teaching to tests?

I'd like to revisit a topic that drew comments to several of last week's blog posts. It is clear that many of us, parents, teachers, administrators and board members alike, are concerned that one effect of "No Child Left Behind" and other legislation of recent years has been a narrowing of schools' curriculum and a tendency to "teach to the test". To some extent this is a legitimate concern. Anyone who does research in science, business, or education will agree that "you get more of what you measure." But let's not forget that the Federal law was called "No Child Left Behind" because many children were (and too many still are) left behind. NCLB is a law with many failings and is much in need of amendment, but the reasons for its existence still exist in many of America's schools. To the extent that current studies show that the majority of the students in some high schools are still years behind in basic academic skills, increased focus on these basics seems like a rather natural and necessary response. Unfortunately, instead of taking a hard and honest look in the mirror, too many people from classrooms to state houses to the halls of Congress skipped over important but difficult reforms and relied on following old habits more intensely. A very real concern is that this approach will fail to solve the problem of undereducated students in under-performing schools, but that it will also hinder students who have mastered basics from exploring more challenging skills and concepts. But what are the choices for teachers and administrators faced with a very diverse student body?
A recent post on this blog concerned reading aloud to children, and there are very few things that a parent can do that will have a more positive impact on a child's school success. The flip side of that is that in too many homes, especially in low-income families the is not only no "story hour", there is a shortage of even baby talk conversation. A child whose family falls below the federal poverty line may enter kindergarten having heard several million fewer words of conversation than the average middle class child. In an ideal resource-rich classroom with a well-trained, highly competent teacher, a small class, a modern facility and a creative curriculum the teacher would be able to address that shortfall while also offering a content-rich program to other students. Too often one or all of those elements are lacking and "drill and test" prevails.
On the flip side, I've seen some great things happening in schools that have stepped up to the challenge and under teachers who have accepted accountability. These schools have aligned their courses with the standards and the teachers understand exactly what concepts and content must be covered. Course content is the result of thoughtful decision making, not tradition. Teachers and students are mindful of the goals of the class. Rather than spend time "teaching to the test" they adapt their routine tests to present the type of questions that are used in standardized tests. They include short and long written response questions, not just multiple choice and strengthen skills that not only result in higher test scores, but which prepare students for civil service tests, ASVAB, job interviews and college applications. They analyze the results of both their own tests and standardized tests and constantly adapt their teaching to improve student performance.
Unfortunately but realistically, while a great teacher is a critical factor, other resources are needed to make our schools uniformly able to respond to very non-uniform students. I mover to Canon-McMillan more than twenty years ago because they offered my step-daughter the chance to take Latin (a very "old school" reason, I know). C-M still does offer Latin, and many other electives along with strong programs in both arts and technology. Our District is committed to this and our communities make a serious financial investment for it.However, as a member of the Pennsylvania School Board Association I work with representatives of districts that are smaller, more rural, more urban, losing population, or just plain poorer. If a reasonably affuent district struggles to allocate resources, how are they to do it? Even if they do the curriculum reform and test score analysis they face an uphill battle that resembles a ski jump as seen from the bottom of the hill. As advocates for public education we have some very tough choices to make to get beyond "No Child Left Behind" to "Every Child All That They Can Be".