 I’m Not on that Wagon Originally uploaded by David Warlick. |
First, please forgive my writting on his entry. I’m thumb typing this at LAX, waiting on my flight to Dallas, and then on home to Raleigh. My day at the conference (CUE2006), yesterday, ended with a webcast, hosted by Chris Walsh. It went well, considering my irrational fear of cameras. This is mostly thanks to the relaxed nature of Chris’ guidance. However, there was a moment, where I faultered. He asked the question, which I certainly should have anticipated, “How do we reconcile between the richer, project-based teaching and learning that technology seems to beg for, and the accountability/high-stakes-testing environment that seems to force education into a direct teaching mode of operation?” I tryed to answer the question … With the research that points to the value of PBL lead by talented educators with signicant and good professional development. But it didn’t feel right. I think that the problem is that the standards movement is simply a wagon that I’m not riding on. I’ve had a number of conversations lately, with educators who are around my age. We attended education school in a time when we read the writings of James Herndon and education reform was based on compassion and collaboration rather than performance and compeditiveness. We were taught to distrust standardized testing, and to value and celebrate each student’s unique talents and interests.
They’re starting to call for the boarding of my flight, so I’m going to submit this two cents worth. It will beat me home by about seven hours, where I will doubtless have lots of comments on my niavity, pinko upbringing, and most certainly the poor spelling that my liberal education inspired. My thumbs are aching tremendously! — David Warlick The Landmark Project http://davidwarlick.com/ http://landmark-project.com/
David-Just this issue has been occupying my thoughts for a while now. I saw things in Will Richardson’s blog (The Future of Blogs), Wesley Fryer’s blog (Kids want engaged learning) and now your entry this morning. Besides being a very large issue for educators in general, it seems that “Tech and the Test” really brings the incompatibility of the underlying educational philosophies of these tools to the fore.
Politically, people feel they have to back up the assessment/accountability of the testing regime, but current and future technologies are inherently divergent/expansive and don’t serve the testing agenda well at all (besides the dumb crunching numbers…..or the crunching of dumb numbers…..) Somethin’s gotta give…..
Hope it’s obvious that I’m not on that wagon either.
I have never been on the standardized testing wagon, and in this instance, I wish some more people would fall off the wagon. I think that standardized testing is having the opposite effect of what those who champion it think it will accomplish… a more highly educated graduating class. As an educator in Texas, I have seen our standardized test, the TAKS, and the information on these four tests is not what I want students to know when they graduate (and they can’t graduate without passing all the tests). The majority of the information covered within the tests is information that is not used outside of the walls of high school. If we are going to test something, why not make it something relevant and useful?
If you would like to read more of my TAKS rant, you can visit my latest blog posting. http://musingsfromtheacademy.blogspot.com/2006/03/taks-is-it-helping-or-hindering-our.html
David, I do not think the flag wavers of the standards movement are the regular readers of your blog 🙂 That particular movement is having a negative effect on technology use. Teachers who are using the new tools – blogs, podcasts, rss, and so on – are few and far between because it takes twice as much work to do it. Gotta prep for those tests. No choice about that. Then, if you have the time, use the new tools, get really engaged, do exciting stuff. Teachers using the new tools do not have any more time than anybody else, but they are willing to give it up because they are passionate about it. Twice as much time/work.
The answer to the question you were asked is this, I think. They do not reconcile. They are at odds with each other.
Thank god I’m not on that wagon either!
I do believe in standards but have a hard time believing that all students will learn the same thing at the same rate. The idea that all students will have mastered a series of skills by some arbitrary date is ridiculous. Most students have the ability to master standards. Timing may be the hard part for many of them. The high stakes testing that goes on now is nothing but a path to the demise of public education in the US. It is a path in which everyone at some point must fail. This of course will create a need for the voucher system our president wants so badly.
I commend teachers who continue to do what they know is best for students and teach them how to think and interact with information in the 21st Century.
David, In I’m Not on that Wagon you lump “the accountability/high-stakes-testing environment†and “the
standards movement†into the same “wagonâ€Â. While these are certainly related, I think there are distinctions. It seems to me that the environment that most teachers and students find themselves in today is a special case of standards. For lack of a better name I’ll call it “high stakes standardized test regulated standardsâ€Â.
I think most states, like Connecticut where I live, have tried to create standards that are process oriented as well as content oriented. For instance the new CT science frameworks put considerable emphasis on students engaging in activities that reflect/demonstrate the role of science in society. In my mind this is a worthy goal/standard.
The struggle has been in how to evaluate student understanding/performance of this goal in an efficient and consistent manner for all students statewide. The instrument they have is the CT Mastery Tests (CMT) , a statewide high stakes standardized test. (CT is suing the feds to keep this as an every other year rather then every year event) It looks like this is going to be done with a report students will write as part of the test, about a specific science in society related “activityâ€Â. To be fair and consistent all students in the same grade will do and report on the same activity.
The results of this evaluation methodology is going to be that in addition to the two or three weeks of test prep preceding the CMT we will see all 8th grade science students doing the same “science in society†activity the week or the day before the test, so their students can remember and report on it. In effect a process-focused standard has been converted (subverted) into a content standard by the evaluation methodology.
The education support structure, including the regional service centers, are gearing up to support (and help institutionalize) this implementation.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong and there is no difference between high stakes testing and standards?