So what. Now what? 2/6
THE STANDARDS
After reading both the NCTE standards and the Common Core standards, I'm once again reminded that they are not so unreasonable. As a parent with an elementary and middle schooler, the general sentiment among parents is that standards are the enemy--or rather, that COMMON CORE is the enemy. I've always disagreed with that blanket statement, and re-reading the standards reminds me that it is indeed not only reasonable to expect kids to know most of what they are asking for, but if every parent read them, they'd probably assume this was already happening, and be totally on board with it.
One concept appears again and again in the standards, and that is that a student should be able to "synthesize" text. This is something I'm eager to learn how to teach--teaching students to be critical thinkers, to make connections between their texts and to the world around them is clearly vitally important. It seems, however, that teaching critical thinking and the synthesis of information is easier said than done. In the 4-8 standards specifically, I was reminded of my last post, getting students to think about their audience when writing (this is also part of the NCTE standards). Additionally, I'm reminded of the necessity to give students the opportunity to write often.
The standards are clear and make sense. So why are there such bad feelings among parents when Common Core standards are brought up? My feeling is that parents connect standards with standardized testing. While I understand that there is a connection between the standards themselves and the tests, the actual implementation of the test, and how it is written and perceived by schools and students is negligible at best. The Johnson/Richer text illustrates pretty clearly the frustration felt by teachers and families.
THE STANDARDIZED TESTS
I was struck, at first, by the notion that the educators themselves are not given the chance to give their perspective on the test. Some of the practical problems with the test were some I had not even considered--like the fact that elementary students aren't fluent enough with typing to be able to successfully type a story for the test. Add to that the fact that a pencil-and-paper option is only available to students with accommodations on a 504 plan.
As a parent, I have seen my kids' teachers adjust their regular curriculum to prepare students for the PARCC test. the first six weeks of my son's fourth grade year were spent preparing for a test in October. That was literally all of the instruction. The school's test scores were a little better than average--but those results speak more to their ability to take the test than to any of their achievement of any of the standards.
As a fan of data analysis, I would understand the argument that test scores can help educators fine tune their curriculum, if the scores reveal dificiencies in specific areas. But as the paper states, the data comes too late to be actually be useful.
Add to this the notion that administrators are punishing teachers who are telling students about the choice to opt-out, that RIDE tells parents there is no prep necessary but telling teachers otherwise, it all feels very shady, a way to create statistics that have no connection to actual learning. The most telling, and I think important, graph in the paper was the one that showed school morale during testing time. That should tell you all you need to know about the tests' effects on a school community.
SO WHAT. NOW WHAT?
So what now? If the concept of standards are important and make sense, how to we measure students' performance of the standards? If standardized testing isn't the answer, how do we create something that is fair and accurate, won't demoralize an entire school community, and is useful to educators? I have no idea. I can not separate the reality of the discrepancies between high and low-income schools, and the respective connection to test performance. I do not know if there is a panacea for the problem that is standardized testing, or if the fixes will happen on a much smaller scale. I DO know, however, that without the input of educators, the solution will be much harder to find.
After reading both the NCTE standards and the Common Core standards, I'm once again reminded that they are not so unreasonable. As a parent with an elementary and middle schooler, the general sentiment among parents is that standards are the enemy--or rather, that COMMON CORE is the enemy. I've always disagreed with that blanket statement, and re-reading the standards reminds me that it is indeed not only reasonable to expect kids to know most of what they are asking for, but if every parent read them, they'd probably assume this was already happening, and be totally on board with it.
One concept appears again and again in the standards, and that is that a student should be able to "synthesize" text. This is something I'm eager to learn how to teach--teaching students to be critical thinkers, to make connections between their texts and to the world around them is clearly vitally important. It seems, however, that teaching critical thinking and the synthesis of information is easier said than done. In the 4-8 standards specifically, I was reminded of my last post, getting students to think about their audience when writing (this is also part of the NCTE standards). Additionally, I'm reminded of the necessity to give students the opportunity to write often.
The standards are clear and make sense. So why are there such bad feelings among parents when Common Core standards are brought up? My feeling is that parents connect standards with standardized testing. While I understand that there is a connection between the standards themselves and the tests, the actual implementation of the test, and how it is written and perceived by schools and students is negligible at best. The Johnson/Richer text illustrates pretty clearly the frustration felt by teachers and families.
THE STANDARDIZED TESTS
I was struck, at first, by the notion that the educators themselves are not given the chance to give their perspective on the test. Some of the practical problems with the test were some I had not even considered--like the fact that elementary students aren't fluent enough with typing to be able to successfully type a story for the test. Add to that the fact that a pencil-and-paper option is only available to students with accommodations on a 504 plan.
As a parent, I have seen my kids' teachers adjust their regular curriculum to prepare students for the PARCC test. the first six weeks of my son's fourth grade year were spent preparing for a test in October. That was literally all of the instruction. The school's test scores were a little better than average--but those results speak more to their ability to take the test than to any of their achievement of any of the standards.
As a fan of data analysis, I would understand the argument that test scores can help educators fine tune their curriculum, if the scores reveal dificiencies in specific areas. But as the paper states, the data comes too late to be actually be useful.
Add to this the notion that administrators are punishing teachers who are telling students about the choice to opt-out, that RIDE tells parents there is no prep necessary but telling teachers otherwise, it all feels very shady, a way to create statistics that have no connection to actual learning. The most telling, and I think important, graph in the paper was the one that showed school morale during testing time. That should tell you all you need to know about the tests' effects on a school community.
SO WHAT. NOW WHAT?
So what now? If the concept of standards are important and make sense, how to we measure students' performance of the standards? If standardized testing isn't the answer, how do we create something that is fair and accurate, won't demoralize an entire school community, and is useful to educators? I have no idea. I can not separate the reality of the discrepancies between high and low-income schools, and the respective connection to test performance. I do not know if there is a panacea for the problem that is standardized testing, or if the fixes will happen on a much smaller scale. I DO know, however, that without the input of educators, the solution will be much harder to find.
I agree that refusing to take advice from teachers is ridiculous! How are they going to improve parts of the PARCC test if the facilitators have no idea what reaction they're getting from students? I also thought that school morale plummeting was the most important statistic. If students aren't happy, no one is and that makes for an unproductive school. Great post!
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting to hear from not only a future educator but a parent of students who are involved in the PARCC testing. Honestly, I have only heard pretty negative things about it- I took NECAPs throughout high school, and it is so upsetting to think this is the future of testing in our schools.
ReplyDelete