Teaching to the Test – Is it What We Want for DPS?
In a previous article we discussed the last boards plan to make DPS a “Destination District”. In the article we presumed the main and best strategy they determined to bring children into the district and stop the exodus of families out of the district, was to raise standardized test scores. The path the previous board chose to raise scores was a major philosophical change to our previous method of teaching – removing much of the autonomy different schools and teachers enjoyed in creating lessons for the students, and strictly enforcing a standard where all teachers in the district must adhere to a regimented approach where they stay on track with predetermined lessons.
Make no mistake – this is a major change, and to be fair, one that has been successful in raising test scores in many charter schools around the country, but a change that has not been discussed at the public level and (we’re guessing) at the School Board level. Here at the DPS Chalkboard we think it’s time to have an open discussion on the merits of “teaching to the test” and what a strict adherence to this standard means for the students and teachers in DPS District 61.
In this article we want to accomplish three things:
Show how “teaching to the test” effects student learning.
Explain how “teaching to the test” effects teachers.
Convince the board that “teaching to the test” should be discussed and possibly discontinued – handing autonomy back to the teachers.
“Teaching to the test” is clearly a pejorative term meant to raise the ire of anyone that cares about education. But there are certainly many possible degrees by which you can implement this teaching methodology - with constant fact sheet drilling at one end of the spectrum and an individualized problem-solving focus at the other. The state of Illinois provides a set of standards they expect our children to learn, and the way toward mastery can take many different paths and measuring degrees of test preparation is difficult. Combine that with the fact that this is not a sexy issue because there’s no big dollar amount to discuss, and you come away with a complex issue with no clear right or wrong on each side.
How did we get to a point where kids across the country are taught by drilling items that are on a state test? Since the implementation of No Child Left Behind districts around the country have made concerted effort to quantify excellence, and this desire is even more pronounced in poorly performing schools. And from the push to perform better on tests it naturally follows that schools, to be considered top performers, would adopt a strategy of focusing like a laser on teaching items that are on the state tests. But teachers, the front line of the American education system, continually push back from this methodology. Why? Because they see the results that occur when monotonous drill and kill learning is the prominent teaching method. Teachers also understand that the students do not learn at the same pace - some will be left behind and others will become bored. Additionally, and this is our belief at the DPS Chalkboard, creative teaching, with problem solving at its core, produces better results. Students are more engaged with curriculum-based teaching (as opposed to item based), and maybe even more import – teachers are more engaged. There can be little doubt, and we need not site evidence here - when teachers are engaged students learn more.
Scouring the internet for data for and against teaching to the test, we find quite a bit of evidence against this methodology. But to be fair, it’s not hard to imagine most researchers and academicians being opposed to teaching to the test purely based on what it means for their jobs: a career of drilling facts rather than finding interesting and complex ways to broaden student’s knowledge, but from our findings, both statistical and anecdotally, the evidence against teaching to the test is compelling. Please see this article that sites several studies: https://www.readingrockets.org/article/teach-test-just-say-no
Sighting two examples and one anecdote directly from the article:
One study found that in a district that relied heavily on item drilling, 83 percent of students selected the correct answer to a multiple-choice item written as "87 - 24 =." However, only 66 percent could provide the correct answer to the open-ended item "Subtract 24 from 87."
Researchers conducted a three-year study analyzing classroom assignments and student gains on standardized tests across more than 400 Chicago classrooms in almost 20 elementary schools... <The researchers> analyzed student test-score gains on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) assessment exams. The results were startling. In classrooms where teachers employed more authentic intellectual instruction, students logged test-score gains on the ITBS that exceeded the national average by 20 percent. However, students who were given few authentic assignments gained much less than the national average. (Please see the article for more detail.)
Cynthia Kuhlman, principal of Atlanta's high-poverty, high-minority Centennial Place Elementary School, where nearly all students consistently meet state standards on Georgia's assessments, says, "We don't teach to the test here at all. We have a curriculum that is mapped to the state's standards, and we teach almost entirely through theme-based projects. You would be hard pressed to find a worksheet at Centennial Place."
So, where does DPS fall on the spectrum between curriculum teaching and item teaching? From our perspective here at The Chalkboard, the district has not only transitioned very quickly to a “teach to the test” philosophy but has taken an extremely harsh and regimented approach. Currently the building Principals must ensure that all their teachers create and follow standard guidelines, creating lesson plans that match other teachers at their grade level, and deviation from the plan is not tolerated. Infractions have been reported to the central administration and good teachers have been sternly reprimanded for not teaching the documented lesson on the proper day or even at the proper time. And how does this effect teachers job satisfaction and retention? We don’t know the full impact yet, and Covid will make it difficult to parse out why teachers are leaving the district, but (of course this is anecdotal, and the plural of anecdote is not data) we have heard of several unhappy teachers looking for new positions due to their lack of autonomy in their own classroom.
In his excellent book Drive, Daniel Pink describes what motivates us and provides three main factors: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. We can look at these factors from both the student’s and the teacher’s perspectives. While “purpose” no matter how you teach or learn is to impart or gain as much knowledge as possible, the opportunity for “mastery” comes up lacking when teaching to the test is employed. If a student can solve the equation 87 -24 = 63, but can’t solve the problem “subtract 24 from 87” has mastery been achieved? And can a teacher continually strive for mastery in the classroom when she is only drilling facts each day? But “autonomy” is where the differences really lie. When students are allowed to solve complex problems at their own pace, working through intricate details on their own, autonomy, from the student’s perspective, is achieved. And from the teacher’s perspective the difference in autonomy when they control how the curriculum is taught, and at what pace, doesn’t even need mentioned.
Finally, the change to teaching to the test has been nuanced, one that has never (to our knowledge) been explicitly defined, discussed, or approved by the board. Since the school board's primary responsibilities are to:
Set the vision and goals for the district.
Adopt policies that give the district administration direction, and to set priorities and achieve its goals including areas such as student assignment and student discipline.
Hire and evaluate the superintendent.
We certainly feel the change in direction relating to teaching to the test should be discussed at the school board level. Additionally, for any new and purchased curriculum the board should ask the question “where this curriculum falls on the spectrum between Drill and Kill and a more creative, problem-solving learning methodology?”