Teach to the Test

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2010


I am frequently asked in the grocery store, typically on the canned fruit isle searching for prunes, if teachers teach to the high stakes, standardized test. My answer is universal: "Only those teachers whose students do well on the test." In other words, of course we teach to the test. What else should we teach "to."

Once states took over the role of defining what should be taught and what should be tested, and attached to those tests hideous labels like "unacceptable" or "recognized", teachers quickly figured out that to get the label the realtors want for property values in that school system, we better teach to the test.

There are, of course several ways to look at this. My way first, with apologies to Frank. When your kids get old enough to qualify for a drivers license and you sign them up to take Drivers Ed, don't you really expect the instructor to prepare them to pass the drivers test? Wouldn't you be angry if they prepared them to pass the concealed weapons test after you paid for drivers ed?

Or, if your child was taking Spanish, shouldn't the test cover Spanish rather than French? If you are in a church acolyte class, or communicant class, or whatever, don't you expect the instruction to prepare you for the coming questions? Again, once the state took over measuring predetermined outcomes, the wise among the faculty quickly learned to prepare their students to answer the questions on the test.

The other view is, if teachers taught kids to think, reason, be creative, problem solve, etc., then they should do well on the tests and will become life long learners. That's a half truth. They will become life-long learners and be creative and productive and self-starters, but they will blow the test. The test isn't about thinking as much as it is about knowing. When Texas changed from the TAAS test to the TAKS test (who comes up with these acronyms anyway?) our students went from high performance to low performance. The new test required a different set of knowledge and required the testee to apply a different set of problem solving skills. The new test was touted as a test of higher standards. OK. Then why is it that when we went back two years later and gave the current students the old test, they performed terribly? If the new test was tougher, then the old test should be a breeze. It isn't. It's just the old test and TAKS is the new test. School systems and schools were performing way too well on the old test so we got a new test. The new test was called TAKS and we have just about figured it out. Our scores get better every year. So, it's time for a new, new test. In Texas it will be called STARRS. Oh boy! Now we can all drop from high performing to low performing again. I even anticipate changes in job titles from "District Test Administrator" to "District Astronomer" - the person charged with monitoring and overseeing the STARRS.

We teach in a world where Legislators and lay people have a hard time differentiating between norm based and criterion based testing. On a normed test one does not expect everyone to do well. The purpose of the test is to distribute scores "normally", that is, like an IQ test: few very bright, few very limited, and most in the middle. When students begin to do well on high stakes tests, policy makers assume there is something wrong with the test. Not so! There is something right with the instruction. If I expect every 5th grader to know the names of all 50 states then I test for that knowledge. If the first time I test, only 10% get it right, then I assume I have not taught well. I re-teach then re-test. The second time 100% of my class gets it right. Is there something wrong with the test, or have I achieved the same thing we expect the guy who teaches drivers ed. to achieve? 100% mastery. It's OK that all kids know everything on the test, in fact, that is our goal, if kids, teachers, schools and school systems are labeled based on the test.

I remember as an undergrad taking a course on assessment. We gave our fellow classmates the standard IQ test and scored it. Then, we gave it again, and again, and again. Low and behold, my IQ jumped up to the Einstein level! Why? I'm flattered if you think I'm that smart, but I'm not. I learned what was expected on the test, (the stirrup is missing on the saddle) and did better each time. In short, no pencil, paper standardized test is ever very accurate, despite what the psychometricians tell you. If you do believe the statistics, then know that after every standardized test they publish the degree of error, that is, the percentage the test is likely to be statistically wrong. So, if the degree of error is 5%, and that is great, then that means a kid who almost passed the standardized test fell into the degree of error range. Do we bump them up if they fall in this range? Nope. We nail 'em and hold the test up as though it were Gospel all the while knowing it is not any more 100% accurate than we know the Gospel is not absolutely, literally accurate. (I know, there are those who believe that, but it seems to me that everything we as human beings have ever written is by definition flawed and not perfect. If God Almighty wrote a book, I'd believe it! I don't think inspired writing by humans is perfect. I think it is inspired writing by humans. I think we can learn a ton from inspired writing. Why would I get my panties all it a twist and sit and pen this blog if I didn't believe that?)

We need to do away with high stakes testing. Quickly. We can assess what kids know without the labels. In the interim we will teach to the test because in our upside down world of public ed we have no choice. We being the educators and choice being something everyone has save public schools.