Test Prep

I went to see "Waiting for Superman" the other night.  To my surprise, I thought it was pretty good.  Oversimplified, of course.  But how could anyone expect otherwise?  Cover the topic of education in the US deeply in a two-hour film?!  Impossible.

Here is what has been most unsettling me since then, and it is a question only hinted at in the film.

The charter schools highlighted in the film (Harlem Children's Zone, KIPP, Harlem Success Academy, etc.) seem to get good results.  They have high test scores.  Their students finish high school and go to college.  If the alternative is a "dropout factory," prison, or death, this sounds pretty good.

(Sometimes there are other options, of course: high-performing public schools.  But not always.)

Although I am loath to put it in writing, these schools have better test scores than my school does.  How do they get them?  They have extra-long school days.  Shorter vacations.  School on Saturday.  Lots and lots of test prep, and pretty traditional teaching.  Little to no recess, no blocks, no play.

I couldn't teach that way.  I don't believe in it, and I wouldn't have the heart for it.  I don't think test scores are the end-all and be-all of assessment, and I think there are other things worth learning in addition to the five-paragraph essay and the multiplication tables.

My school, on the other hand, tries to do it all.  We want to prepare our students to do well on standardized tests, because the tests are their ticket to opportunity instead of poverty.  We want to teach them to be activists.  We want to teach them to be investigators, creative thinkers, and good friends.  To that end, we want our teachers to be creative, collaborate with each other, and work what seem like miracles.

It is a lot to do.  Often it feels like too much.  And I'm not sure we are succeeding, despite superhuman efforts.

That's what makes me uneasy.  KIPP and the Harvard Children's Zone (which are actually quite different from each other in terms of approach, but are portrayed as if they were almost the same in the movie) are providing kids the tickets they need to make it.  Maybe they aren't so creative, or collaborative, or involved in their communities when they graduate.  But they aren't dead, or in jail.  They are mostly in college.

What is our greatest responsibility?  To save their lives?  Or to teach them creativity and critical thinking?  Are we remiss if we don't teach them to pass the tests?  If we don't teach them broader skills too?

If what is counted is what counts, should we stick to our guns and teach what matters, or teach what gets counted?  Should we try to get what matters to be counted (an enormous task indeed)?  Do we have the time?  Can our kids afford it?  Can we afford not to?

(Note: Schools like KIPP and HCZ usually don't teach students with special needs, or those with the lowest test scores to begin with.  They don't have to teach everyone, because they aren't traditional public schools.  So I might be comparing apples to oranges here.  But that's what the movie is doing as well.)

Here is the movie I want to see: one that shows urban public schools that are getting the same great test results with innovative teaching methods.  Schools that aren't only teaching to the test, but are developing the skills of critical thinking, community engagement, creativity, and collaboration.  Schools where teachers don't burn out in 3-5 years, and are allowed and encouraged to be intellectually involved in their craft.  The question is: How many of these schools exist?