Even in using more valuable kinds of assessment, e.g., classroom-based formative assessment, there's a tension between assessment for learning and assessment of learning for documentation and accountability purposes. In other words, it's hard to care about students when you're so busy writing down observable performance data about them that ties into State Standards CA42.A1, SS16.B12, and M27.J4. Learning vs. proving you have learned are two different objectives. In the former, both the student and the teacher may actually care about the outcome. And they may care less whether it can be quantified and recorded. It's hard to empirically validate an "a-ha" moment, yet good teachers in caring relationships with their students have them all the time.
Proving I have learned, i.e., showing I'm a good student, and proving I have taught, i.e., showing I'm a good teacher, are euphemistic covers for "please don't fail me" and "please don't fire me" respectively. Under NCLB, even really good assessment practices, when operating under the weight of "accountability," can become about covering one's derriere. Inevitably, and quite logically, students may focus only on those things they can demonstrate they know and that they are good at. Teachers may focus only on those things they can demonstrate they can teach with predictable, positive outcomes. Neither can afford to show process or ambiguity, and certainly neither wants to show a lack of knowledge or competence or even – heaven forbid – that they are wrong about something.
So what effect might this have on quality, substantive, in-depth teaching and learning? It's not hard to imagine.
2 comments:
Your list of qualities for a fully developed human being is wonderful and it is a dream of mine to see those qualities being promoted as the foundation of teaching and education. I continually ask myself, "What else could teaching/learning be about other than maximizing potential in children by promoting these qualities?" I like to think that it can be more than just a dream, but I wonder how in contemporary America can we make that shift from a classroom that promotes a curriculum based on standardized tests, and college applications, and school rankings to a classroom that maximizes individual potential by creating fully realized and developed human beings. I assume there needs to be a comprimise, but comprimise in itself means giving something up to gain something else, and what we would be giving up is this very ability to MAXIMIZE potential. Of course we would be INCREASING potential, but this potential would inevitably be curbed by the comprimise as well. The problem seems to extend beyond the classroom and in fact is a direct result of America's value system. But I guess the only way to change that is through education, and maybe a comprimise is a start.
I agree with Alex's point that it is not just the edcation system that is focused on "proving [you] have learned," but instead is tightly woven into America's value system. The shift in American culture to put more weight on subjects such as business and science, which make it easy for individuals to, as you say Peter, "demonstrate" what "they know they are good at," is particularly evident in collegiate programs as well as what have become the most popular professions in today's society. Much of the government's testing in public schools does not focus, or if it attempts to has no effective way of testing, on subjects in the humanities. This leads many schools, especially those that are extremely underfunded in urban areas, to decrease the emphasis put on these such subjects in thier curriculums. Yet, perhaps the best way to truly cultivate some of the traits that we value in a democratic society, such as curiosity and critical thinking, is through the full development and teaching of the humanities.
Post a Comment