Conservatives like to say that teachers unions oppose standardized testing because they don't want to accept accountability or set high expectations. Teachers do this because, like any other trade union, they want to maximize their wages and job security. Rigorous state standards with tough tests mean more work and stress for the teachers. It might even put their jobs at risk. So they oppose it. By doing so, they lower expectations and foster academic failure, especially for low-income minorities.
But conservatives miss the pedagogical point that the volume of standards and testing actually diminishes the quality of education. This article from the New York Times discusses how Scarsdale High School - one of the best in the country - has abolished it's Advanced Placement curriculum. These are some of the best students and teachers in the country, and they have determined that the AP standards were actually hurting how much kids learned.
Scarsdale criticized the AP curriculum for testing too much breadth of content. When the material is so vast, students are drilled into memorizing an amazing amount of superficial knowledge. This sacrifices opportunities to learn in depth, which is when students can develop analytical skills, become critical thinkers, and make deeper connections. One way of thinking about the trade off of depth and breadth is to consider what you would want your child to be: an independent analytical thinker, or an encyclopedic repository of superficial knowledge? Like the AP standards, state standards tilt learning toward the encyclopedic end of the spectrum. Most educators think this is a lower quality education: we want our kids to think and write more than recite, not the other way around.
Scarsdale's move is politically important. It demonstrates that great teachers who want the best for their students understand that current AP and state standards undermine their effort. It undermines the conservative narrative that opponents of NCLB-style testing are lazy teachers unions putting their interests first.
Posts
2 comments:
>>>> I don't think scarsdale getting rid of their AP classes matters at all for
>>>> the future success of scarsdale students. According to the NYT article,
>>>> basically the same number of students are still taking and passing the AP
>>>> tests, without the AP classes. Also, they have an army of college counselors
>>>> making sure all the important universities understand how superior their new
>>>> curriculum is.
>>>>
>>>> However, I don't like the idea of a precedent being set for all high schools
>>>> that its ok to get rid of AP classes. AP scores are a national standard by
>>>> which to judge college applicants. I think having as many national metrics
>>>> as possible to assess students is a good thing and AP tests can be a bright
>>>> point for students from average or below average high schools. My high
>>>> school didn't offer AP, so I'm not really familiar, but I would conjecture
>>>> that AP test awareness and passage rate is MUCH higher for students who take
>>>> AP classes. I think schools considering getting rid of AP classes is a
>>>> slippery slope toward a less level playing field for college applicants of
>>>> diverse backgrounds by decreasing access to a national indicator of
>>>> potential college success.
No offense, but this post misses some important points. Scarsdale is one of the most well off school districts in the country. New Trier had a similar debate years ago, I forget what the outcome of that debate was, but this is not some new debate.
I agree, at a very high level of academic achievement, standardized testing winds up inhibiting the very best teachers and students. Schools at that level (I'd include Scarsdale in there) need to weigh the costs of keeping AP against the benefits of standardized testing - which is that you have some idea of how well you are teaching your students versus other schools.
But most schools aren't Scarsdale. These schools are not hitting the ceiling that standardized tests create. They are still operating far below their Westchester counterpart. Public administrators need to know how well these middle- and low- performing schools are doing so they can focus their attention on necessary resource allocation and so forth. Without standardized tests, these public administrators are flying in the dark.
When opponents of standardized tests come up with a better way to accurately and consistently assess student performance across schools, I'll gladly embrace it. Til then, I'll continue to support AP, SAT, ACT, NCLB, etc. - Dank
Post a Comment