Looking at High Stakes Testing as a Genre

The original purpose of me starting this blog was to force myself to look back on what I have worked on for the week, process that information in my mind, and articulate it through the blog.  I have found this is a great way for me to reflect on my own learning for the week in order to become a better instructional leader.  As I looked back on the week, I was a little frustrated because I didn’t feel there was a lot of learning going on with me because the main items on my “to do list” this week were the State of Ohio (AIR-- American Institutes of Research) Testing, mandatory ACT testing for Juniors, and Iowa Reading make-up testing for our third graders who didn’t pass the Fall State AIR Reading Test.  At first I shook my head at the “waste of time” taking place, but I quickly reminded myself that high stakes testing is a part of the expectations for educators and can be used as a benchmark to see where students currently stand.  The key, in my mind,  is to not allow high stakes testing to be the driving force behind our curriculum and teaching. (I already mentioned what should be the focus in an earlier blog titled “Adopting a Greenhouse Philosophy for Schools"), but instead look at high stakes testing as a genre to bring to the students attention.

The first time I read about testing as a genre was in Donalyn Miller’s @donalynbooks “The Book Whisperer”.  In the book, Donalyn mentions that her  students often come to her class hating reading because they have been exposed to reading through endless test prep.  She counters this test prep approach by teaching reading standardized test as its own genre.  By exposing students to the items they might see, allowing them to discuss the different types of questions, examine the terms that are often used, and discuss the skills and knowledge the tests are trying to assess.  HOWEVER, she does not teach reading through test prep.  She emphasizes the importance of looking at your best readers in class as exemplars and has determined the students who read the most are the best at every part of school.  This is not unlike discussions I have had with Jen Miller who is our district’s Reading Specialist.  Jen often states, “The best way to help students to be better readers and writers is to get them reading and writing more.”.  That seems to be common sense advice, but runs counter to the often pushed test prep of our students.  I believe what Donalyn and Jen are saying about reading and writing can, and should, be applied across our curriculum. By treating testing as a genre across the curriculum, we are exposing our students to the nuances of standardized testing while emphasizes the importance of putting students in authentic situations for their learning.  As an example,

• If we want to support students to become better readers we provide time in class for them to read books they are selecting and use those books to expose students to the expected standards through a variety of pedagogical techniques such as mini-lessons.  

• If we want them to become comfortable at writing we need to give them time to reflect on what they have read through their writing.  
• If we want students to be better mathematicians we need to allow them to discover the patterns and relationships in the numbers and allow them to make their own connections instead of telling them what connections to make.
• If we want them to be better scientists we must put them in situations that allow them to be more inquisitive (ask good questions), curious (develop a sense of wonder), mature socially (collaborate), and be more analytic (exam and interpret data) rather than follow cook-book like procedural labs.  
• If we want to develop citizens that understand the world around them from a social standpoint (Social Studies), then we must resist the urge to tell them about the history, but rather allow them to discover it and live it through their experiences such as a Mock Congress.  
• Finally, I believe, if we want to develop better global citizens, then instead of teaching them how to conjugate in a different language we ask them to speak, listen, and basically immerse them in the culture of that particular language.  I am confident no child learned their native language by conjugating verbs, but instead listened, observed, and made connections by speaking.

Our students don’t need to be “test prepped” to be successful on standardized testing when we can look at testing as a genre and instead, when possible, put them in authentic situations to learn.  I am fully aware we, as teachers, can’t ALWAYS put our students in those situations, but I am confident the students will not learn as well if we NEVER have or have limited authentic opportunities for them to learn.  

One last thought I have about standardized test prep is the “practice test”.  If we expose the students throughout the year through various situations and look at testing as a genre, I believe, there is little value in giving a full length practice test as many teachers insist on in order to build endurance.  If you think about it, a runner doesn’t train for a marathon by running a bunch of practice marathons.  They instead work on the aspects of running such as intervals, conditioning, endurance, etc. and then put it together on the day of the marathon.  I strongly believe that standardized testing should be looked at in the same way.  If we put our students in authentic situations and expose them to the nuances of testing through a genre approach their success on the high stakes standardized tests will be a natural bi-product of their learning taking place throughout the year.