Teaching to the Test: Just Say No
From the Desk of Hope…
According to many people, teaching to the test is unavoidable and those who opt not to succumb to the pressure will reap harsh consequences under tough accountability systems.
I was at a school this week in which a principal told her staff that if she saw test preparation in the form of item testing before two weeks of the actual End of Grade test, she would put them on an action plan. She explained that the practice was unethical and “curriculum teaching” should continue in classrooms to prepare students for the EOG not “item teaching”. She also compared it to fool’s gold – you don’t actually have what you think you have.
I am thankful for principals like this.
I also heard a great story this week about a principal who turned up the dial on her staff to start test preparation as early as next week (the EOG is in mid May) and a brave teacher spoke up challenged this idea. He said, “wouldn’t it make sense to just keep doing the great stuff we do everyday in our classrooms?” I don’t know the outcome of this particular situation but I do know…
I am thankful for teachers who teach this way and think this way.
What is wrong with teaching to the test?
There are different ways of thinking about “teaching to the test”. I really like the way assessment expert W. James Popham helps to clarify the difference. He defines two kinds of assessment-aware instruction: “curriculum teaching” and “item-teaching.” Curriculum teachers focus on the full body of knowledge and skills represented by test questions even though tests can employ only a sample of questions to assess students’ knowledge about a topic.
For example, if students will be tested on author’s purpose in reading, curriculum teachers will set students up to think about (evaluate) the many reasons authors choose to write, the structures in which authors use to lay out their message and how the message is created through main ideas and details or a well developed plot. Students will read and discuss many types of texts to experience and evaluate author’s purpose and they will also practice authentically writing for different purposes in order to apply these ideas.
Item teachers narrow their instruction, organizing their teaching around particular questions most likely to be found on the test — and thus teach only the bits of knowledge students are most likely to encounter on state assessments.
Mr. Popham goes on to say the latter is unethical.
Staying the Course
Tony Dungy says in is book Quiet Strength, “Leaving the game plan is a sign of panic, and panic is not in our game plan.”
I would argue that the best way to prepare students for high stakes tests is to stay the course with teaching the curriculum with rigor and purpose. ERG consultants see very effective instruction going on in classrooms everyday – students gathered together talking about a good book they are reading, writing that is being revised, edited and finally published and math concepts being understood at a deep level so that more complex problems can be solved.
Why would we want to stop this kind of instruction months before the end of grade test?