We Can Teach Or We Can Test
Twenty-eight years ago when I began teaching remedial reading and before the days of state tests, my students took the SRA test every spring.
I couldn't wait to get the scores back so I could compare them to the year before. I wanted that additional piece of evidence to show that what I was doing was working.
The summer following my third year of teaching, I took my first reading course at SHSU, a course that revolutionized my teaching and my classroom. I began my independent reading program, reading aloud daily and allowing my students the rest of the period to read while I conferenced with them in the corner of the classroom.
By the end of the year I didn't need test scores to know my students had improved. I had my own data -- notes from my observations and conferences. However, I wanted the scores so I could prove that workshop worked. The scores came back, I analyzed the data, and I proudly announced the results to my principal.
My students had made +11 and +13 NCE gains, an average increase of two to three grade levels.
That was the beginning of the next seven years of workshop teaching -- I added writing workshop the following year.
So you see, I'm not opposed to tests. What's detrimental to kids is what's currently being done with those tests. When we got the first state test in the 80s, I followed the state's guidance and did two to three weeks of test prep before the test to teach them the format. My students excelled.
I wish all teachers today had the freedom to not worry about tests. I wish district leaders would realize that if they'd release the restraints, stop benchmarking, and let teachers teach, not only would they have higher scores, they'd have more money for on-going professional development that would really make a difference.
What matters most is the teacher in the classroom who knows her kids -- not a test and a test score.