I know we all hear the facts about education today. The facts that tell us teachers'and administrators' jobs can easily be put in jeopardy when classes do not meet projected growth on standardized tests. We know that there is an epidemic of "teaching to the test" sweeping across teachers in the US. We know teachers are promised bonuses for test scores exceeding standards set by the government. This is not new information to (most of) us. And, quite frankly, this terrifies me.

I didn't decide to become a teacher so I could spend the next thirty-some years of my life planning everyday according the EOG tests. I want the same thing I think everyone else in this class wants! I want to be the teacher who is passionate about her job. I want to obviously show that I care about what my students learn and how they learn it. I want to be crazy and goofy sometimes and have my students learn something from it. I want to have obscure pieces of information that may not be useful, but are just fun to know available to my students! I want to be memorable. Teaching to a test does not leave me with any of these options. I don't want to be afraid that my job will be gone the following year because I deviated from the Standard Course of Study for a minute.

This is a very terrifying thought to think that we are going to have the standardized test hanging over our heads when we plan what we are going to teach our future students. It is going to be something very stressful that we are going to have to deal with as teachers, but hopefully we will be able to adapt to the environment of having to have standardized test. I hope that I will be able to use my time wisely in the classroom and be able to incorporate other lessons that don't really deal with the EOG's. Of course, this will have to be after what the state considers important has been covered in the classroom. I'm not really sure but I don't think these test are going anywhere anytime soon. Also, in my CI 3850 class, someone said that Science and History are going to begin being tested. If this happens this will put even more stress on teachers. Despite the stress and annoyance, maybe it's not a bad thing that the tests are there. I don't like the idea of teaching to a test; however, some teachers and students would probably take advantage of classes that were not given an EOG or EOC. I know for a fact that I am not where I need to be in terms of Science or History, maybe this has something to do with there not being as big emphasis on these in my younger grades. Also, parts of my high school were a joke. Many of my classes that we didn't have an EOC in, I basically learned nothing. I know there are teachers that do care and do not need these test. Their students could learn loads of important information without North Carolina setting their standards. Maybe if we try to find some good reasoning behind the test, we can find the positives in the curriculum as we teach so that we can try to make the material fun for our students.

I completely agree. It scares me to know that if I dont 'teach the test', my job and career could be taken from me. It's very sad that this is something that hangs over teacher's heads, but it does. A friend of mine's mother is an 8th grade teacher and she's all the time telling me about these things they make her do for the tests that are just fluff and do not help the students at all. She said that the tests are held over their heads and they are constantly threatened with having their jobs taken away, but there's nothing she can do at the moment to change what's been done over the past 20 years. Very sad.

I have a slightly different perspective just because my teaching field doesn't have a standardized test. However, I absolutely abhor EOGs. Yes, some testing is necessary to hold students to some type of standard, but the sad fact is that in most cases, students cram for what's going to be on the test and don't actually learn anything that enriches them as human beings. Our current education system seems more interested in churning out robots that can pass a test than well-rounded people.

I agree with Stephanie.

One solution I see is severing the "high-stakes" from the tests. This would mean that students would not be held back simply because of their score, that teachers and schools would not be sanctioned for not meeting quotas, etc. To entirley abandon standardized testing, however, I believe resigns us to ignorance and unfair autonomy.

Testing allows teachers to look over the span of their career and notice trends, to see blips where a new method failed -- or where one dramatically succeeded --, and more importantly, to compare methodologies. Such interpretations of data, like the success of new teaching method, cannot be made unless students take a standardized test. It is a basis for professional collaboration, like between a teacher in North Carolina to a teacher in California, because standardized testing provides a baseline to build upon. Simple grade comparisons or anecdotal evidence is insufficient, in my opinion, to convince me to change my lesson plan because too many variables are left uncontrolled by the vary nature of a teacher's independent evaluation of students. I am not saying that tests should supplant our assessment of students, rather that they provide an independent measure. And I'm not limiting these tests to quantitative measures -- mere numbers from multiple choice tests; qualititative ones like student interest (or lack thereof) can also be tested and studied. An excellent example of this type of non-high stakes testing for math and science was the TIMSS.

Another benefit stems from students and parents observing patterns or improvement when we, as informed teachers, explain the meaning of testing scores, and explain to them that falling scores does not necessarily mean failure. I feel that one reason to reject standardized testing is the perception that something is watching over our shoulder. Teacher autonomy can be good because it allows us to independently develop lesson plans meeting the individual needs of students. At the same time, I wonder if some testing results indicate -- when all other variables are controlled -- that students perform worse and where the only change was the teacher. Such a conclusion would seem like Big Brother pointing to a bad teacher but this is a pessimistic perspective; the alternatives are the test is inconsistent or the methods are ineffective. Tests are abused when interpreted to say anything about the character of a teacher -- or student.

So I believe abandoning standardized testing flat-out will leave us ignorant to the impact of new methologies and less able to collaborate with fellow teachers.

ALthough too much emphasis is placed on standardized tests, I wouldn't really say that they scare me. I think that there are a lot of ways to still be a passionate and creative teacher while covering all of the information on the test, it just takes a little but more work. I don't feel like I was ever simply taught test material for a class. I do think that there are many more possibilities for learning when there are no tests and limits placed on what a teacher can cover. I had a lot of classes, especially in high school where the teachers had no real limits or pressure to cover a certain amount of material and i learned a lot of meaningful things in those classes.

I feel like I had fewer standardized tests than it seems there are in North Carolina though. How often are students tested here? Because I'm from New Jersey and besides CTBS testing in elementary school and GEPA in 8th grade I don't remember many important tests.

I cringed after I read the deatails of the "Excellent Schools Act." Holding teachers accountable in the same manner as people are in the private sector is absolutely rediculous. Awarding the teachers who teach the test better is even a worse idea. " Where teachers' livelihoods are made dependent on improvements in test scores it will only be the most exceptional among them that will seek to make their classroom places that are creative and expansive in their practices." This quote sums up those details of the legislation. The pressure for test scores will cause the majority of teachers to loose all creativity in the classroom and they will feel so much pressure to perform to the test standards that they will not be able to be a diverse and individual teacher.

The idea of testing is a toss up. It motivates teachers to stay within certain boundaries, which for some teachers I know, need. It can also be very rewarding. I am not going to lie when I say that I enjoyed my bonus check from the school system because our students had high test scores. It was a check that I know most teachers, myself included, felt well deserved and needed. I do always have that nagging in the back of me that says that the whole emphasis on school should be on more than just test scores. Freedom is sometimes too restricted. What happens when your school reaches 98%, then the next year, 99%, then 100%? Every year we are told to do better, push harder, excel at a higher percent or funding could be cut, bonuses won't be given, positions will be lost. When did we start using scare tactics? Do we tell our children "Your paper was really well written Thomas but next time you need to do better or you will be publically humiliated in front of your classmates."?

I totally feel you there Jennifer.

The statistical way to get around a school or student that performs 100% is to shift their baseline; to raise the bar. There's some assessment terminology from educational psychology that describes what I mean, but (since I forget that vocab list) basically setting a particular goal, like geometry comprehension, for each school is meaningless to me. Percentile grades are meaningful when normalized against a large population because they are comparative (and the abuse of these scores is interpreting them as competative).

I always thought it odd how many schools in North Carolina had "ABC School of Excellence" banners on their campus. There were so many that met the 95% bar or whatever that it seemed every one was great -- until those same schools didn't meet NCLB standards.

So I intend to never assign grades with % signs in my classes. Instead I find rubrics that assess mastery are more meaningful within a class because the student knows specifically what items to improve, and I could write slightly different rubrics for certain students based on their potential. This sounds much more meaningful to me and consistent with the idea that students should develop their abilities instead of meeting a generalized expectation.