Testing: Too much of a "good?" thing

I am an educator and have been for over 30 years, but I am very unhappy about the future of education because of the fixation with test scores, test scores, and more test scores. Of course we need accountability in our schools. Principals and their staff must be accountable to the parents paying taxes to support education; however, the testing mania has gone too far. Witness the number of schools and personnel who have gotten into serious ethical trouble by "adjusting" student answers on state and standardized tests. Just recently the state of Florida lower the passing score on their FCAT tests because not enough students were passing. That's like raising the speed limits on the highways so that not as many people would be killed by those going over a safe speed limit. Another reprecussion affects students directly. Students need and are not getting the regular recess and lunch time play that they used to have just 15 years ago. Little kids are just that, kids. It's their job to learn, surely, but it's also their job to play, exercise, and just plain have some fun before they become burdened with adult responsibility. Even high school students need the health advantages that daily exercise brings. Both physical and mental health are aided by a good workout, whether it be playing basketball, soccer, or just hanging out talking with friends before the go back into those classrooms. In those rooms, they will be made to be quiet and listen to the teacher telling them how important it is that they pass the tests the state requires for graduation. Isn't the child obesity problem in our country, in part, a result of lack of exercise? Now, I know that this is not the whole reason for overweight kids. Technology, sitting by a computer, lying on a sofa using a tablet, smartphone, or game machine must receive some blame. I believe in technology as a useful tool in the educational process, but it has been overused as a crutch in many schools, just as video and filmstrips were back in the old days of schooling. Another harmful effect of testing as a way of life is related to curricular matters. Many art, music, and other fine arts courses are being eliminated from the day for many students. Ironically it's the students who need help academically who lose the fine arts classes becuase they are given an extra period of math and/or reading to help them pass the tests. Kids who need motivation to even come to school and be ready to learn are losing those courses they might come to school and enjoy--band, chorus, drawing. Instead they are given another hour of the subject they really don't like because they are not good at it, whether it be math or reading. The solution lies in the instructional methods, not the time. Doing the same thing twice as long, if it's not the right thing, will not help the student learn better. It will frustrate him/her and make kids hate the subject even more. Plus, kids are supposed to be well-rounded and enjoy school, learn about fine arts in case that is a strength they possess. Often teachers will never know if a students is gifted in art because they won't let the kids have the time to explore that as an option. Testing as a way of life is a major contributor to this curricular challenge educators now face. This phenomenon is connected to the "good tests scores or get fired" mandate principals face today. Schools adopt sometimes very expensive materials that use computers and educational software to teach the specific skills and knowledge students need to pass the state tests. The teacher is just walking around watching the kids so they don't get on Facebook instead of doing the programmed instruction the school paid thousands of dollars. Even the high school students who are sitting in a chair working a physics problem on the computer could be actively going around the school building measuring and using physics to build pulleys and boats that float. They would get the exercise they need, work together in groups, and they will remember what they learned because of the fun they had doing it. Now I love technology, and I'd be an early adopter for many hardware items if I could afford them all. But too much is too much. Research tells us that young people's brains are getting rewired to allow them the ability to multitask as they do now with a phone for texting, tablet, computer, television (usually on the computer), and doing their homework at the same time, while checking Facebook as needed. Sadly the research also shows that what students learn while they are multitasking is not retained anywhere near the levels it could be if they were concentrating on just the information on the test they were studied, or the paper they were writing. Though technology is partial the problem, it is very much a helpful tool and solution to many of education's problems. The real culprit is the extreme obsessive focus on test scores that drives principals and teachers to cheat for students on tests in order to keep their jobs; that forces teachers to focus on the skills and facts needed to past the test rather than on making the subject interesting by giving students fun and interesting motivational lessons that allow them to work in cooperative groups and seek their own methods of learning.

Teaching: a 3 year career step to greatness

The new superintendent of schools is slated to become the state superintendent of education at only 35 years old. This is typical of a system that now allows teacher to be twelve, principals to be 17, and superintendents to be 25. Okay, he's 35, but still times have changed. For the better, yes, in some ways. If he stays and learned, he may really do some good for the city and the state of Louisiana.

Teaching: a 3 year career step to greatness

It has become increasingly obvious to me that most teachers are 12 years old. Or they look that young to me because of my age. As a retired educator, I find myself wondering what is happening to the profession. Now I am not one to resist new ideas, new technologies, or new instructional methods. In fact I would have the latest instructional technology in every school for kids and teachers to use. No, what I am referring to, flabbergasted by is the thought that teaching is a short-lived profession the way tennis or gymnastics is for athletes. A common belief among educational organizations run in a business model manner is that young professional can teach for about 3 or 4 years before they get burned out, too old for the job, and then pursue their real careers as attorneys, doctors, or even educational consultants. I find this ridiculous. Charter schools run by for-profit institutions are especially guilty based on my observations of the past 5 months in New Orleans. Katrina may have been the major catalyst in the preponderance of charters, but the private organizations running some schools contributed to this new phenomenon as well. Teachers used to begin work and learn for at least 3 years before they were thought to be able to enhance and adjust curriculum and instructional techniques based on that experience in the classroom. If you are over 35 with 10 years teaching experience, you are thought to be too old, too set in your ways to be effective in the 21st century classroom. Now, I realize that some teachers are bad, no matter how many years experience they have had because they practiced wrong strategies for too many years. However many teachers learned new and better methods, adjusted and learned to use new technologies in their curriculum, and they, most importantly, learned a thing or two about children. We all took the requisite 3 hour child psychology course to get our certification, but that was only the beginning of learning about kids, how they think, what they think, and what they want from the adults surrounding them in schools. The experience of working with children for 10 or even 20 years is not something a new teacher gets in the 3 days of inservice for "new teachers." Mostly they learn what forms to use, how to get online to post their grades, and whether or not they have lunch duty the first week of school. That is, if they are listening at all. Okay, not fair, in fact, that comment is addressed as much to the poor presenters some school administrators are rather than the new teachers. They are not bad people, and their young vibrant enthusiasm for teaching is good for the students. Plus they are used to the newer technologies available in the classroom and beyond. Many are recruited from Teach for America and other valuable organizations that help fill classrooms with teachers. They agree to teach for at least 2 years and are set free at that point. The fact that they will leave the classroom is built into the agreement they make with the recruiting organization. They get about 6 weeks or less of training, have at least a bachelors' degree in something and are ready to teach, at least for 2 years. Teaching is a stepping stone to their real career, and they are happy 12 year old campers.