The Obligatory Rant on Standardized Tests

Yesterday I set my Facebook profile as "Holed up in the cottage preparing for tomorrow's teacher test." This was true for about 3 hours- maybe 4 total. The rest of the time was spent messing around on the Internet for the most part. Even though I have no formal training in elementary education, to be honest I was not overly concerned about the test . There are two reasons for this. The first being that from the practice tests I took a couple weeks back, I knew it was essentially the same as the Secondary level test I'd already taken- just with a few childhood development questions thrown in. SO few in number, in fact, that I knew if I missed them I could still pass.

The second, slightly more embarrassing, reason I wasn't worried was that I'm REALLY good at standardized test. This was not always the case. The first time I took the SATs I got a 1090 (this was when they topped out at 1600). I retook them, but did only slightly better. It's only been over the past couple years that I've learned how to properly take a standardized test.

Ever since I started student teaching, I've been doing some sort of test prep with my students ever year. When I was in Worcester we were prepping kids for the MCAS. When I lived in Westchester test prep services were the bread and butter of the tutoring company for which I worked. At that point I was putting in 4 to 10 hours a week on the ISEE, the SSAT, the SAT or the ACT- whatever was in season at the time (ie, whichever was occurring within 3 months or less. Oh yes, standardized tests have seasons). I've read enough test prep books that I can tell you the strengths and weaknesses of each publisher. Kaplan is the most prolific, with a book for just about every test out there, but their questions are sometimes easier than what is on the actual exam. McGraw Hill questions, on the other hand, tend to be good for over-preparing as they are much harder than what will be on the exam. The College Board, who creates the actual SAT, have accurate questions but limited essay prompts. Barron has a good selection for over-achievers looking for the perfect score...etc. etc. I'm a master of process of elimination. I never fall victim to the infamous, "all of the following are true except" trick questions. Misgriding? Don't make me laugh. I even caught myself getting giddy this morning over a roman numeral question- you know, the kind where they give you four answers and then your options are something alone the lines of "Which are correct? A) I and III only, B) II and IV only C) I, II and IV only..."

So why do I describe this as "embarrassing"? Because these skills have no real world application. Sure I'll use them again if I take the Praxis or GREs, and they will help me, but beyond that, what will I ever use them for? I do often wonder if the fact that there's a multi-million dollar industry built up around test prep- essentially just teaching kids how to READ the test and make educated guesses; one that I myself have made a living off- negates the actual content of the test themselves. I'm certain that if I had known these strategies as a high school student I would have done much better on my own SATs, but would I have actually been smarter as implied by my improved test scores? Nope.

And it's not just the admissions test or the teacher tests. Go ahead and look at a variety of sources criticizing No Child Left Behind and you know the common thread you'll find? Too much emphasis on state standardized testing. People talk about having to cut down on recess, "specials" like art, music and P.E., and even core content classes that don't get tested as frequently such as social studies and science, all to make room for more math and reading test prep. I have never once heard this trend heralded as anything worthwhile. At the least, it has been called a waste of time, and at most the downfall of our national education system. And if that weren't enough, even the type of reading students are being tested on is very limited. Usually the student is presented with a few paragraphs of text- excerpts from articles or stories- and asked a handful of questions about it at the end. In her article "Multiliterate Youth in the Time of Scientific Reading", Donna E. Alvermann writes,

"What likely set of circumstances coalesced to bring about the present situation in which young people are increasingly engaged in digital literacies (largely through the Internet and other information communication technologies, such as instant messaging, chatting, blogging, emailing, text messaging, and online role playing) at precisely the same time in history when those in authority over school-related reading instruction* are moving ever further toward a narrowed definition of what counts as reading?"

From Adolescent Literacy: Turning Promise into Practice, Heinmann 2007
(Yup. This is the type of stuff I read for fun now)

*and for my purposes, testing

So, what does this all mean? That I've sworn off test prep forever starting tonight? That I'll never book another hour of tutoring for it or cover it in a class (assume I ever get one of those elusive "full time teaching" jobs again)? Nope. Not in the least. Ultimately, the truth is that I may moan and groan about the evils of standardized tests with the best of them, but I don't have an effective alternative to offer up in its place. If anyone did, they might not be so prevalent now. Standardized tests are a quick, efficient way to collect data, even if the skills they actually measure are questionable. For all the hubbub, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Until they do, if they do, the best I can do for my students is to integrate some general test prep strategies into my curriculum here and there while still delivering the reading skills and content knowledge they may actual use in real life- even if it's test prep strategies I'm being paid to teach them.