New Readicide strand: how is testing harming our students and what can we do about it?

[Kelly Gallagher]

Because the first strand is getting long, I will start a couple of new ones.

In this strand let's continue the discussion about the harmful effects of testing and what we can do to turn the tide.

It seems many teachers intuitively know that the over-emphasis on testing is not good for kids, but these same teachers are also under a lot of pressure to raise scores. Thoughts? Solutions? Approaches?

[Kelly Gallagher]

It is interesting this hasn't generated discussion yet. Is it because we don't agree that over-testing is occurring? Or are we at a loss as to how to take a stand against the testing? Or is the topic too overwhelming? Or?????

[Alan Sitomer]

Kelly, my gut feeling for the diminished discussion about this topic is that I suspect that over-testing is simply egregiously self-evident and people are burned out from chiming in about it. (I know I almost didn't respond. Been there, done that.) It's like the rude uncle at Thanksgiving. After years and years of him being drunk, impolite and pretty much unwelcomed, when he shows up now people just roll their eyes and hope to move on and save what they can of a good dinner. But we all know there comes a point at which he's gonna muck things up.

Truly, so much has already been said, so many words have already been spent complaining, whining and moaning -- but "they" are not listening... and still we test and test and test. Now, I think we are more interested in looking at ways of subversion, ways to ensure readicide doesn't occur in light of the fact that it is so blatantly part of public education policy in the U.S. right now. People want to chat about the ways they can be effective because learned helplessness about fighting against these tests has set in.

The fact is, ETS owns our ass. So harsh but so true. And our nation of thoughtful teachers is simply crying "Uncle!" It's not even a battle in this day and age. The bubble tests have won and until the vice grip of this 500 million dollar a year testing industry is broken, most of us feel like dystopian widgets in a poorly written Orwell novel saying to ourselves, "Naw, this can't be happening."

But it is, right under the noses of America's best and brightest and most passionate and articulate teachers. But since we are not at the table when these national policy decisions are being made (it's true, actual K-12 classroom teachers are almost extinct from policy discussion about K-12 education; it's all PhD.'s who don't have to go actually teach the crap they peddle) we are resigned and demoralized about the over-testing.

[Kelly Gallagher]

I am still laughing at your drunk uncle metaphor.

I agree on the vice grip hold of ETS and others. But why can't ETS maintain its grip with a more authentic test? I think the testing companies will give the test the policymakers demand---and multiple choice is demanded because it's cheap, it's easy to score, and it produces scores for the newspaper to print. I think economics are in play. I also think politics are in play...but before I open that can of worms, I have to prepare for school...

[Julie Pennabaker]

Kelly,
What do you think an authentic test would look like? At my district, we have to give a beginning of the year, middle of the year, and end of the year benchmark assessment (modeled after the Pennsylvania State Reading Assessment). The students also take a similar benchmark in social studies, science, and math.
According to our leadership, the state of Pennsylvania is requiring school to implement this practice. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on how to make this requirement as meaningful as possible.

[Kelly Gallagher]

The test should be aligned to the curriculum and should require students to move beyond memorization and into analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating. Remember WYTIWYG ("witty-wig"): What You Test Is What You Get.

For me, this means it needs to have a writing component (if you are assessing reading).

[Don Klever]

Testing is the cookie cutter of education. By teaching to the tests we create a culture of sameness. It is insipidly Orwellian, but because it comes under the guise of accountability, we will create a generation of automatons who can do many "things" in a mediocre fashion. It is sad to see students who work very hard in the classroom, are vibrant contributors, and possess a work ethic worthy of praise not pass these tests by a couple of points, then doubt themselves. These students show creativity and heart, too. But tests can measure none of these. It is our job to create worthy human beings who can think critically and be generous with others and their ideas. State tests are almost antithetical to that. Wait...I have another batch of coming out of the "oven."

[Fred Haas]

I definitely believe that testing is a contributing factor to killing love of reading. For one, tests drive a lot of instruction, and often create dubious limitations to how material is to be read and used. They can make reading little more than utilitarian exercise and reduce proficiency to lowest common denominators. Moreover, reading and writing are inextricably intertwined and many standardized tests require very little writing, and what writing they do demand is typically formulaic.

My school is currently engaged in an ongoing effort to foster a reading culture in our high school, with mixed results. As an English teacher of a lot of ninth grade students, my fellow colleagues and I have been trying to re-envision our curriculum to emphasize material that is interesting for students and gives them choices, but it is not easy. Some of the problems are money, some of it seems like it is only an English department imperative, and some of it is that leadership and direction has yet to clearly emerge. Yet, we are beginning to create shift but it traction is slow to take hold.

The one strategy that seems to have worked to foster better reading and enjoyment more than any other is giving students class time to read. It has resulted in more students actually reading, rather than faking it. Plus, while hard to quantify, they are more receptive to the possibility of liking the books.

[glenda funk]

"It seems many teachers intuitively know that the over-emphasis on testing is not good for kids, but these same teachers are also under a lot of pressure to raise scores. Thoughts? Solutions? Approaches?"

Random thought1: When we speak about the over-emphasis on testing, the general concensus seems to define "over-emphasis on testing" in terms of state-mandated tests given to meet AYP, but I wonder whether or not--at times--this testing mindset is harming even AP students. Is it normal for an AP L&C class to read only two novels (read: books) in a year? I know of such a course, and on a personal note, I remember my first college English course (six credit hours, eight papers, and can't remember how many books). The experience did not instill a love of reading in me.

In contrast, for whatever reason, my eighth grade teacher would have our class vote on the books we read as a class. We would read TAB, make nominations based on the descriptions, vote, order the books and read them. We read "Willard," as in Michal Jackson's "Ben," the theme song to the movie. I loved reading in this environment and still count some of the books among my favorites, "Sounder," and "The Witch of Blackbird Pond," for example. These texts were our academic reading! Interestingly, that eighth grade English class was academically challenging.

Random Thought 2: In my district administrators are not allowed to use test scores as a criterion for evaluating teachers. At present, I teach juniors and seniors, so I don't have the testing issue. When I did teach ninth ant tenth grades (the test-takers), I simply ignored the test as much as possible. I'd alreading been teaching 20 years when G.W. and "No Child Left Behind" crashed the party. I saw no reason to "teach to the test" when I already made reading and writing the most important concerns in my classroom. A beautiful thing happened: The counselor coordinating the testing consistently told me that my students had the highest pass rate.

Random Thought 3: Teachers, I think, fear being accused of not wanting to be held accountable for what we do, so many say nothing. A solution--in part--is alreading occuring in my state: lack of funding. The silver lining in the dark economic cloud is that the state can't pay for all the testing it wants. Too bad! Now only sophomores are tested, and their testing ends once they pass the test in the fall.

[Kelly Gallagher]

I have a very high pass rate as well, and I do very little test prep. As I say in Readicide, if you teach students to read and write well, they'll do fine on the test. But if you only teach students to take tests, they will never read and write well.

And no, I do not think it is normal (or healthy) that students only read two books in an AP class---or any class, for that matter.

[Nancy Patterson]

There are a number of alarming things happening in elementary schools in the name of reading. One of them is DIBELS, something that assesses students' phonemic awareness. In order to get students better at DIBELS, students go through drills that ask them to "read" nonsense syllables quickly. The quicker the better. The assumption is that is students can read nonsense syllables quickly, they can decode, and therefore read. Whole reading programs in my area are based on DIBELS drill. I cannot tell you how many of my grad students announce to me that their district "has adopted DIBELS." Imagine the mind-numbing boredom of this. And imagine the amount of time they spend NOT actually reading. So, when middle and high school teachers ask students to read and reflect, and students have experienced reading as a series of discrete skills, there may be a disconnect. Readicide isn't just an issue with older students.

[Debbie Merritt]

Kelly,

Thanks for posting this new strand. I just read six pages of comments on the first strand and my head was exploding with all of my responses. I'll just focus on testing this time as there will most likely be other opportunities for those other responses to make their way to the surface.

Let me start by stating that I teach 8th graders in Texas, where 8th grade is a pass-the-test-or-fail-the year grade. This is the second year of the 8th Grade Student Success Initiative in which all 8th graders are given up to three opportunities each to pass both the reading and math tests. (These are not the only tests they are required to take just the only ones that can keep them out of high school.) As if that wasn't pressure enough, my school failed to meet AYP last year and needed to raise the reading scores of certain groups of students. We also fell under an incentive grant that required individual teachers to show improvement in their scores over last year.

Last year, I didn't make too many changes in the way I taught reading and my students were quite successful. However, I am chagrined to admit that this year I succumbed to the stress and pressure after sitting through 20 Grade Placement Committee meetings during the summer to decide whether students who had not passed after three tries would be retained as 8th graders.

This year, determined that none of my new students would suffer such a fate, I made many changes in my instruction. I have always encouraged reading for pleasure and I continued to give my students time and opportunities each day for this pursuit. However, my academic reading instruction changed drastically. In the past, I had always tried to use many varied, authentic, high-interest pieces of literature coupled with a variety of methods to teach my students literary analysis. This year I focused on short pieces only and repeated strategic lessons to get the skills across. Now that the results are back and I am able to think more clearly, I realize that I taught no novels this year! What's worse is that I am not the only one! The other 8th grade teachers either taught no novels or one novel (after testing was administered). We have discussed this atrocity and I am currently planning novel studies for next year. I am ashamed that all of the testing pressure caused me to make choices against my pedagogical beliefs.

My colleagues and I have decided that when we plan our lessons next year we will consider the state tests (we have no choice) but add those requirements to what we know our students need as life-long learners. It is so easy to bow down to the powers that be, especially when stakes are so high for students and teachers, but I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror and know I did what was best for these kids as people, not just as data.

[Kelly Gallagher]

Thanks for sharing. Isn't interesting how we are more clearly able to recognize the pressures we are under when then year is over and we come up for air? I discuss in Readicide thte dangers we do to brain development when kids are not challenged by longer works----but I think that is in Chapter 3 (next week's discussion).