All students have strengths, and most of those strengths are not assessed through high stakes testing.
It seems that all we hear about in education is how...or whether, our students are achieving. Although not a bad topic to discuss, it is often tied into high stakes testing. Many of us in education would like the achievement discussion to include so much more than a test our students take over a few days which are created by a few large publishers who also happen to publish the textbooks used in our classrooms. All of which happens to be a billion dollar industry.
When we talk about student achievement, we should talk about the whole child (ASCD). Unfortunately with the constant focus on high stakes testing, many schools are taking science and social studies out of the classroom and focusing more on ELA and math because those are the two subjects that are tested. Although teachers should always go cross-curricular and include social studies and science in their lessons during math and ELA; the reality is that these schools are only concentrating on what needs to be tested.
The reality is that schools do not want to see their names on the School in Need of Improvement (SINI) list, which is contingent upon how students do on a test they take over a few days, so in an effort to not make the "list" schools are promoting a great deal of test prep and only focusing on the subjects that get tested. They are also cancelling recess so they can spend more time on academics and less time on taking brain breaks and getting fresh air (cancelling recess).
Our high stakes testing era is ruining education. We know that all students take a variety of paths as they graduate from high school. By focusing on math and ELA we are only educating one type of learner, and trying to put all students on a path that they simply cannot handle. In the long run, forcing a square peg into a round hole is only going to create a situation where that particular student will leave school feeling as though their needs were never met.
What has happened over the years is that students who get a 1 or a 2 on a high stakes test are not considered "proficient." We know what that really means is that those students are not "proficient" on high stakes testing. All students have strengths, and most of those strengths are not assessed through high stakes testing.
In the long run those students feel inferior to their peers who may have received a 3 or a 4, which can ruin their self-esteem and it forces schools to focus solely on getting these students to perform well on an exam. Unfortunately this means that there is less of a focus on what a student's strength may be, and they are at risk of never finding one while they sit in classrooms. At some point these students grow up to be parents, and we have now created a cycle where more and more people have a negative opinion of schools.
That is the major reason why we have to focus on more than high stakes testing. Recently I asked my teachers to have a week without any testing. It did not mean they were not assessing students but it did mean that they were not giving tests. The climate in the building changed for a week. Teachers and students worked on projects that were all curriculum-related. It did not matter what the grade level was, all teachers and students were engaged and we are better for it. It is my hope that all educators can have that experience and get away from a high stakes testing focus and put it back on the students.
Podcast on Assessment
The other day I participated in a podcast for ASCD with Molly McCloskey. Tom Whitby and Nancy Frey were the other participants and the topic we discussed was assessment. You can find a link to the podcast here. Molly asked us a few great questions regarding the difference between assessment and testing.
Unfortunately, during a time when we are bombarded with conversations about high stakes testing, many people think of "testing" when they think of assessment. From a public school perspective, those are the only scores we hear about when our state and federal educati