Education >
Reading & Writing Skills
RSS FeedShould schools require more rigorous testing of students to determine literacy levels?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
Votes are still being tallied.
Join the Debate now.
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAs a teacher for 12 years in an English primary school (3-11) and mainly teaching upper age groups, I have extensive experience of the testing regime. Wales has long seen the pointlessness of constant testing and Scotland have adjusted their system enough to relieve, what in England has become too much of a focus for too long.
I first started teaching just as the National Curriculum came into enforcement. A good thing but... The government, under pressure to deliver an education system worth the money they had put into developing the NC in a hurry (a political agenda) needed to see results and for the voter to see results. It went along with the parental right to be able to choose schools.
The review followed rapidly when the department realized they had put in too much content to be able to cover any in any kind of depth, with consultation with teachers timed for the summer break! Then followed the Literacy Hour and the following year the Numeracy Hour arrived prescribed and lacking any space for imaginative teaching. I took part in pilots, as a year 5 (9-10years) teacher.It seems the comments myself and collegues got lost in the post somewhere.
'Sticking plaster cash' followed to 'mop up' children who were on the cusp of the an attainment level, at first 2/3, then 3/4, them 4/5 over the following years. Each a level target set by the government as the expected attainment for the end of primary school. Booster classes, some given by teaching assistants, taught the child enough to pass from one level to the other.
Each year group was given its own set of optional test from the QCA. Not legally binding, but a Head had to have a damned good reason to not be using them when OFSTED called.
The result. From entry into the nursery at 3 to leaving primary school at 11 every child, mainstran or sometimes not, is formally tested yearly to make sure a political government target is reached and the school has a good league rating for the voters to be able to exercise their right to choose schools.
It comes at the expense of immersion in topics that capture a class's interest; literary, historical, geographical, or anything else. Creative teaching and ultimately the rights of children to access a full and rounded curriculum to develop them socially, spiritually and intellectually is eroded away as the move up the school in favour of maths, English and science.
Regular teacher assessment tests are a necessity to see where the child is at at that point in time on a continuous progression of teaching objectives. To see if they are ready for the next step or need a refresher of the last. Because of this teacher knows best where the child is at; what they are aware of, know, understand or can do. But teacher assessments are ignored for the sake of 'standardization'. It is a legal offense to open papers before time, over prompt, discuss or do anything other than give out, read the instructions and later collect the tests.
Parents talk about the pressure their children feel as SATs for that year come round. At the age of 11 SATs work will be almost all they will do from Christmas until July. Endless streams of revision and practice tests in class and as homework. English, Maths, Science. Day in, day out. This I objected too and after a while so do the class and motivation in the children that know already they will not achieve as highly as some of their peers dissipates and takes real effort and determination to help these lower achievers' (labeled because all the other years of testing) self esteem. Like coaching a team the teacher has to time the peak performance.
Neither the children or the parents understand the test is to see where their child is at on the maths, English and science knowledge, skills and understanding ladder.
To them it is a test - to pass or to fail.
This happened; a bright, sensible and hardworking young lady starts her first period in the break before her maths paper 1 test. I was her class teacher. It was decided the school could not afford to loose the 3% in results this level 5 child was almost certain to bring based on all the years of test evidence. Embarrassed, dirty and miserable but with her mother's consent because she knew how hard her girl had worked for the last 7 months, the young lady took the test. I could not have been prouder if I were her mother. But should she of had to?
Things are going to change here in the UK now. After the scripted lesson plans forced at pupils, teachers and schools, head teachers are now taking a more project based approach to the primary curriculum with the help of technology and accelerated learning techniques which are fun and effective.
The tests look as if they are staying around a little longer, unfortunately.
Formal testing is only ever a 'snap shot' of the child or even an adult can do on the day. There are no boxes for teacher comments; this child had hayfever, toothache, a cold, her first period, there were roadworks outside, a wasp entered the room.
As a former head, I know the results the year 6 (11 year olds) get will determine my own and my staff pay rises, our reputations as professional educators, our school's standing in the league and community and our funding for the year ahead (ironically its more, if the cohort do badly).
Learn more about this author, Amanda Bourne.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Yes
I've no knowledge of literacy teaching in Great Britain. Perhaps it's the case that Wales and Scotland learned that constant testing (when did they ever have time to actually learn to read and write if all they ever did was test?) doesn't get the job done, but by what other metric are we to measure the success of a program, if not testing?
Here in the US, the teachers unions hold an absolute death grip on all things educational K-12 (5- 18-year-olds). While this may be temporarily loosened locally and occasionally statewide where fed-up voters enact some sort of testing regime, eventually the concentrated interest (teachers/unions) are able by pouring millions of dollars into the effort and through their control where the rubber meets the road, get such programs rescinded.
It's happened in my state. We had a statewide testing system wherein students in 3rd, 5th, 8th and 11th grades (ages 9, 11, 13, 17) were tested in those years to see whether the schools were doing their job. The teachers and the unions fought this tooth and nail, but citizens voted for it overwhelmingly. The first couple of years, it was obvious the schools had been teaching virtually nothing (big surprise). For a few years after that grades went upward satisfactorily, then leveled off, eliciting the usual bellowed excuses by the teachers: the test is flawed! It's culturally/racially biased! Parents aren't involved enough! Kids come to school hungry! Etc., etc., etc. Now, with the leftists back in our state's governor's office and controlling the legislature, the testing is of course going away.
Likewise, with the leftists largely in control of the US Congress, and soon to take control at the White House, America's nationwide quality-control effort in the public schools, the No Child Left Behind Act, is also going away. The complaint by the teachers and the union is that NCLB is not perfect therefore, it should be done away with. What went before was clearly perfect . . . for the teachers and their unions.
Too bad, in the teachers' and the unions' view, if American high school graduates test out below most 3rd world nations in most core subjects. The American public schools, after all, are a jobs program for union members, not a place where parents can expect nor certainly demand that their kids are educated. Why should we expect the schools and the teachers to be held accountable and their performance fairly judged by testing what students have learned, and demanding improvement where it's warranted? How will that help union teachers?
Testing "all the time" is of course counter-productive and you don't need a doctorate in "Education" or to have been a headmaster even in a British school to figure that one out. But is it entirely unreasonable for parents and taxpapyers-the customers of schools, believe it or not!-to expect the schools to well, actually educate children? Parents and other taxpayers sometimes simply get fed-up with the lack of education and often grasp at any straw.
I don't think a reasonable amount of testing is too much to ask, but in America (and judging from the other contribution here, Britain, too) teachers believe it is because too often what it shows more than what a child is learning is what a teacher is not teaching.
Learn more about this author, J.M. Schell.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
