 |
| http://herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/education/curricula/teachtest.html |
Teaching to the Test
Teachers and principals at all levels of education have become obsessed with test scores. It seems that the only way to measure a student’s worth, a teacher’s ability to teach or a school’s effectiveness is with standardized test scores or the number of students who can pass AP exams. Has the education system gone too far in encouraging a competition between schools and unintentionally left the best interest of students behind?
Since the third grade, I have had to take state issued assessments. Since then, I have learned that the entire year is basically a TAKS study session. If I didn’t pass the test, I didn’t pass the year, a point that drove teachers into a frenzy trying to prepare us for every possible question that could be on the test that year. Unfortunately, by narrowing the scope of our studies, teachers are essentially limiting our education by dedicating way too much time to test preparation. One teacher explained to my class the hierarchy of tests during a time when we were overwhelmed by the multitude of tests in our near future. The TAKS test is at the very bottom of the totem pole, representing a level of understanding that pretty much means we’ve actually shown up to class that year. The End of Course exams (EOCs) are the next level, showing that we not only have been paying attention but that we also have a basic understanding of the topics associated with a certain subject. Above that is Laying the Foundation (LTF), the supposed basis of our curriculum, which has questions a few levels above what students are expected to actually know. So why, if it is the very minimum of what we should know, do we focus so much on preparation for TAKS?
In a completely different category, at least at BETA, are the AP exams. A high rate of students taking and passing AP exams reflect well on the school. Therefore, everyone is given incentives to take them. Students get extra weight added onto their GPAs just for sitting through an exam and $100 for each exam they pass with a three or higher and teachers get $100 for each of their students who pass. Should this form of bribery be accepted because it hypothetically leads to success or should it be abhorred for turning knowledge into some sort of business proposition? Either way, the real issue is what effect these incentives have on both students and teachers. It seems as if they increase the chances of teachers giving more attention to those that show potential instead of those who are struggling as they try to increase the chances of having a passing student rather than worrying about leaving others behind. On the other hand, students seem to generally view the effort it takes to pass an AP test as being much more valuable than $100. Instead, they tend to sign up for the tests, pay and put absolutely no effort into it, the only true motivation for them being the weight for their GPAs. This being the case, were these students ever really trying to learn or were they just skidding along with the added cushion of a weight boost for their grades?
Although the response to the pressure to have good test scores varies with each person, either student or teacher, the possibility of how bad and counterproductive it could be is scary. We are in danger of making tests the prime objective of school and sacrificing learning as a result. As much as I enjoy being able to brag about my school being exemplary or having a certain number of AP Scholars, I have to wonder who is really benefiting from these achievements.
