Why I Will Not Teach to the Test

—Bob Dahm

It's Time to Focus on In-Depth Learning, Not Shallow Answers

In the midst of controversy surrounding “value added” teacher assessment, which flared recently following the Los Angeles Times ’ public teacher rankings, the real issue is often overlooked: The state tests being used to evaluate student progress—and, in turn, the effectiveness of teachers—virtually ensure mediocrity.

Consider the following California 10th-grade-history standard: “Relate the moral and ethical principles in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, in Judaism, and in Christianity to the development of Western political thought.” How long do you think it would take to teach this standard before a classroom of 16-year-olds reached a thorough understanding? Weeks? Months? Consider another social studies standard: “Compare and contrast the Glorious Revolution of England, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution and their enduring effects worldwide on the political expectations for self-government and individual liberty.” How much time for this unit? A semester? A year? I am sure that history teachers would love to have the opportunity to delve deeply into these standards, but the state test does not permit deeper instruction. Why? Because these two standards come from a much longer list of standards that will be measured on the exam. Teachers in California know the results of this exam may now be used as a factor in their evaluations, so they are forced to accelerate their instruction into “sprint and cover” mode.

What harm comes from a sprint-and-cover approach? A study published in the journal Science Education in December 2008 looked at two sets of high school science students. One set “sprinted”; the other set had teachers who slowed down, went deeper, and did not cover as much material. The results? The first group of students actually scored higher on the state tests at the end of the year. This is not surprising, as their teachers covered more of the test material. I am sure it made their parents, teachers, and administrators happy. What is more interesting, however, is that the students who learned through the slower, in-depth approach actually earned higher grades once they made it to college. This, too, is not surprising. These students were...

This article is available to subscribers only.

To keep reading this article and more, subscribe now or purchase this article.

Already have an account? Please login.


Subscribe to Education Week and Save

Get a full year and save up to 45%!

Premium Online + Print


37 issues + Online Access
$89

You Save 45%

SUBSCRIBE NOW

(See details.)

Premium Online


12 Months Online Access
$74

You Save 38%

SUBSCRIBE NOW

(See details.)


Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Emailed

Recommended

Commented