Why is "teaching to the test" bad?

[Tabrett]

.....if it is the material that a child is supposed to learn in that state and school district, why is it bad?

 

Don't we all "teach to the test"? If we give a dc a test on the end of a math unit, didn't we just teach to the test?

 

Do the "tests" not reflect the states yearly standards?

[angela in ohio]

You can see my mini-rant about this in the other thread. :D

 

Basically, it is a top-down method of enforcing standards within the schools. I don't believe in this method necessarily, but I do understand the purpose in the current educational climate.

[lionfamily1999]

Take a look at the state of Virginia's SOLs. The "test" covers so much that there's no room for exploration, if you know what I mean.

 

When we "teach to the test" at the end of the unit, that test is designed with the unit in mind. When teachers are stuck "teaching to the test" in an SOL situation, the test is created FIRST and they have to figure out how to cover every question asked. Rather than saying, this year we'll learn about the Ancients and then making a test that goes over what was covered; you start with a test and build the class to match it. That means there's less of the inbetween info (things that are not on the test, but useful to know).

[oldskool]

What bothered me about the teach to the test method is that the chosen things to be tested are often random. For example, I wondered why in my daughters 4th grade class there was this huge emphasis on Jackie Robinson that went well beyond just learning a few facts. Well lo and behold there was a reading comprehension section on our state test that was about Jackie Robinson. Now I understand his contributions to history, but within the context of human history I felt the amount of time that was spent learning about one individual just so the kids could do well on one part of the test was not right. To me this is not providing a well rounded education and if education is done right children will be able to negotiate multiple topics without necessarily having first hand knowledge of a particular topic. I think teaching to the test is different than teaching to a test. If state standards are followed then a child should be able to do reasonably well on any test that reflects those standards. But I think it has come down to teachers needing the students at a school to pass the one test because of the implications that will follow if they don't pass. This then means that a lot is left out of teaching plans to focus on just that one test. But...that is just a reflection of my experience within our district and may not be what other schools do.

 

Lesley

[Sandra in FL]

I don't subscribe to teaching to the test. I use IOWA/FCAT as diagnostic tools to track areas of weakness.

 

I do believe that for SAT/ACT, one must practice the tests (especially the SAT). To not do so puts dc at a disadvantage as one can learn the test and others are prepping (sometime a lot).

[NanceXToo]

Well the REASON they teach to the test is because they are basically under threat that if the kids don't do well enough on particular subjects (most especially language arts and math) on the tests, the school district who didn't score as well as expected could suffer negative consequences (less funding, teachers being fired and so on).

 

As a result, the teachers are forced to focus almost exclusively on the things that will be on the test.

 

Because of this, great, so they push language arts and math- but they DON'T get to spend as much time on other subjects (science, history, the arts and other extra-curriculars). The teachers don't get as much freedom to teach more creatively or to allow for a child's individuality or to teach a well-rounded curriculum in ways they otherwise might have, and I think that children's educations suffer because of that. Interesting, important things are left out because they're not on the test and therefore nobody has time for them. And from what I've heard, the teachers' morale suffers due to this, too.

 

The kids are also stressed out because the all-importance of "The Test" is stressed SO much that kids (including my daughter when she was in public school in third grade) are getting nervous, stressed out, worried, suffering from frequent stomach aches and so on, and it's just not fair to them.

[Ginevra]

.....if it is the material that a child is supposed to learn in that state and school district, why is it bad?

 

I think this a lot, too.

 

I agree that there are poor educational methods out there that are overly focused on how the grades come out, but that phrase never made much sense to me as a negative.

 

I teach my child to multiply fractions and then it's on the test. He knows it when it's on the test because he learned it when I taught it. Don't really see the problem there.

[AuntieM]

Teaching to the test can mean teaching EXCLUSIVELY to the test. This undermines pursuing a student's specific interest/area of giftedness. In group settings, it doesn't take into account a student's need for different pacing in different subject areas.

 

Personally, I don't mind some standards for the 3R's starting about seventh grade. But what is labeled social studies? Nah....

[Photo Ninja]

Testing what a student has been taught is fine. That can be a method to evaluate whether or not the student has learned the material.

 

Teaching to the test is completely different. The test is developed, then instructors teach what will be on the test. Too often the test has become so important to schools, the state, and sometimes teachers if they are being evaluated based on how well students score, that the only material that is taught during that school year is what will be on the test. Math is limited to what will be on the test, English is limited to what will be on the test. Science? Sorry, not on the test, so there is not time to teach science and do experiments because there is a focus on math and English, which ARE on the test. Art? Sorry, no time to teach art because it is not on the test and we can't take away from time that could be used to teach what will be on the test. History? Well, there is time for some social studies, but only what will be on the test. So the student learns about a few historical persons, but not about others from the same time period because there won't be questions on the test about those people.

 

So teaching to the test limits a student's learning. Instead of a broad, general education, the student gets a narrow, limited course of study. If it is not on the test, the student won't be taught it.

 

One example. A middle school locally taught students to write compare/contrast essays. All year, the only type of essays the English courses taught were compare/contrast. The students were capable of writing this type of essay when the test came around. This is the type of essay that was going to be on the all important year end test that year, and the school wanted students to score well. So the test day came, and there was an essay required, but it was not a compare/contrast essay. The school as a whole scored very low in composition because the students were only taught to write a compare/contrast essay. They were not taught the type of essay that was actually on the test. Parents were angry that their dc had not been taught to write better (and rightfully so). Teachers blamed the administrators for telling them the wrong type of essay that would be on the test. Administrators blamed someone at the state level for giving them wrong information. No one looked at the real problem - the teachers only taught to the test (or what they thought would be on the test). Had they taught students to write a variety of essays - compare/contrast, narrative, persuasive, etc., then the students would have been prepared to write any essay required by the test. The students would have been taught a variety of writing skills instead of a very narrow focus on only one type of essay. This is just one example of how teaching to the test can result in a limited, narrow education.

[idnib]

Just throwing this out there...

 

At a fundamental level it seems like these problems could be remedied by making the test broader (include art, more history, science, etc.) and by not telling the schools specifically what will be on the test (ie "essays" not "compare/contrast essays").

 

Is the problem really testing, or is it telling everyone pretty much what's going to be on the test that year?

 

:confused:

[Farrar]

As I wrote in the other thread, I think that teaching to the test can lead to kids spending weeks or months worth of class time doing test prep instead of learning. What I mean is that kids spend all their time learning how to figure out the answer from the phrasing of the question or how to guess when you don't actually know. They drill the same sorts of questions over and over and over until kids get better at doing multiple choice. But if they were to be asked to have a conversation about the topic of the test or to write about it or practice the knowledge in a new way - like using the math to add up a grocery bill - they would be stumped. It's just pathetic.

 

I also have a problem with the way the tests are written. Some people say NCLB is not just no child left behind, but no child will get ahead either. When I was teaching history in public high school (I didn't last at it because of this issue), some of my honors students had trouble with a particular question about John Locke because I had actually made them *read* excerpts from Locke's writings and the simplistic multiple choice options on the test were so vague that having a more in depth knowledge of Locke's philosophy HURT them in trying to figure out what they meant. These kids could have discussed it. They could have written about it. But the multiple choice format? It was just so poorly written. This is not to say that you can't have a well-written multiple choice test about history (the AP tests are pretty good - they're specific and stick to facts, not interpretations for that portion of the test) but that wasn't it.

 

I also question who gets to decide what information kids should learn. I think there's a lot out there you should know. However, a lot of it is more like the sort of thing where you should read some of the books and know some of the names and ideas. No student can know every single thing. But the tests have to find something to test, so they have to pick out specific books, specific names and specific dates or events. You could know a lot of things, but not know the one thing on the test and suddenly you're out. Plus, there's such a political element to it. In Virginia, I taught classes full of black and Latino kids who got more exposure to white US history than to African or Latin American history in a WORLD history class. I find that deeply wrong.

 

I also think it's no child shall get ahead because the tests are so focused that teachers are afraid to explore more in depth subjects, even with gifted students who they're pretty sure will do well anyway. But to do anything above and beyond might hurt the test scores by taking away test prep time. I mean "enrichment" things like art and music but also things like learning more advanced science or reading more literature or just adding to the basic knowledge of an academic class.

 

Then there's the idea that these tests, especially at the primary level, put all kids on the same schedule. Research shows us that there is a range of appropriate ages for kids to learn skills - but these tests don't allow for that.

 

Research is showing us as well that this heavy test prep in the primary grades WEARS OFF after about 8th grade. Sure, you get those 4th grade reading scores up, but we don't keep kids reading and they lose the supposed advantage by middle school.

 

Okay, I'll stop ranting. Test prep. Ugh. I'm all for good tests, but the schools need better metrics and more varied metrics to measure student learning.

[lionfamily1999]

Just throwing this out there...

 

At a fundamental level it seems like these problems could be remedied by making the test broader (include art, more history, science, etc.) and by not telling the schools specifically what will be on the test (ie "essays" not "compare/contrast essays").

 

Is the problem really testing, or is it telling everyone pretty much what's going to be on the test that year?

 

:confused:

In VA, it's how specific the tests are, really the SOLs are rediculous. They might as well write the curriculum to go with them.:glare:

[Farrar]

Just throwing this out there...

 

At a fundamental level it seems like these problems could be remedied by making the test broader (include art, more history, science, etc.) and by not telling the schools specifically what will be on the test (ie "essays" not "compare/contrast essays").

 

Is the problem really testing, or is it telling everyone pretty much what's going to be on the test that year?

 

:confused:

 

But the broader you make it, the less depth teachers can cover. Plus, the more you add to it, the more political that information tends to get. A list of composers can become an argument over diversity, for example. And if you allow for all the names, then you get the issue where a teacher might teach about many of the topics and names yet not the ones that end up on the test. Her students end up scoring low on music while the teacher who drilled all the names but didn't have her kids listen to any music scores high.

[Zann]

The most detrimental thing about "Teaching to the Test" is that it does not develop the brain of our children in the proper manner.

 

In WTM and other sources on the Trivium its paramount to teach things in a manner that can be linked.

Quoting from WTM "All knowledge is interrelated. Astronomy, for example isn't studied in isolation; it's learned along with the history of scientific discovery, which leads into the church's relationship to science and from there to the intricacies of medieval church history."

 

This interrelating of facts at the grammar stage does more than just put facts in our children's mind it develops crucial neural pathways in the brain that will serve our children once they move to the logic stage. The knowledge we teach is a ends to a mean. The real task of the Trivium is to develop the brains pathways. The Grammar stage provides our child's brain with the foundational pathways that will grow and deepen as they expand to the Logic stage, from there we have grown the brain to a fact filled interrelated logic machine, next the Rhetoric stage in which our child learns to speak with force and originality. " He applies the rules of logic to the foundational information from the Grammar stage and expresses their conclusions in clear, forceful, elegant language."

 

Teaching to the test lacks the ability to develop the needed pathways in our child's mind.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Zann

[Jamee]

As I wrote in the other thread, I think that teaching to the test can lead to kids spending weeks or months worth of class time doing test prep instead of learning. What I mean is that kids spend all their time learning how to figure out the answer from the phrasing of the question or how to guess when you don't actually know. They drill the same sorts of questions over and over and over until kids get better at doing multiple choice. But if they were to be asked to have a conversation about the topic of the test or to write about it or practice the knowledge in a new way - like using the math to add up a grocery bill - they would be stumped. It's just pathetic.

 

 

 

Exactly, I've seen teachers, who a couple weeks before the test, go on massive "review" mode. They're suddenly throwing all kinds of stuff out there making sure they get everything covered, dropping any other subjects that don't comply. I think this is especially so with math, where all of a sudden the homework coming home is a different aspect all together: fractions one day, then a bunch of geometry, how to do this function or that.:tongue_smilie: (All multiple choice, fill in the bubble type work too) It also doesn't help that when the tests are taken, the texts are not completed so naturally the student hasn't seen everything that will be on the test.

[Pretty in Pink]

ETA: Nevermind. I thought I was posting in the original 'teaching to the test thread'. I didn't realize this was a s/o.

[Kates]

I think the danger is two-fold:

 

1) "Teaching to the test" has become so overwhelming in today's NCLB, "you didn't do well, so you won't get funding" society. Quite frankly, I don't want some random test-writer deciding what my child will learn, as they've never met him and probably don't have a day of classroom teaching experience under their belts. It's his teacher's job to determine what he needs to learn at various developmental levels, and to figure out how to teach it to him. Making testing the basis for funding pretty much ties a teacher's hands, to the point where all they're allowed to do is drill their kids, all year, specifically to pass some silly test.

 

My parents recently retired from teaching after more than 30 years each of doing so, both of them being National Board Certified teachers. This was by far their main complaint - they're extremely well qualified to do what they do, but they're not allowed to do it. And quite frankly, it's the kids that suffer because of it.

 

2) Teaching to the test doesn't allow a teacher to teach their students the skills that they need at each developmental level - instead, it reduces them to having to shove content into the kids at every given moment and drill them on test-taking tips. Otherwise, their school suffers for it.

 

This hurts the kids. Instead of learning how to analyze and react to information, it just plain never enters their mind that they should do so. They just inhale it and spit it back out. Ideas? Heck, ideas are reduced to the level of "what should we do Friday night?" because they often don't get to come into contact with anything beyond that.

 

I've seen some of the resources and talked with teachers at some of our local schools, and I'm honestly kind of horrified at what the kids are having to be taught. The lit is dumbed down (8th and 9th graders are analyzing Holes and having a hard time with it), the math is remedial for everyone except the gifted track, and AP classes are at the level of my regular classes in high school...and the kids are graduating, having no idea how to deal with the decisions that will face them later in life. (Well, the maybe 70% that see a point in graduating, anyway.)

 

IMO, this is the danger of having to teach to the test. Tests are meant to evaluate what you've learned (both content and skills), not to determine WHAT you will have to learn.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Kates