I keep reading all kinds of media reports on the state of schools and the impending re-certification of No Child Left Behind. The latest article I read was concerning the fact that despite more students taking harder courses and getting better grades, they are (according to standardized tests) learning LESS. The response to these reports is to indict schools for slacking off and not teaching the skills the kids need. Remember, EVERY school in each state is rated the same way
Now, here's my issue: I started school 50 years ago this September. I went to a VERY small school - in fact, I was in a classroom with about 30 kids in grades one, two, and three. My teacher was experienced, but her training was pretty rudimentary - she taught us reading, arithmatic, and social studies - history and geography - but not much science. Our art education was limited to tracing out seasonal images on construction paper and pasting things together. We had an itinerant music teacher who came twice a week. I did fine - learned to read, do math, etc. and was successful in high school and college. Today, our teachers are much better trained and we have better resources. What is it, then, that is making our kids less able to perform? And is it true across the board?
Here is my observation at my own school, which is considered by those who know it to be good:
1. The top kids are better prepared - enormously so - than were the top kids 30 years ago. I teach AP English and I'm blown away with how well they think and write. They are getting recognized at an early age and challenged all along the way. These kids encounter great literature and are encouraged to think and write about it in different ways. I feel strongly that they will do well in college and in life
2. The kids with learning problems are getting resources that they weren't getting 30 years ago. Teachers know how to recognize kids with special needs and address those needs or find the resources to help them. This didn't happen 30 years ago - those kids dropped out with the school's blessing, since they didn't really know what to do with them. These kids are much better prepared to deal with life than they would have been in my time.
3. The kids who don't fit into either end vary wildly. Most of them are good, solid students who pay attention, learn to take notes, read their assignments, work on their writing, and come to class ready to talk about what they've learned. But, on the other hand, many of my "average" students DON'T do what they are supposed to do - they don't read, they don't work on improving their writing, they don't want to expend any intellectual energy on ANYTHING. They don't care if they learn anything at all.
We have been dangerously close to not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) because some of our kids didn't score well on a high stakes test. We have given them a ton of tutoring and some of them still don't score at proficient or advanced, which is the criteria for whether or not we are "on the list". For some, it's because they don't take the test seriously since it doesn't have an impact on them individually - they know that it rates the SCHOOL rather than the student, so they don't worry too much about it. For those kids, we pull them aside and retest them, emphasizing that they will KEEP taking the test until they score at proficient or advanced. Most of them finally get the point and squeak out a score that is acceptable. But it sure doesn't measure their learning. It is this group of kids that I think are most different from the way kids were 30 or 40 years ago. In my wildest dreams I would never have considered not doing work assigned to me. I would never have just not handed in a paper and taken a zero for it. Yet I just collected papers from my juniors - level one (college prep) kids - and out of 37 kids, ten just plain did not do it. Is this my fault as an educator? I don't live at their houses to make sure they do their work. What happened to parents insisting that homework be done - checking that it IS done (especially if the kid has a history of not doing the work), and maybe even (dare I say it) grounding the kid until he shapes up? I think parents have to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask if they are doing their part. Do they stop reading to and with their kids once the kids have learned how to read in first or second grade? Do they get and read a newspaper? Do they read books in their homes and give books as gifts to kids and encourage them to read for pleasure? Or do they just let the kid spend hours playing video or computer games? News flash: spending time on the computer, even if they are "reading" text on it, does not contribute to the kind of learning those high stakes tests measure. Just because they are on the computer doesn't mean it's educational. I believe that most of these kids COULD easily score proficient or advanced if they had a "culture of learning" in their homes.
But some hard news here - some kids will NEVER be able to score proficient or advanced on these tests. In this country, we provide EVERY child with free and public education. And we can help every kid reach his potential and find ways to be successful that do not translate into performing well on these tests. As irritated as I am about losing all this time - for my juniors it's about nine school days - 5% of the school year - I feel sorrier for my colleagues in learning support who are working with the kids who don't learn the same way everyone else does. The irony is that current research focuses on different learning styles and how important it is for us to recognize this and capitalize on each kid's strengths, and then we subject every kid - from the valedictorian to the kid with the most severe learning disabilities - to the same testing. I know some kids who are very bright and can discuss themes in literature very well, but they have problems in traditional reading and decoding and would score very poorly on those tests. Just as some of us are more physically gifted, some people are gifted in more traditionally academic ways. Not every person is suited to college; many people are highly gifted in skills that are not measured in these tests and that's not fair. If a person can learn a skill that is valued in society - trades like carpentry, plumbing, painting, and electrical work, services like child care and hospitality work, and so on - he or she can be a successful citizen. It makes no sense to say that the school has failed a child if these skills are recognized and encouraged, regardless of how well he performs on a state-mandated test.
Are we concerned with EDUCATING our children to live in the world productively? Or we just TRAINING them to respond to a test?
Oh, I love my work - I just freakin' hate my JOB sometimes.
