Friday, February 8, 2013

Response to Seattle's Boycott


"There is a test next week."

Cue the instant moaning and uneasiness inside the classroom. When hearing about a test boycott, the first thought must be that lazy students are trying to take the easy way out. But when the article is read further, and it is discovered that teachers are the main instigators of the movement, people are automatically confused. Why would teachers oppose testing, one of the very ideas interconnected with teaching?



The Seattle Boycott is not opposed to tests in general, but a specific one: the Measure of Academic Progress, better known as MAP. The teachers from Garfield High stood up, proclaiming that this test was not helping the students, but rather harming them. The tests are not worth a grade, making students rush to the finish. Let’s face it- when a student sees a question that they know they might struggle on, they guess an answer and the test takes an easier approach.

This standardized test has been a target of attention and support nationwide, especially in the educational community: teachers claim this test does not measure the student's knowledge; it measures the teacher's teaching. Also, they argue the content on the MAP is not according to the grade level of the student, which is true - I myself remember seeing questions that made me scratch my head. In addition to this, the test is being paid for with public money, money that could be applied for a more efficient way of testing students.

Then I think, is standardized testing in general a good idea afterall? Students are only required to bubble in answers in many of these tests. There is not a chance to be unique and different, even giving the possibility of maybe guessing everything and getting a good grade. For example, I dislike the Brazilian way of entering University, because basically it is who payed more for a “cursinho” that teaches how the test works. “Students study to pass tests rather than to acquire knowledge”, says Jim Taylor, professor at the University of San Francisco. Personally, I love learning with projects the most. In a test, especially one studied for, the stress accumulates, making me make silly mistakes. On the other hand, projects are more of a long-period test, not only about memorization. I can easily recall from memory projects I have done in the past and what they are about. Tests… Not really. Of course, maybe I am being way too radical, throwing the baby with the bath water. Maybe this will be a slow process of replacement from traditional to innovational ideas, such as the one about not having desks in classrooms anymore, but creative spaces. One less aggressive alternative given by the Garfield High teachers is a portfolio. Representing the Garfield High teachers, Jesse Hagopian affirms “Many others, myself included, believe that portfolios, which collect student work and demonstrate yearlong student growth, would be a good replacement for the MAP. Such assessments would be directly tied to our curriculum and would demonstrate improvement over time rather than a random snapshot of a student on one particular day.”



In the end, the Seattle Boycott, with all this support it’s garnering, will hopefully open up the minds of school boards and cause a paradigm shift in education today. Together with many teachers, parents and students worried for efficiency for learning, this movement will be the spark for a new age and method of knowledge gain.

Note: I personally like the following video because I was recently in a public school in Florida, did the FCAT and remember talking about it in class. The passing standard had changed, becoming 4 out of 6, when last year it was 3 out of 6. I was shocked to learn that, because they were changing the standards back and forth. How fair is that? Where is the standard?





No comments:

Post a Comment