When we spoke at the Conference on English Leadership, after
the NCTE Convention in St. Louis this November, we ran into an important and
serious concern: does a focus on test preparation, at least to some degree, diminish
our commitment to our students’ real and meaningful learning somehow?
Our presentation, “Supporting Teachers in Rigorous Literacy: A Matter of Access, Equity, and Opportunity,” focused on our cross-disciplinary,
collaborative lessons: on male aggression in fruit flies and Lord of the Flies; on chromium contamination
and gentrification near the schools where we teach; and on the microfibers in
our clothes and in our oceans. Each of these lessons was centered around
high-quality, challenging pieces of nonfiction; each asked students to read and
think with rigor about important, relevant issues in our shared world.
Our presentation offered strategies to support all teachers
in creating and developing these sorts of cross-disciplinary and challenging
lessons so that all learners can succeed. We feel strongly that rigorous
literacy means that all students, regardless of their learning challenges and
reading levels, need to be reading high-quality texts about real issues (like
male aggression, chromium contamination, and global pollution).
And yes, as we always do, we talked about using
multiple-choice, PARCC-style questions (we are in a PARCC state) to prep
students about vocabulary and check their understanding of the reading. We
stressed how these activities should be practiced in groups, in a low-stakes
environment, where the students can problem-solve answering multiple-choice
style questions while developing their understanding of the reading.
It was striking, however, that one person in our audience
worried out loud during our question-and-answer period (in a productive and
supportive way, to be clear) about whether our work was somehow unduly shaped
by concerns about test preparation. We were a bit taken aback initially: our
overarching motivation for incorporating challenging informational texts into
our instruction is to motivate students by tapping into relevant, engaging
issues that resonate with our students’ interests and everyday lives in order to
empower them to think critically about their present and future realities. We
believe doing so enables us to do our best teaching and for our students to
experience meaningful learning, and so we offered this explanation to our
interlocutor.
But yes, these kinds of science and social studies texts are
the kinds of reading we see appearing on a variety of standardized tests.
During the Q & A for our session, we also reiterated our
strong belief that these kinds of high-quality, cross-disciplinary units are
opportunities for the best kind of test preparation: work that can be done
without taking us away from the important texts and topics we need to teach. Given
that standardized tests are an unavoidable part of our students’ academic
reality, and that they present a disproportionate challenge to disadvantaged
students, we think this belief is very much aligned with the CEL conference
theme of access and opportunity. Indeed, we feel strongly that disadvantaged
student populations need explicit test preparation in schools because their
more advantaged peers are getting this practice, at a high cost, in
after-school programs and tutoring.
It was interesting, then, to come across a piece in The Hechinger Report suggesting that
“instructional quality declined with the rise of high stakes testing,
especially in the weeks before the exam.” Particularly striking was the fact
that “the quality gap between a teacher’s regular lessons and her test-prep
lessons was largest in a school district where the teaching quality was the
highest …. instructional quality sank a lot when these excellent teachers were
delivering test-prep lessons.” Research did find some high-quality test prep
lessons, but the overall quality of these sorts of lessons varied widely,
leading the researchers to conclude that teaching to the test “can be done
well, but it’s not easy.” In other words, much test prep is done poorly, even
by high quality teachers who normally deliver excellent instruction. Innovative
and substantive test prep, however, is possible, but teachers needs to think
hard about how to make it work well.
To us, this study underscores both our sense of urgency
around meaningful test prep and the concern our audience member expressed about
the deleterious impact of test prep on instruction. Whether we like it or not,
American students inhabit a universe of high-stakes testing – in K-12 and well
beyond. Test prep, in nearly every school, is a reality. But even our best
teachers, according to this research, are probably not doing a great job at
test prep. Unless we embrace the challenge of delivering high-quality test
prep, we are shortchanging all our students.
We think the answer is to build high-quality instruction
around some explicit and regular practice for standardized tests. That seems to
be a better solution than abandoning our normally strong instruction to spend days
or weeks drilling on pre-made test-prep materials or leaving all test prep in
the hands of paid after-school providers who serve only those students with
resources. This explicit and regular practice for standardized tests means,
however, that all teachers need to take some ownership over preparing our
students for this unavoidable and deeply inequitable aspect of their
educational lives. Especially in districts that serve some disadvantaged
students (which probably means every district today), it shouldn’t be someone
else’s job to teach students how to tackle standardized tests.
Most importantly, from our perspective, doing this test prep
work does not mean turning away from rigorous literacy and high-quality
learning. Just as it’s part of our job to make this explicit practice a regular
part of our instruction, so too is it part of our job to do so in the most
meaningful way possible.
That’s why each of our informational text units includes
opportunities for students to both learn about and take ownership of the issues
that shape their realities and to practice answering the kinds of
questions they’ll see on standardized tests. Check out our website for sample
units and resources for developing your own lessons and units that can help you
maximize your instructional time no matter how soon the next standardized test
is.
No comments:
Post a Comment