We’ve beat this to death I think, not the question necessarily but testing itself. We’ve flattened it, blamed it, stretched it, bolstered it and torn it down. What we’ve not done is eliminated it. First of all, why do we have state mandated end of course testing? The only logical conclusion is — we do not have teachers we can trust. Otherwise why the redundancy? Why test students on subjects the teachers obviously tested them on already? What’s the point? I am probably stating the obvious but the difference is, I’m laying it all out here — the wounds of the system; we do not trust teachers.
Testing is very expensive, state wide standardized testing. Let’s eliminate the standardized testing in K-12. There’s already a good national testing for admission to college in the ACT/SAT system, paid for by the students. The only other system of testing that could be administered statewide, is a graduation required senior final exam. That would eliminate the school “x”is easier than school “y” so let’s move our kids there mentality.
This is after all, about money. I don’t care how much the school/principal/teacher says they love the school/students they would not be there if it were not for money. So with that as the basis, how much would a school system save if it did not have to test so often? The state pays for the testing but the reality is, they pay for testing out of money that could go to schools if schools/principals/teachers were trusted. So if on an average testing day, a state pays half a million to test all the states students in a particular grade on a particular subject, what could individual school districts be able to do with the money instead? School infrastructure? Teacher raises?
So how would a school insure students received satisfactory instruction? Teacher testing. Test for retention, test for promotion, and hire only qualified teachers for open positions not family and friends as is a common practice in rural schools. Testing to hire, retention, and promotion is used in many professional occupations from the USAF to lawyers. Trust the school districts. Empower them by giving them funds that otherwise would have been spent on the numerous tests. The saving in teachable hours not spent on testing preparation, testing days, and testing recovery alone is worth it.
I’m sitting in my “office” in a high school in Tennessee. The scene is virtually the same in many counties across the state and perhaps across the country. I am trying to access a public web site, TED (www.TED.com), to share a wonderful algebra teaching video with the schools I work with. Blocked. Earlier I was sitting in an English class where the teacher was trying to access a web site that discussed several of Shakespeare’s works. Blocked. Teachers in another county used to be able to communicate intra-school using the built-in messaging system. Blocked. While conducting research for a science project in the library, the entire class wasted over half the class period trying to find web sites that would allow them access a few medical sites. Blocked.
Now I know, having had several running battles with technology in other districts, that the solution to the problem is almost as easy as flipping a switch. Flipping a switch. But if you examine the individuals who are the technology representatives in schools you’ll find mostly non-educator, hardware technologists, with little or no vested interest in advancing the educational needs of the system. Their job is to block access to the system. They are the off switch in the portal to accessing the system. I’m an advocate for removing these technologists either completely or reducing their status in the system to a staff member working for an educator with a vested interest in the system.
To do less is to treat the educators in your system as juveniles equal in status to their students. The “switch” in the system needs to be the responsible educator in the classroom.
Technologists are necessary in a system when changing systems, revamping existing systems, installing new systems, as a technical advisor only. No authority to stop or block educational needs. A new high school built in middle Tennessee recently had the internet and overhead projector access in a part of the class rooms not useable by the teachers. Nobody asked the educators in the rooms where to position the desks; a technologist determined where. Reminds me of the illustration I saw years ago of an automobile designed by three different people: A mom with kids, an automotive engineer, and an automobile mechanic. The mom’s vehicle had a couch, places for drinks, garbage can, but try to find the engine! The engineer’s car was low and smooth, with great lines but how do you get into it? The mechanic’s car had the engine exposed with access to all the necessary parts and two lawn chairs thrown on the back for the driver and a passenger.
In today’s digital educational society the usefulness of the technologist has run its course. They are still needed to resolve point of service issues, install a printer, replace a monitor, etc., but their input into the how and why the system should run needs to be reversed. The reason we find ourselves in this position is most of the superintendents and school boards are littered with old fogies. I’m no spring chicken, but I can spot technical incompetence when I see it. I’ll never forget not too many years ago at a school board meeting, a young lady in the audience was taking notes on her laptop when one of the school board members asked her if she could make a copy of a document he had in his hand on her “electronic thing!” What a moron! Go to your next school board meeting and look at the people making the timely and necessary decisions about education in your county and you’ll see part if not most of the reason why education struggles in our country.