map, leading to curricular incoherence.
Second, the standardized tests in ELA contain one or two multiple-choice questions per “standard,” but when a standard is so vague and broad that it covers “making inferences from texts,” there is no way that ONE multiple-choice question is going to tell you whether the student has “mastered” that standard. Obviously. So, the tests do not validly test any standard, and all that invalidity doesn’t add up to overall validity.
Third, much of our ELA curricula has devolved into isolated exercises on applying random standards to random snippets of literature, in imitation of the test questions. And even when there is a substantive writing assignment, it no longer deals with what the author has to say or with the imaginative experience of the work–with stuff related to WHY we read, but, rather, is some extremely artificial text book-y exercise based on some particular standard. To grok how artificial this is, write a five-paragraph theme in response to what I wrote, above, but don’t respond to what I had to say. Instead, write about how my use of figurative language affected the tone and mood of my piece. Ridiculous.
LikeLike
I worked as a teacher, as a textbook writer and editor for many years, and then as a teacher again. Many of the great, scholarly textbook writers and editors I’ve worked with over the years have quit in disgust at being forced to follow the CC$$ for ELA as a curriculum map. I call this the Monty Python “and now for something completely different” approach to ELA.
LikeLike
And yes, Coleman and Pimentel themselves say that they drew heavily on the Massachusetts standards. I suspect that the high NAEP scores in Massachusetts have to do with the quality of the teaching pool, the number of colleges and universities, the high levels of education and wealth in the state.
LikeLike
To Bob –
1) If you did the CCSS properly, you wouldn’t be able to use bought curriculum materials – it would call for assembling information from a multitude of resources and updating it each year.
2) I am against the tests, but I think the standards are strong. I have said that the test is unable to match the standards. The standards ask students to demonstrate critical thinking – there is not such thing as honest, critical thinking with a multiple choice question. And the essays… it is not research today when you are handed only two passages and asked to find the evidence to back an argument – its a compare / contrast exercise (not an awful thing, but it is when that is all students are doing throughout the year to prepare for a test).
3) Again, proves my point that the standards are not reflected on the tests. They are two completely separate entities. That is the problem.
And your thoughts on the success for Massachusetts is a “runaway argument.” Maybe the “strong teacher pool” knew what to do with them, but they were strong standards, period.
LikeLike
LikeLike
But yes, NY Teacher, the most important thing is to get rid of the high-stakes standardized tests. With those gone, teachers can take the “standards,” as puerile as they are, as rough guidelines, not as a curriculum map, and they can innovate and respond to research new new pedagogy and curricula and so on without waiting for Lord Coleman to do the thinking for them.
LikeLike
Speaking as a parent with admittedly little knowledge except my own anecdotal experience, but…
Just to talk humanities (which I think is a very different matter than Math/Science) I seem to recall that the debate decades ago long before Common Core was all about whether students were being taught the proper “facts” or “core knowledge”. And there was that E.D. Hirsch idea that students were properly educated because they knew those “facts”, which seemed to be what white men decided that all American students should know. And knowing those was supposed to improve educational outcomes.
I found a lot of that to be ridiculous and the truth was that aside from some people in academia, the average politician or rich businessman embracing that as a way to bash schools really hadn’t memorized all those dates and names.
In fact, students at private schools that didn’t enforce rote learning of names and dates were doing fine. But since poor students in underfunded public schools were not, it was a handy way to blame something other than the fact that the government had no interest in providing the sufficient food, medical care, housing, small class sizes etc. that would make it easier for them to learn. Nope, just blame that they didn’t have “core knowledge”.
And the people who were pointing out the major flaws in this argument were mischaracterized as people who somehow thought no real information should ever be imparted to students. When in fact it was the people promoting this fraud who were insisting that whether or not a student read Harry Potter instead of Johnny Tremaine was going to severely impact their ability to ever achieve anything in academia.
As a parent, I just see this as giving new names to the same old thing. Common Core versus Core Knowledge versus whatever name the school system in the 1960s gave the curriculum they taught is irrelevant. The question is about the tests. And the tests were perfectly fine for most parents until they became grounds for a phony “reform” that was about making corporations rich and keeping billionaires’ taxes low and undermining and punishing public schools.
In NY State, there are no standardized tests in high school except for Regents exams that have been around for over 100 years! In the 1970s, my midwestern elementary school gave standardized tests every single year in elementary school — they were called Iowa tests. When I went to a different elementary school, I took something called the California Aptitude Test instead.
It isn’t the fact that there are standardized tests that has changed things. It is the fact that there are POLITICAL tests that have changed things. Testing is designed to prove that public schools are failures and no test that doesn’t prove that public schools are failing is acceptable. That is what is wrong with testing. Not the fact that there is testing, but the fact that standardized testing has morphed into “political” testing.
That’s why the very same parents in affluent suburbs who didn’t have a problem with their kids taking ACTs or SATs and even APs were opting out of the “new” K-8 state tests that Arne Duncan unwittingly revealed had only one purpose — to prove that their public schools were bad. The purpose of those tests was entirely political and that was not the case when Iowa Tests or SATs were given in the past.
I know I am in the minority here, but one reason I like AP classes is because the AP exam has nothing to do with the class. Students don’t get the result until the middle of summer, it is not part of the class grade and it is not part of the transcript, and colleges don’t care about the result unless the student wants to use it to get credit for a course or be allowed to take an advanced course. And while some bad teachers may focus only on test prep in AP classes, that is not the experience that other teachers provide where they teach an interesting AP class to students who want that.
Clearly, if the AP Class grade was dependent only on the score on an AP exam, that would change the entire experience for a kid. It is similar to how the use — I should say the mis-use — of K-8 testing has impacted schools in a negative way. But it isn’t that there are standardized tests. It is the mis-use of what should be called “political tests” that is the problem.
LikeLike
Although I disagree on AP exams (I think prefer IB programs – but I have not read that much about it), I completely agree that these tests are just a political money making scam.
The best things about the CCSS are not able to be tested. They call for authentic inquiry and research. Pointing to the right sentence in a five paragraph essay is not inquiry and research. It’s playing I Spy.
LikeLike
“Pointing to the right sentence in a five paragraph essay is not inquiry and research. It’s playing I Spy.”
Yes, I agree with that.
It has always been clear to me that whether or not a standardized test is designed for political reasons is directly related to whether it is a test taken by ALL students with their school’s results published for all to see — including students in the most elite private schools — or whether it is taken only by public school students.
If every private school student had to take the same common core state tests as public school students, what would happen?
They would be re-designed to look like the CTP-4 exams taken by private school students, without those stupid questions designed to be intentionally ambiguous to guarantee a relatively high rate of failure even by students with very high reading comprehension abilities. And they would be treated the way those CTP-4 exams are treated — as one single day’s evaluation method among many. They would be designed and viewed the way the old Iowa tests were.
Or, it would be like the AP Exams, where elite private school students suddenly found they weren’t all getting elite scores when they had to compete against public school students, so suddenly it became perfectly acceptable for private schools to claim that the exam was worthless and couldn’t measure the ability of their students and all they had learned.
If a public school says that, they are accused of being afraid to have their students’ tested to show how mediocre they are. If an elite private school that teaches overprivileged students says it, it is embraced as the truth – that their overprivileged students don’t need any test to prove how much they have learned because their classes are so superior to AP classes that no silly test could ever measure how superior their students are.
LikeLike
Thank you, Bob! Your words are eloquent and spot on. Our public school teachers and our public school teachers have been USED … FOR PROFIT. Sickens me…and yes, “child abuse” and “public school teacher abuse” are well and alive.
Obama should be carrying signs with the Chicago Public School teachers, but he won’t.
LikeLike
Standardized testing is systemic child abuse. And numerology.
LikeLike
…and hardwired into NCLB and hardwired again into ESSA. Time to get rid of ESSA and the Department of Education’s stupid notion of accountability. Bob, thank you for this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Bob Shepherd:
That is as beautiful and insightful writing as I have witnessed in some time.
Thank you for expressing it so very well.
Sadly, politics supplants statesmanship and EVERYONE suffers.
Truth, the very foundation of education is supplanted by alternative truths,
The love of learning by assimilating “someones” “facts”.
Ad nauseum.
Thanks again for stating what should be t he obvious.
.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Gordon. I certainly wish that everyone in K-12 considered this stuff obvious. It ought to be. But we have some slow learners, especially among those who are paid not to learn.
LikeLike
Vowelence
The ELA of Common Core
Was vowelence, and nothing more
Was vowelence, to little child
a-e-i-o-u and sometimes y
LikeLike
But never why. That’s the astonishing thing about all this–the acquiescence of so many for so long to what I call the Occupation. Part of that results from the climate of fear in many schools. Teachers can lose their jobs for speaking out against this harmful nonsense.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd: “Teachers can lose their jobs for speaking out against this harmful nonsense.”
This is why I consider it so important for us retired teachers to speak out about the abuses. We must continuously confront our ignorant politicians even if it seems impossible to educate them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed!
LikeLike
good summation: Thanks for stating, again, and again, and yet again, what SHOULD be obvious
LikeLike
Thank you for looking at the impact of testing on students. While you focused mostly on high school, the elementary testing is so wrong, particularly in lower elementary school. It is developmentally inappropriate to administer a standardized test via computer to young children. Some students, particularly poor students, are not very familiar with the technology. We need to end the high stakes testing that interferes with genuine instruction, wastes time and undermines the confidence of students. It also wastes funding on a test that provides no useful information.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, yes. Thank you for making this point, retired teacher! I saw this with middle schoolers, proctoring these. Some who were overwhelmed by the interface. Some who were in tears.
LikeLike
Not sure why this appeared above (AI, artificial idiocy)
Vowelence
The ELA of Common Core
Was vowelence, and nothing more
Was vowelence, to little child
a-e-i-o-u and sometimes y
LikeLike
Wow, 2 strikes. I won’t try again
LikeLike
Artificial Idiocy. ROFLMAO!!! Microsoft Cortana reads my emails, it seems, and gives me little reminders. I write to a friend about my horror at the abandonment of the Kurds, and a day or two later, Cortana reminds me to “move into Northern Syria.” Heee heee. Every bit as good as Chippy the Paperclip.
LikeLike
Good one:
LikeLike
The Common Core ELA standard was an act of vowelence.
LikeLike
The thing that makes Bob’scomment so important is that he draws such a straight line from testing to standards to negative educational outcomes. Comments above are directed this way, testimony to the common experience teachers with many years in have been a part of.
The hope is that there are enough folks out there that have been ignoring all this right along, producing some good students with an ability to see manure when it hits the barn floor. Some of these young people I teach with have done just that.
LikeLike
Yes! The nation should be grateful to those brave souls who have continued to teach DESPITE the puerile “standards,” the invalid, pedagogically useless tests, and the incoherent, insipid curricula based on these.
LikeLike
In a comment above, Bob makes reference to the difficulty present in attempting to assert mastery or not on the basis of some or two questions on a multiple choice test. I would like to elaborate on that.
Once I taught two students. One was an average geometry student and a below average English student. His ability lay in recognition of spatial relationships that gave concrete answers. The other was a poor geometry student with above average communication skills. She was poor at recognizing relationships in space, but good at naming the parts of a geometry figure.
These were the days of the introduction of PARCC testing. Both students sat for a practice essay test we all gave instead of teaching. The good geometry student failed to receive any credit. He simply did not write anything. The good writer got two points due to the scoring rubric.
This illustrates that general questions do not do the job either. Both kids were good at something. On a general scale of 1to 10 they were both about a 6. Multiple choice questions require many more questions before you can decide whether an idea is understood (I refuse to use the phrase master a standard, for this grants a sort of linguistic legitimacy to a logically problematic idea).
Discovering whether someone knows something is difficult at best. Once I had occasion to travel with a couple of friends going home from an old time music event. One was from Boston, and I did not know him very well. Knowing that he probably did not know much about my state, I took pains to point out some local geography and history out the car window as we drove. After a time, he exclaimed with surprise that I really was intelligent. It took a few months of knowing this guy before he came to that conclusion. His conclusion seemed to be based on my telling him things he did not know. He had, of course, assumed I was an ignorant rube based on my rather exaggerated southern accent.
The point is that we can rarely know whether some student knows something. We never get to travel with them for a couple of hours.
LikeLike
Roy,
You are correct. Inventorying the mind is much harder than lay people think. I know of no test that really measures the full cognitive impact of a lesson, unit or course; or of reading a book. Each fact learned can have dozens of ramifications in other parts of the brain. Teasing out this new knowledge can be very difficult if not impossible. This doesn’t mean all testing is invalid; just that it’s invariably limited.
And you’re right about the misuse of language when we talk “mastering a standard”. No, Johnny hasn’t mastered the ability to find main ideas because he got the two main idea questions on the test right.
LikeLike
Great observation, Roy. Kids differ. So must our expectations of them and the paths we put them on. This one-size-fits-all crap reminds me of the story of the Procrustean bed. We have to stop maiming kids.
LikeLike
Here’s a small sampling of New York State’s Next Generation Science Standards.
Analyze data to determine if a design solution works as intended to change the speed or direction of an object with a push or a pull.
Construct an argument supported by evidence for how plants and animals (including humans) can change the environment to meet their needs.
Use materials to design a solution to a human problem by mimicking how plants and/or animals use their external parts to help them survive, grow, and meet their needs.
Analyze data obtained from testing different materials to determine which materials have the properties that are best suited for an intended purpose.
Analyze data from tests of two objects designed to solve the same problem to compare the strengths and weaknesses of how each performs.
Make observations to construct an evidence-based account of how an object made of a small set of pieces can be disassembled and made into a new object.
These six standards were written for children in grades K, 1, and 2.
Testing is scheduled to begin in 2022 (grades 5 and 8).
Never blame the test writers when standards are this bad.
LikeLike
That is ridiculous.
Is it possible to know who wrote these standards? What person actually sat down and put those words together?
“construct an evidence-based account of how….” This is the part of the common core that the adult who wrote this should be made to do with the rest of us grading it to see if the “evidence-based account” he “constructed” meets our own person standards.
LikeLike
Point well taken. These standards make a mockery out of what should be the most concrete and objective of school subjects.
Grade 5 standard:
Measure and graph quantities to provide evidence that regardless of the type of change that occurs when heating, cooling, or mixing substances the total amount of matter is conserved.
Middle school standard:
Construct a scientific explanation based on evidence for how the uneven distributions of Earth’s mineral, energy, and groundwater resources are the result of past and current geologic processes.
High school standard:
Communicate technical information about how some technological devices use the principles of wave behavior and wave interactions with matter to transmit and capture information and energy.*
LikeLike
The original NGSS were developed by the folks at Achieve.
New York decided they needed a few tweaks.
Here’s a link to the NY K to 12 NGSS:
Click to access p-12-science-learning-standards.pdf
A good overview from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Science_Standards
LikeLike
K-2? I thought, surely you must be exaggerating, but I just looked up these “standards.” Appalling.
LikeLike
College Ready in Kindergarten
College Ready in Kindergarten
Bachelor’s in First
PhD in Second grade
A life that’s well rehearsed
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet: I never went to kindergarten since it wasn’t offered in the dark ages in Meridian, Idaho. I’m still tying to catch up and be “college ready”. HA.
LikeLike
Have you considered enrolling at the local Kindergarten?
Or are your test scores not good enough?
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet: I’m working on how to hold a pencil and write and think in complete sentences. Trump is my role model.
LikeLike
LOL – You cannot claim that Trump is your role model unless you never hold a pencil or pen, never read a book, never exercise, and every other incomplete sentence out of your mouth or from your Twitter fingers has to be a lie.
And before I forget, you only eat at McDonald’s or KFC.
LikeLike
Maybe you could get Felicity Huffman to pay a test proctor to change your incorrect answers on the KAT (Kindergarten Aptitude Test)
LikeLike
Or perhaps their are some KAT optional kindergartens.
Check with FairTest.
LikeLike
There there
LikeLike
Is it even theoretically possible to tweet in complete sentences?
LikeLike
Yes. I tweet complete sentences.
LikeLike
To say nothing of coherent sentences.
If it is, I have yet to see an example.
LikeLike
Also, if you useTrump as a model for holding your pencil, it will fall right through.
https://image.businessinsider.com/561550a8bd86ef1b008bffe2?width=400&format=jpeg&auto=webp
LikeLike
Tweet Complete?
When songbirds do tweet
Is sentence complete?
With meaning replete?
Or is it effete?
LikeLike
Definition for “college-ready in kindergarten”:
The parents are both avid readers with four or more years of college (each) in addition to the college degrees they earned, and those same parents earn six-figure incomes (or higher).
LikeLike
Reblogged this on MY TWO CENTS and commented:
This post by Diane Ravitch, where she shared Bob Shepherd’s comments about standardized testing, really resonated with me.
Shepherd’s comments are spot on. What he said is the reason I quit in 2016. And they are the source of my frustration now that I am back in the classroom.
Until we realize this – “Standardized testing is a vampire that sucks the lifeblood out of education” – and do this – “Put a stake in it” – by upturning state legislation that requires us to use standardized test scores to make high-stakes decisions, THERE WILL BE NO IMPROVEMENT. Nothing will change, nothing will get better, nothing will improve – our attitudes about public education, our students’ performance and desire to learn, NOTHING – until we do this. It IS that serious.
LikeLike
Thank you, Ms. Holden! I fully understand your not wanting to participate in this nonsense any longer!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Bob Shepherd: Why High-Stakes Testing is an Act of Violence Against Students”
How about violence against teachers? In Memphis, we have such teacher shortage thet they are proposing remote teachers who would teach via videoconferencing. This is just days after they tried to convince the public, quoting fake research and polls, that the current teacher evaluation system, based on students’s scores on tests, is well loved by teachers and parents.
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/tn/2019/10/17/memphis-board-rejects-remote-teaching-to-fill-high-school-math-vacancies/
LikeLike
Expect a LOT more of this. Many years ago, Gates gave a talk in which he said that the costs of schooling were all in salaries and facilities and that we could vastly reduce both via online learning. Good enough for prole children. I watched, in my college days, the small class with a professor turn into the stadium class with a T.A. Next step: the stadium class (to count attendance) with a television screen at the front.
LikeLike
When Bill Gates talks, people should listen very closely because he often broadcasts his plans and even motives very clearly.
Like when he said the purpose of his national standards initiative (which he called State Sponsored” while he chuckled) was to ” unleash powerful market forces ” in schools and turn teachers and schools into “a large customer base eager to buy products”..
He also noted in the same speech that “When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well — and that will unleash powerful market forces ” which put the lie to the claim that Common Core was not intended as a national curriculum.
LikeLike
“When Bill Gates talks, people should listen”
But it’s so hard to do! I dunno what’s harder, listen to to Trump or Gates.
LikeLike
Here’s how he put it: “to unleash powerful market forces” that would operate “at scale.” Once a monopolist. . . .
That’s what InBloom was all about. It was to be the nation’s gradebook, and he would control it, and any curriculum developers would have to deal with it to be plugged in. So, InBloom was to be in the curriculum industry what DOS and then Windows were in the computer industry–the devil you had to work with and pay, the gatekeeper, the controller. InBloom failed because of the student privacy issue, but no one seemed to understand or talk about this other issue. He’s a smart fellow, Gates. Manipulative.
LikeLike
In other words, Bill G[r]ates is dreadfully diabolical.
LikeLike
It’s a very good thing for US education that InBloom failed. It was a way to exert monopoly control on US curricula. Another stab at that: Brookings ran several articles about creating a national curriculum review organization to ensure that curricular materials reflected the “higher” (ROFLMAO) “standards” (sic). In both cases, creating a national curriculum Though Police, a Ministry of Truth. Sickening.
LikeLike
cx: Thought Police
LikeLike
from the Reformish Lexicon:
free market. n. Any market with barriers to entry sufficient to keep control of, or even access to it, in the hands of a small, oligarchical, kleptocratic class. Free to anyone who can pay to play.
LikeLike
Freedom for the 1%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent point, Bob, about the stress experienced by students. It’s not just the amount, it’s the type of stress. Every day our society seems to become more and more image-based.
It makes me wonder sometimes….if a story in the news doesn’t have a video, will it matter nearly as much? Ditto….us!
LikeLike
And, I would like to add, the huge abuse of the taxpayers’ money that is earmarked to be spent for EDUCATION. I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere, but, when the Chicago teachers are being told that there is NO money for school nurses, librarians, social workers, smaller class size, etc., CPS–& other school districts continue to waste money that could well be spent for actual people & things that would educate the students. Millions spent, thus far, & in the future, on absolutely groundless, useless not “standardized” (proven to be neither valid nor reliable) tests, just so Pear$on can make Big Buck$. Not only is the money wasted on te$t$ (which are not even quality-conrrolled–there is no oversight or regulation), but this has grown, over the years, to include endless test prep materials, both paper & software.
Since C.T.U. is fighting for the aforementioned personnel & classroom conditions to be put into any contract, I think, too, they should add “abolishment of “standardized” testing).
LikeLike
And this is the type of support the Chicago Tribune gives to striking teachers. There is no mention of just how bad the teaching circumstances are and WHY teachers are striking. The blame for children being put out on the streets rests on greedy, selfish teachers.
There are many wealthy people in Chicago. Why aren’t they paying more in taxes? Why isn’t there a tax on financial transactions? Why blame teachers for everything?
………………………………….
Editorial: A miniseries, Episode 2: Why a teachers strike is bad for Chicago
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
OCT 18, 2019 | 6:45 PM
Crime in Chicago doesn’t follow a schedule. It unfolds relentlessly, day and night.
During the Chicago Teachers Union strike, Chicago Public Schools created a safety plan for students that includes open school buildings staffed with administrators. But so far, most kids haven’t been at school. For the more fortunate, canceled classes might have meant a trip to the botanical gardens or Navy Pier. For the less fortunate, canceled classes meant a day home alone or at a CPS-identified shelter or goofing off in the neighborhood.
Just a fact-based reminder: As of Oct. 13, Chicago had registered 403 killings, 1,690 criminal sexual assaults and 6,166 robberies in 2019, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Those crimes tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods where where households can be unstable, where daytime adult supervision is sometimes sparse, where working parents have few options for child care.
“We absolutely believe the safest place for students is at school being taught by teachers,” police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi tells us.
For student safety, settle this strike, CTU.
Editorials reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board, as determined by the members of the board, the editorial page editor and the publisher.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-chicago-teacher-strike-lori-lightfoot-2-20191018-qdr2xhqi75hiheacngqsev7zbm-story.html
LikeLike
About 1.7 billion a year on state contracts for standardized testing alone, and this doesn’t include the many more billions spent on computers for kids to take the tests on, test prep materials, benchmark tests, and devolved test preppy curricula/courseware. Billions that could be spent on teachers’ salaries, wraparound services for poor kids.
LikeLike
Whenever anyone claims there is no money available for social services, education or other things that benefit the public, you know they are either clueless or lying.
There is lots of money available. It’s just a matter of how one chooses to allocate it.
Bernie Sanders has made this point many times, but many people — including some Democrats running against Bernie — continue to deny it .
Denial is not just a Republican thing.
LikeLike
When that study came out saying that state tests cost 1.7 billion a year, Pear$on responded with an article about why that wasn’t much to pay. Of course, they left out the far greater costs of the computer systems for taking tests on, the proctoring, the data walls and data chats, the reporting systems, the test prep, the test preppy primary courseware–all the rest of the metastasis. Accomplished liars, like the folks at Fordham. Pear$on just unloaded its K-12 courseware in a firesale. But the glutenous beast held on to its lucrative K-12 te$ting busine$$ and its virtual $chool division.
LikeLike
Pearson just got back the state testing in Tennessee, and they have been doing the teacher certification already here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eventually, of course, the state will sicken of Pear$on’$ incompetence and choose another incompetent testing and teacher certification outfit. Your state officials (Chose all that apply.)
a. have already been paid off
b. were recently hatched and are therefore ignorant of history
c. are expecting lucrative kickbacks
d. really hate teachers and kids
LikeLike
Well, Pearson did our state tests before. For a few years, other companies tried, now Pearson got back the job. Weird story. I’d like to see the minutes of the meetings where they decided to give the job back to Pearson.
LikeLike
Those would make some interesting reading. So would the TE$T$ themselves. But thi$ is an indu$try in which the people buy what they are not allowed to look at.
Great bu$ine$$, huh? The guy who used to sell Sea Monkeys via ads in the back of comic books (they were actually ghost shrimp) had another scam. For a while he sold “invisible goldfish,” also in the back of comic books. You would get a tank to fill with water and a guarantee that you would never see your goldfish. Well, Pear$on and that guy are in the same bu$ine$$, which makes the scam pretty easy to continue for a while, especially since they can set and change cut scores wherever they want.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The existing high stake tests must be abolished not because they make students “stressed, stressed, stressed and ANGRY”, but because they test wrong things. As for high school students being stressed, we all should look into banning personal ownership of firearms, not into cooling snowflakes.
LikeLike
Well, I am all for cooling snowflakes: get stress out of schools. All of it.
LikeLike
Thank you, Mate!!!! You say it much more concisely than I did.
LikeLike
What’s up with this, BA? I am reminded of the first textbook ever published in what would be the US, the New England Primer, and, in particular, this item:
F
The idle Fool
Is whip’t in school
Your educational philosophy?
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
LikeLike
Nah. The idle fool should be whipped at home, by his parents, who should actually care what his child is learning – or not learning – at school. And if their daughter cannot read by the end of high school, it is the parents’ fault.
My point was – which you prefer to not understand – that it is always crunch time. And while I wholeheartedly support not teaching academics to kids younger than 7 and instead letting them play (together, outside, no screens), I do not subscribe to the idea that these oh so touchy-feely adolescents must be protected from the hardships of tests, from answering in front of the whole class, from clearly pointing out to them where they have gaps. Instead, we tell them that they all are doing great, they succeed (in what?), they are unique… like snowflakes.
LikeLike
What do you mean, BA, by the “hardship of tests”. Tests aren’t hard. All you do is select any answer and bubble it in. However, these high-stakes, rank and punish tests have more to do with fascism and abuse than anything else by their very nature.
“The abuse of tests” is more accurate. Yea, let’s force all children starting at 7 to go through U.S. Marine Corps boot camp. Now, that is a test if you really want children to take tests.
But bubble tests relying on how many facts a child remembers from what they were taught, never. Human memory doesn’t work that way. Most of us do not have hyperthymesia.
LikeLike
In Hungary, we were primarily graded on how we did during individual oral question-answer sessions in front of the whole class.
LikeLike
Tell that to the Finns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ_agxK6fLs
You know, BA, abuse that a person experiences as a child can make him or her into an angry, abusive adult, but there are treatments for this.
LikeLike
“But bubble tests relying on how many facts a child remembers from what they were taught, never.” – exactly: bubble tests are usually pointless and stupid. Instead of letting a student providing their own answer the bubble tests teach him to use “elimination strategies” and crap like that, which has no relation to the actual subject.
I am not against tests. I am not against high-stake tests. I am against idiotic inch-deep bubble tests, which ask names or dates or based on elimination or in many cases where any choice seems fitting. All tests should be written, not bubble. Thus, a knowledgeable teacher must grade them. This does not suit test industry, obviously.
LikeLike
I certainly agree with you, BA, about eliminating the bubble tests.
LikeLike
And I agree that students should respond in writing (and in speech). And this raises the issue of time. I’ve spent much of my professional life as an editor. I know how much time it takes to do various kinds of edits on a manuscript (a substantive content review with suggestions for revision, copyediting, proofreading). In my last teaching post, I taught 7 classes, with an average of 27 students in each class. So, 189 students. Suppose that I assigned a standard, schoolroomy five-paragraph theme to these students. That’s 945 paragraphs. For comparison, consider this: an average novel contains about 60,000 words. If that average novel were made up entirely of 300-word paragraphs, it would contain 200 of them. So, that stack of five-paragraph themes is equal to about three whole novels to read extremely carefully and respond to, but three novels absolutely shot through with misspellings, awkwardness, errors in grammar and usage and mechanics and formatting, incoherence, disorganization, insufficient evidence/warrants, irrelevant material, redundancy, vagueness, errors in logic and fact, and so on.
Should kids write a lot? Should teachers read and respond to that writing? Absolutely! Should teachers have the time to do that properly? Ah, there’s the rub. Clearly, English teachers need a LOT more prep time and a LOT fewer students. Yes, there are ways to deal with the load. Use a rubric for grading. Don’t copyedit everything. Respond to the most important issues in the writing. Grade carefully only selected papers, not everything the kid writes. But all of these short-change the kids. In the real world, what happens is that English teachers don’t assign as much writing as kids need to do because they simply haven’t the time to deal with it. They are too busy proctoring tests and working car line and posting data walls and other such crap, and even if they weren’t doing all that, there still would be far less time than is necessary in order to do the job at all properly.
LikeLike
cx: 4.7 novels, ofc.
LikeLike
“In Hungary, we were primarily graded on how we did during individual oral question-answer sessions in front of the whole class.” — that is what I thought. I don’t know whether it was a European tradition or the tentacles of the Soviet system.
LikeLike
It has nothing to do with the Soviet system.
LikeLike
“Clearly, English teachers need a LOT more prep time and a LOT fewer students.” — Clearly. 189 students is too much for regular meaningful written essays. But you could stagger them 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and that’s what I did. But. . . .
LikeLike
As a retired teacher of the deaf who retired earlier than intended in 2011 because I could see the writing on the wall as CC$$ and PARCC were steamrolling in, I fully agree with Bob’s post here and in other blogs, and the comments also. One point I’d like to make that I haven’t seen brought up elsewhere relates to the cringe-evoking nature of the online practice materials that students are forced to endure in order to brainwash them so they will supposedly do better on the invalid and cognitively convoluted CC$$ aligned standardized tests. That is–students are subjected to instantaneous feedback on their answers (with bells and whistles, paid for by taxpayers), and the passages and questions are adjusted by AI according to how well or poorly the student is answering the questions. Where in this entire travesty is the student allowed or encouraged to ask questions–whether to clarify or out of curiosity? Remember Marshall McLuhan? “The medium is the message.” So what is the message here? I, Robot? I, surveilled? I, consumer? I, cog in the global workforce? I, fodder for the military? I, destined for incarceration?
LikeLike
“Where in this entire travesty is the student allowed or encouraged to ask questions”
Indeed, the important point.
LikeLike
Thank you, Sheila. This point you raise is so, so important. Where is the human interaction, the back and forth, the questioning? They call exactly what you describe “personalized learning.” And, as you so vividly evoke, it is precisely the opposite. It is depersonalized “training” to take tests.
LikeLike