Teen thriller takes testing to the limits

[LWolf]

I read this book this summer; I also read "The Report Card," another book mentioned in the article. Both are taking on the issues involved in the current testing obsession in the form of young adult literature. The scary part for me, in "Story Time," was that it was obvious the author had exaggerated the obsession to unheard-of extremes; but, as a teacher, those extremes didn't seem so far off.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/living/9428737.htm

By Michael McLeod

THE ORLANDO SENTINEL

<snip>

When novelist Edward Bloor set out to write a chiller for young adults, he decided to include a murderous poltergeist. Then he added a really scary touch.

The poltergeist lives in a magnet school where the only thing the students do, day after day, class after class, is take standardized tests.

<snip>

Bloor sees his third novel, Story Time, as not just a traditional teen thriller but also a social satire, targeting the fixation of politicians, educators, parents and students on standardized test scores.

The question that Bloor says he was working through as he wrote Story Time was: What would happen to a bright, outgoing child trapped in a mind-numbing world of tests, tests and more tests? "What I really wanted to write about is the clash between the joy of learning and reading and the politicization of education," says Bloor, 53, a former middle- and high-school teacher who works as an executive editor at Harcourt School Publishers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. So what tests are compulsory for your pupils?

I expect they'll be organised by state, rather than federally. In England, all state school pupils have to sit Standard Attainment Tests at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16 (the last are GCSEs, which are used by future employers when looking at job applicants). What tests do you have to teach for? Are there states which are particularly onerous?

In England, the largest teachers' union is trying to get some of the tests scrapped - but they held a ballot on strike action about them, which didn't have enough voting in favour for the strike to happen. The tests are relatively new in England - I didn't have to sit them. I did often have end-of-year tests, but those were set by my own teachers; they were used to measure progress, or to divide us into sets for the next year.

[LWolf]

2. Each state decides on its own tests

and writes its own standards; the feds dictate that there has to be testing, and influences the "standards."

While that seems to indicate some flexibility, in reality there are only a few companies that make these sorts of tests, and most are contributors to republicans and GWB; some have generational relationships with the Bush family. The tests are very similar, just "tweaked" to customize them for individual states.

Who has to be tested? Everybody. Every student in America. In my state, students are tested annually 2nd - 12th grade. Some years just language arts and math, some years with specific writing, social studies, science, and P.E. tests as well. Some states test their Ks and 1sts as well. The annual test takes most of 2 weeks in the spring to complete. Of course, in high school, there is also the "exit exam" required for graduation. In my state, this has been field tested, but not yet used to deny anyone graduation, if I remember correctly.

In addition, when scores do not continue to improve every year, and a school doesn't make it's "adequate progress" 2 years in a row, there are sanctions and mandates. Consultants come in to tell the school what to do to rectify the situation, and to threaten takeover. One of the big recommendations? More testing. And, if one school in a district has to do more testing, the district usually mandates it for all the schools. Many districts, following blindly along, have jumped on the "test them to death" bandwagon and now require more district-wide testing just because. In my district, we do trimester testing in language arts and math at all grade levels. That's about 3 days a trimester. My district's purpose in trimester testing is to standardize instruction; make sure we are all using the same materials, and following the same district schedule. The tests come straight from our text publishers. They are tests of the material in our text books, not tests of general knowledge or state standards.

All of that is in addition to whatever actual classroom assessments are given to actually assess student progress, inform instruction, and assign grades. In schools that have brought in the government "consultants," teachers all test everything every week. One of my students came from one of those schools last year; she told me that in her previous classroom, Friday was always "test day." They took 5 or 6 tests every Friday, leaving no time on Fridays for anything but testing.

At weekly staff meetings and grade level meetings, we rarely discuss instruction any more. It's all about tests, and our admins give us the topic for discussion at grade level meetings and require minutes to make sure we are "on task."

[DemBones DemBones]

3. An ugly phrase, "on task." It means: do not think

for yourself, do not daydream, do not imagine; have nothing in your mind except what the teacher is saying. It means: all your thoughts belong to us.

[LWolf]

4. In that context, it sure does.

Interestingly enough, the traditional "sit still, listen, don't talk, do your work" structure of the American classroom is in direct opposition to what brain research tells us about how learning happens.

Before the latest round of crackdowns, many of us stepped outside that model and incorporated the things we know MUST be present for significant learning to take place; movement, conversation, music, art, etc...

The "standards and accountability" movement is not just about "standards" and tests; it is about standardization of what happens in every classroom in America, guaranteeing a future population of low-skill non-thinkers, while it touts "rigorous," "world-class" and other Orwellian rhetoric. The tests are the weapon that gets us there.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. The move to standardize learning behavior (or learning and behavior)

is all aimed at training children to get a high percentage of correct answers on standardized tests. Is that aim sufficient for our children to succeed in life? I don't think so.

I have nothing against standardized tests, I just don't see why there is so much emphasis on them. I've always done well on them but high test scores never got me a job, much less a friend or lover. I think critical thinking skills and social skills are very important for life and can be learned within many acadamic contexts.

[LWolf]

6. You're preaching to the choir here.

:-)

You are absolutely correct; those standardized tests do not measure most of the factors that lead a person to a happy, healthy, productive life.

There are plenty of problems with the tests themselves; what they've done with them challenges the standards of reliability and validity that I learned 15 years ago. The formulas they are using to arrive at AYPs are mathematically corrupt. At least according to the statisticians and educational psychologists I was priveleged to listen to. They were debating what the tests actually measured; they couldn't come to any agreement on that.

Would it be so terrible if we refocused our time, money, and energy on creating healthy, happy environments, nurturing the love of learning, and focusing on individual progress rather than group competition?

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Yeah, I know, it's "teacher talk."

I miss the kids but not the administrators. :7

[LWolf]

8. Exactly.

The kids are always reminding me why I stick it out. They are what called me to the profession to begin with, and they keep me in it.