Teacher Stories
Submitted by Serena on November 22, 2011
Teaching in Philadelphia these days at a time of high-stakes testing requires educators to think beyond our administrative leaders’ expectations of an effective teacher. The Administrative District Teams that walk through our school buildings and classrooms are understandably anxious that students perform well on the standardized state test, but they do not ask the tough questions about how we are truly meeting the needs of our students, and whether or not authentic and deep learning is taking place.
I do not mind spending some time preparing students for the PSSA, nor do I mind looking at Predictive Test data or giving effective feedback on constructed responses, but that is only one way for me to help my students develop as learners, and the Predictive Test data is only a small part of what I use to inform my instruction. I question the wisdom of overemphasizing the importance of these practices. Where are we leading our schools, and what are we doing to our students and teachers, with this narrow use of data and this singular focus on test prep? If we define effective classrooms solely with a checklist on evidence of test prep work, where is there room to nurture our students’ creativity, deepen their understanding of big concepts, honor their curiosity and questions, and help them connect their learning to real world issues? How do teachers sustain the energy to look at individual needs in an authentic and meaningful way, when our administrative leaders divert our energy in multiple directions?
On a recent walk through, I placed my analysis of Predictive Test data on my desk since it is a “must-have” of an effective teacher. Alongside this data was also my notebook where I take copious notes based on observing and working with students in small groups. The notebook was labeled “Anecdotal Data” and contains the reading behaviors of many struggling readers, what strategies they use to figure out words, how they apply comprehension skills, what kinds of mistakes they are making when problem solving, etc. The “Anecdotal Data” notebook was ignored while the Predictive Test data analysis received most of the attention. I agree that the Predictive Test data have some value. They let teachers see how groups of students performed on individual reading and math skills and give us a percentage of proficient students for each skill. However, they are based on one test and do not provide a complete picture of who our students are as learners and where their strengths and weaknesses fall. I am bewildered that teachers are not expected to dig more deeply in order to know our students better.
Expectations and feedback from District leaders during their walk-throughs shape the conversations we have in school communities. Currently, most conversations in my school are about scoring constructed responses and organizing Predictive Test data, and we seldom get the chance to expand the conversation beyond checking off eligible content posters. What we’re missing in schools are conversations about quality instruction and learning. Despite all of this, knowledgeable teachers will do their best to collect a variety of data on students and ensure that a narrowing curriculum does not define the learning experiences of their students. But when we don’t have collective conversations about what really matters, individual teachers are left to do this work in isolation. When teachers don’t have the space to learn from each other, it squanders our talent, and it is detrimental to our professional growth. It deprives our students the chance to receive the best that teachers have to offer, and it makes it impossible to achieve whole school reform.
I have come to realize that these times require me to be an expert on how to maintain the right balance in my classroom. I cannot ignore the expectations of testing and the feedback from the Administrative Team, but I also have an obligation to my students to do what I know will help them become critical readers and writers who develop a relationship with their own learning. It takes much planning, reflection and energy to achieve this right balance. In the end though, I believe that I am still compromising what quality education should be. (Therefore, in reality, it is not the “right” balance.) I look forward to a time when we are free to engage our students with meaningful learning experiences without the need to balance them with top-down ineffective mandates. For now though, the “right” balance is a way to resist a relentless testing culture and to sustain my activism within my own classroom.
iteachinphilly
November 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm
We are mandated by 440 to do a constructive response every week with every class in every subject.
The teachers in our building have an average of 150 students (high school) which means 150 essays a week for every teacher to score on a 3,2,1 or 0 basis.
if we have 37 weeks in the school year and 150 students writing essays every week, this comes to 5550 essays to score in a school year – in addition to the quizzes, CSAP documentation, tests, planning and prepping.
Just how effective can a teacher be with such a narrow scoring rubric (3, 2, 1, or 0) that doesn’t even take into consideration spelling or sentence structure?
How effective can we be if we spend all our energy just trying to keep up with the relentless flow of papers every week?
Does the district want us to know our students in depth – or should we just race through it so we can get on to the next week’s work?
This current hair-brained idea of writing shallow essays is worthless in helping our students become better writers or learners. Any “improvements” on test scores will be minimal at best but the long-term damage on teacher retention and student learning will be devastating.
Rich Migliore
November 25, 2011 at 8:45 am
I am totally in agreement. We have carried the test prep way too far. During my last 2 years as an assistant principal with the district I was required to monitor the “everyone stop teaching and practice the test” mantra. I was expected to “write up” any and every teacher who keep up with the teach the test mandates. Since I am a strong believer in student centered instruction, meeting the needs and interests of each individual student, and teachers as professionals, that did not sit well with my belief system on what good leadership is and I did not do that.
As a reading specialist who has taught and coordinated a reading program at UCHS for 20 years, may I share a quote form the “Diagnosis” section of our reading plan: “Diagnosis of reading disabilities is an ongoing process which cannot be done defintiviely with any single test. Therfeore, diagnosis must be done by the classroom teacher incorporating a variety of objective measures and evaluation of performance. The classroom teacher is expected to administer tests and evaluate their results in order to measure specific word recognition and comprehension abilities including instructional levels. The informal reading inventory is probably the most appropriate measure of reading ability.”
That has not changed today. It is up to the teacher as professional to assess student needs and abilities informally, every day.
Rich Migliore
November 25, 2011 at 8:58 am
I apologize, inadvertently deleted ‘”failed to” in my comment above. I meant that I was told to write up every teacher who failed to keep up with the test prep mandates.
To me, that is so sad and so detrimental to what we really have to do for children. It is also one of the reasons I stay in touch and advocate for a change in many of our practices within the district even though I am supposed to be retired.
Clutter. « Fred Klonsky
February 13, 2012 at 10:24 am
[…] walkthrough teams. These are the groups of educators sent each month to struggling schools to see how well teachers are following the details of the mandated curriculum, down to such items as how desks are arranged and what’s […]