Teach to the Test as William Hatfield

¶ … Teach to the Test

As William Hatfield presciently warned in 1916, when the ultra-efficiency of industrialization first begin threatening the independence of educators to craft curricula, "an education that focuses on memorising information to ensure reaching a single benchmark is an inadequate measure of success" because while "twelve years of school life has made [students] adept at memorizing & #8230; many of them are novices in thinking" (Mills, 2008). Since disastrous passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, which mandated standards-based educational practices and required states to devise testing devices to gauge student achievement, Hatfield's admonition has been proven to be disturbingly accurate. Since standardized testing became standard operating procedure for America's public school system, countless teachers have expressed their mounting dissatisfaction with the rigid and formulaic curriculum structures imposed on school districts by state legislatures. As an education major anxiously awaiting my opportunity to teach South Carolina's third graders, I share in the general consensus that teaching to the test is an unsustainable philosophy with far more drawbacks than advantages. However, because our state currently administers the Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) test to students in grades 3 through 8, it is crucial that I do not let my own preconceived notions influence my judgment regarding such a complex and confounding issue. To that end, I have reviewed a total of five research-based articles published in scholarly journals during the last five years, in an attempt to objectively analyze the trend of teaching to the test in the proper context.

In a 2011 article entitled Teach to the Test? which was published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, standardized testing researcher Richard P. Phelps thoughtfully examines the concept of mutual exclusivity which pervades the debate over testing-based curricula. By forcefully challenging the commonly held "assumption by many critics that test preparation and good teaching are mutually exclusive" (Phelps, 2011), the author succeeds in drawing a distinction between rote and ineffective memorization drills and inspired lesson crafting which also adheres to statewide standards. Phelps holds that when the curricula requirements of statewide tests are inspired and implemented by actual educators, rather than legislators or administrators, teaching to the test actually imparts vital knowledge and skills. While Phelps strives throughout the article to maintain an unbiased perspective, stressing that proper instruction while teaching to the test provides valuable educational benefits, he repeatedly returns the focus of his writing to the inherent flaws in standards-based assessment schemes. When the author observes that "there are two senses in which teaching to the test can indeed be harmful: excessive preparation that focuses more on the format of the test and test-taking techniques than on the subject matter, and the reallocation of classroom time from subjects on which students are not tested (often art and physical education) to those on which they are (often reading and mathematics)" (Phelps, 2011), he uncovers one of the most damaging aspects of teaching to the test. As an aspiring teacher who hopes to manage my own classroom of students in the near future, the thought of being forced to neglect abstract subjects like art and music in favor of leading strictly exam-based sessions is disconcerting to say the least.

Another article that attempts to objectively analyze the issue of teaching to the test is Learning About Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Program, which was released by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in conjunction with their Measures of Effective Teaching initiative. Designed to study the impact of standards-based educational practices on students as well as teachers, this program enlisted Harvard professor Thomas J. Kane to oversee an array of rigorous research studies which gauged the effectiveness of teaching to the test by estimating the value added to student achievement by instructor involvement. The analysis put forth by Kane and his colleagues is nuanced and balanced, based largely on "an intensive study of 3,000 teachers across the country using multiple types of performance measures, ranging from test scores to sophisticated observation tools and student and parent surveys' (Kane, 2010). Much of the article focuses on the relationship between a teacher's efficacy and the typically random distribution of advanced students throughout public school classrooms, with Kane essentially arguing that solely relying on student test scores to gauge an instructor's worth is misleading and misinformed. By pointedly observing that "the teachers who are producing gains on the state tests are generally also promoting deeper conceptual understanding among their students" (Kane, 2010), the author defuses one of the major claims made against teaching to the test. The article also presents the relatively novel concept that "in every grade and subject, a teacher's past track record of value-added is among the strongest predictors of their student's achievement gains in other classes or academic years" (Kane, 2010), which dismisses the link between test scores and a teacher's relative effectiveness. After reading the results of Kane's comprehensive study, my own attitudes regarding the practice of teaching have been challenged, and this is a vital component to gaining a deeper comprehension of the issue's complexities.

The next article I chose to review, Will Large-Scale Assessments Raise Literacy Standards in Australian Schools? was originally published by Kathy A. Mills in 2008, as the Australian educational system began implementing legislation similar to the No Child Left Behind Act. As the author remarks in the introduction to this article, "in an era of educational accountability, it has become increasingly common to hear calls for large-scale testing that not only measures, but improves student learning" (Mills, 2008), and the rancorous debate over standards-based schooling is not purely a domestic discussion. Mills confines her analytical focus to the role played by governmental agencies, educational think tanks, and legislative bodies in devising and implementing national and local educational policy. By exposing and examining "the consequences of large-scale assessments & #8230; that are administered at the direction of users external to the classroom, such as policy-makers, as opposed to assessment used by teachers in their own classrooms" (2008), Mills provides invaluable insight into the conflicts of interest which inevitably occur when intrusive external elements attempt to govern the methodologies employed by professional educators. Among the many fundamental flaws she identifies with standards-based assessment, Mills' most powerfully persuasive arguments convey with startling detail how "the insidious practice of 'teaching to the test' invalidates the test results, narrows the curriculum, and replaces intellectually challenging instruction and critical thinking with rote learning" (2008). According to Mills' extensive research, which touched upon the educational structures of several nations including China, the United Kingdom and the United States, the standards-based approach to both teacher and student evaluation presents the proverbial rigged game, one in which participants are forced to play while nobody really wins.