The Standardized Classroom
Frank Serafini
Recently, in many of
the educational journals, local newspapers and conference agendas, state and
national standards documents and standardized testing has been given a great
deal of attention. There has been an outcry from the media and many political
interest groups for improved test performance and higher educational standards.
(Berliner & Biddle) This focus on student testing and increased teacher
accountability through testing, has lead some school districts to mandate a
“teaching to the test” program in order to raise test scores to combat the
mounting public concerns with public education (Rothman). States and school
districts have been spending countless hours to revamp and/or create standards
documents that reflect the growing concern over poorly defined or inadequate,
educational expectations (Bernauer & Cress).
Some
schools have been using commercial test preparation programs to help students
do well on the upcoming standardized tests, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills’ (ITBS) “Scoring
High”. Some of these commercial
programs have been partially successful at raising test scores. Parents, the
general public and the media seem to applaud these efforts (Wiggins). The
scores on these standardized tests, such as the ITBS, are published in many
local and statewide newspapers.
Schools are evaluated and compared to each other using predominately
this test data. If this “teaching to the test” is beneficial for raising
school’s test scores, then maybe we should change the whole school environment
to become more aligned with those elements that would foster improvement on
these tests. If it raises test scores it must be sound educational practice. Can
this be accurate?
A map store in
Phoenix, Arizona sells a map that displays all of the Phoenix Metropolitan
school districts and their subsequent test scores, broken down by geographic
location. This map is used by real estate agencies to help prospective home
buyers pick out a “good” school. These test scores have become the major
determinate of what is a “good” school. If these scores are going to be used as
the primary means for the public to evaluate school effectiveness and quality,
then why not help children do well on these tests? No one seems to be arguing
that helping children score better on these tests is not a reasonable goal. But
how far do we go to insure this happens? Do we align the district’s curriculum
to match the test? In other words, do we teach to the test (Bushweller)? At
first this may sound logical. However, I believe it would have such a negative
overall effect on students’ learning that upon closer examination, it would be
an educational disaster. In the rest of this article I would like to explore
whether this test-driven curriculum makes sense or would it have a reductive,
negative impact on the experiences afforded our students.
Standardized tests,
like the ones administered here in Arizona, Stanford Achievement Tests, ITBS
and the performance based assessment, Arizona Student Assessment Program, have
a definite stance towards learning and student/teacher accountability
(Serafini). If these tests are being used as the sole indicator of the quality of education we provide our
children, then the classroom environment that is aligned with many of the same
procedures and philosophies that these tests put forth should help children be
successful in these educational scenarios. In other words, if we equate
educational quality with test scores, then aligning tests and curriculum seems
to make sense. But at what costs?
If the students
were successful on these tests and the school districts raised their test
scores, would everyone be happy? After reading articles and newspaper columns,
it would seem that everything would be coming up “roses” in education if we
could just raise the test scores. But what would we lose? What would be left
out and who would be marginalized? What kind of classroom environment would
support success on these tests? Is
being able to do well on these standardized tests a guarantee of a successful
academic experience? Is everything of importance included in these tests? More
importantly, would you want your child in this type of classroom? Would you
like to teach in this type of classroom?
In other words, what
would a classroom look like that helped children do well on these standardized
tests and ignored other curriculum decisions? I will call this phenomenon the
“standardized classroom” . I hope that by describing this classroom, educators
can better understand the effects of narrowly defined standards and
standardized testing on the school curriculum.
In the
standardized classroom, there would only be one right answer and someone other
than the students would know what that answer is. The answer manual would
provide the “truth” about the way the world works and the way language is
structured. There would be no questioning the teachers manual. Not even by the
teacher! In the standardized classroom, truth would be found in the answer key
by referring to an outside authority. An answer is either wrong or right, not
open to debate or rebuttal.
During reading
instruction, the primary objective would be to find the main idea. This main
idea would have been decided upon by an outside expert long before students had
the opportunity to read the selection. The job of the students would be to
guess what the main idea is, not to decide what the selection means for
themselves. It would be correctness, alignment with the answer manual, not
interpretation that would be of primary concern.The reading selections would be
short abridged stories and not complete books. These selections would have been
created with instruction and assessment, rather than enjoyment, as their primary
purpose. These reading selections would use tightly controlled vocabulary and
grammar. Each selection would be sequenced to be sure that the reader was
introduced to the necessary skills in the appropriate order. Students would not
be allowed to choose which text
they wanted to read. Oral discussion would not be necessary and a series
of questions would have to be answered after every reading selection. Students
are to answer questions correctly, not to ask them. Comprehension would simply
equate with correct responses to questions after the selections were read.
Writing
instruction would focus more on grammar than content or topic choice. It is not
what you say that is important, but how correctly you can write it. Mechanics would be considered at a
premium over content or information. There would also be certain vocabulary
words that needed to be learned and these would be prescribed in a controlled
sequence for all children in the class. As a matter of fact, there would even
be an “official” vocabulary and spelling
list. The learning of these
words would be done by rote memorization. Look ‘em up and memorize them for the
test each Friday. This would be the only way such large numbers of words could
be exposed to children. After the students are tested on these vocabulary
words, no further use of the words would be required. Testing would be the
final judgment for understanding. Standardization and conventionality is the
key in this classroom. Correctness over exploration and approximation will be
emphasized.
After students have written essays and other pieces of writing, the
students and teacher would send these pieces off to be scored by someone
outside the classroom. This means that the only response a student would
receive for their writing would be a numerical score. Students would be ranked
and ordered by the grades they received and the highly ranked students would
receive praise and enrichment activities, while the lower ranked students would
receive remedial help. The students themselves may never know why they are
receiving these grades for their writing. The assessment of their writing
proficiency would be reduced to a number and no one would discuss with them
what they have actually written. There would be much more concern over a
properly finished product than the process used to create it.
As far as the actual
classroom learning environment is concerned, the most effective way to learn
would be to sit quietly in rows. Just as in the testing environment, working
with other students would be considered cheating. Students would not be allowed
to ask other students for help and the teacher would only be allowed to answer
certain questions. Only certain things would be allowed to be said and done.
Tight controls over what is taught, how it is taught and what is learned is
believed to create better schools and better students. The main objective here
would be to teach all children the same thing, at the same rate and the same
time. If a student couldn’t handle the work, remedial classes would exist to
get the “slow” student up to level with the others. Summer school or retention
would be two options.
Teachers would
generally be concerned with how to teach and not what to teach.
All that
teachers would have to do is regularly consult with the teacher’s curriculum
guide or teaching manual and follow directions about the content they would
need to cover. Covering all of the prescribed curriculum is very important in
the standardized classroom. It is believed that if all the teachers said the
same thing, and reacted the same way, all students would learn the same thing.
The teachers would be told by someone outside the classroom what to teach.
Lessons and directions would have to be scripted to help teachers teach the
same way and avoid mistakes.
An external
agent or textbook publisher will be making the curricular decisions about what
is to be taught, with no input from the members of the classroom. Not only will
these “outsiders” tell the teachers and students what to learn, but they will
tell them how much time they have to learn it. All learning experiences will be
timed so that students will be prepared for when the tests are administered. In
the decision between coverage or depth, coverage would be of primary importance.
It is the students duty to merely absorb what is presented to them without
question.
As a matter of
fact, students will eventually learn not to question anything in this type of
classroom. The students will learn that someone else is in control and that
their input is not valued. Someone outside the class will determine what is of
value, correct it for the students and evaluate each of their abilities.
Control would
be a major issue. Teachers would not be allowed to stray from the curriculum that
is to be presented. Regardless of the diversity present in the classroom, or
the needs of its members, the curriculum would be developed without their input
and then just “transmitted” to them. The students would be expected to sit back
and be “passive receptors” of this knowledge.
All evaluation done
in this classroom is done for
purposes of comparison and remediation. The tests are designed to find
out what students don’t know so that the teachers can go back and fill up these
learners with the correct information at a later date. It is a deficit view of
learning and instruction. The students would become less and less important as
people and treated more like numbers.
A major assumption
made in this classroom is that the outside agencies that devise
these tests
know what every person needs to know in order to be a successful, happy,
fulfilled human being. The experts have explored the world and developed a
curriculum that will be imposed upon every child. This knowledge is usually
based on isolated content material and “facts”. Success in school would be measured by their ability to
memorize “facts”. Very little concern would be given to the aesthetic or
artistic development of these students.
Teachers would not be
allowed to question the curriculum. It is believed that teachers can't even
give directions properly, so someone else would write them down so the teachers
can use them. The teacher would be told what to say and when to say it. No
questions or straying from the script would be allowed.
What about the
ramifications for preservice educational programs at the college level? The
programs would be more like commercial training sessions. Teachers would only
need to know how to do things, not how to think. The college level classes
would be more concerned with developing methodology and orthodoxy, than
training teachers in a certain philosophy. Classes would focus on direct
instructional models and how to correct papers. Maybe one class would be called
“Red Pen 101”. The teacher of the future would not have to know how to think,
only know how to follow instructions and deliver material.
Another major
assumption would be that everything taught must be measurable. This seems to be
one of the most frightening aspects of this standardized classroom. Do these test designers and curriculum
reform groups really believe that all learning is in fact measurable? Do these
“measurable” parts of the curriculum take precedent over other events?This is a
question each educator must ask themselves.
In
schools recently, there has been a push towards standardization and
accountability. In most newspaper columns it has been disguised however, as
educational reform. This article is meant to to be seen as an extreme case, but
there are actual classrooms in the United States that aren’t too far away from
the one described here. We ask for certain things in education and we get
them. Are we sure we are asking
for the right things? What would happen if we actually got them? I hope that no
classrooms would ever look like this. But, as educators we need to be real
clear about what we ask for in education and what wishes we want granted,
because they may just come true.
Until all
people become standardized and the formula for a successful, happy life becomes
standardized, the curriculum and evaluation methods used should reflect the
diversity of the constituents they are supposed to serve. Identify the standard
learner, and then we can begin to worry about the standardized classroom. Luckily,
people can’t be standardized, no matter what our Department of Education
thinks.
Frank
Serafini
6980 E.
Sahuaro Dr. #1021
Scottsdale,
Arizona, USA 85254
602-922-9967
Bibliography
Berliner,D.,
& Biddle,B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, frauds and the attack on
America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison & Wesley.
Bernauer,B.,
& Cress, K. (1997). How school communities can help redefine accountability
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 71-80
Bushweller,
K. (1997) . Teaching to the test. American School Board Journal. 20-25
Rothman, R.
(1996). Taking aim at testing. American School Board Journal. 27-30
Serafini, F.
(1997). Stances to assessment. Talking Points: Newsjournal of the Whole Language
Umbrella. (8) 3, 2-4
Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership. (46) 7, 41-47