Every summer, I revamp my curriculum. It’s not that I don’t already have a curriculum that works, but every year I can think of things I’d like to do differently or did something differently the past year that I’d like to do again. This summer, my general goal is to continue to improve the continuity and flow from one unit to the next. I don’t know that it’s strictly necessary, but in my vision for it, if I can better establish my root ideas and build on them all year through multiple project based opportunities, my students will see connections that they can take with them to any classroom (more on that later). I also want to build smoother integration of testing techniques into the structure of each unit so that while my students are getting a good education, they will be also be preparing for the high stakes test that they take in May. This may be a bit more problematic.
On principle I am opposed to teaching to the test. But, who in public school (correction: in English or Math) can afford to ignore high stakes testing? To start with, high stakes is an understatement. Our tests are more of an all in, everything on red to win gamble that what benefits McGraw Hill will also benefit our students. But that’s another story.
What makes it high stakes for communities is that student performance on a single test in Math and English doesn’t just evaluate their understanding; it determines the reputation of their community, decides the value of their parents’ property, and impacts the job security of their teachers and principals. It increases the amount of time spent teaching to tests and limits access to an enriched, inquiry based curriculum in schools with a substantial high needs population. So, the kids who have the greatest reason to opt out of school have the least access to the kinds of curriculum that might build a future or spark lifetime interests. It also intensifies class based conflicts within systems. Affluent parents have less reason to live in communities with a high needs population if having higher need neighbors increases emphasize on the test and decreases access to a more enriched, nuanced curriculum. High stakes? It’s Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery comes to life. Each year, the State gathers around armed with stones masquerading as tests while we sacrifice the accomplishments, love of learning, inquiry, and creativity of our children and risk the lives and properity of everyone we know on the altar of data. It’s insanity masking as a standard.
I should be focusing on what I plan to do next year… there was this other thing (curriculum) I had in mind…. but the test seems to have the upper hand. I’m sure that from an outsider point of view there is nothing so terrible about insuring that students are ready for a test. Isn’t it all just about literacy? If we were all good teachers, wouldn’t they do well on the tests? One would think so, but there’s a lot of ground to cover between idea and implementation (something that the high influence low expertise crowd doesn’t realize each time they fail to take their simple, elegant, wrong ideas to fruition).
For one thing, the bull’s eye is constantly moving… whether it’s change in format, content, time allotted, how it’s reported, where the cut scores are, how it’s administered, or when we give it… something is always changing. This year heralds a new secrecy. We were told that we’re not to speak about the contents of the test, even to each other in private. Does this mean that we can no longer analyze the test as a department or use it to inform our instruction? Are we just not to talk about specific questions on the test or are we constrained against talking generally about types of information that might be on a subsequent test? And, what about field tests? Are we allowed to talk about those? What if, for instance, a field test for future 7th graders had 8th grade material on it, would we be allowed to say so among colleagues so they could prepare students or would that be inside information? In previous years, we could build test prep material and create formative assessments from past tests. No longer. Is this someone’s idea about how to keep the tests secure? Is that because they plan to use the test over again? Do they want us to rely on McGraw Hill for all our test prep needs? And speaking about conflicts of interest…. are the tests are high stake enough that politicians or hedge fund investors might have a vested interest in performance… in which direction? One wonders with all the power players vying for control of the vast public education purse strings: who benefits and how?
I don’t know. I’m only preparing my classroom for the coming year. My job is to consider how to best prepare my students for a high stakes test. There’s going to have to be a bit Stanley Kaplan, but if it gets the results… Of course, I won’t only teach to the test, but I can’t ignore that the data feeds my family and keeps the wolves away.