LITTLE ROCK — At the end of standardized testing season in Arkansas schools last spring, we decided to talk to some local teachers to get their views on the dreaded “teaching to the test.” Over the course of a couple of weeks, we interviewed more than 40 teachers in five Arkansas schools to learn more about how testing influenced their classroom instruction.
The results of our study were just published in the March issue of the popular teaching journal Phi Delta Kappan in an article titled “Teachers Say the Most Interesting Things-An Alternative View of Testing.” What was so interesting about the thoughts of these educators was that, for the most part, they believed that the Arkansas Standards and Assessments were good for the students. They like the tests!
After we sifted through all of the comments from all of the teachers at all of the school sites, five positive themes emerged.
Theme 1: Tests provide useful data.
Almost all teachers agreed that tests provide useful data showing whether students have grasped certain concepts. These comments exemplify a belief shared by many proponents and opponents of testing-more data is one clearly positive outcome of the recent emphasis on student testing.
Theme 2: Testing and standards help create a road map for the year’s instruction.
With increased focus on testing, teachers have focused on matching their instruction to a coherent set of standards. One local math educator best articulated the thoughts of her peers, saying, “I see where knowing the standards and knowing what’s going to be tested can help me plan the whole year and make sure I’ve covered everything.” Many advocates for testing and standards maintain that standards foster clarity about what should be taught each year.
Theme 3: Test-prep does not necessarily sap creativity for teachers or students.
This was summed up best by a middle school teacher who made the case that “true creative people” will “find a way to be creative regardless of what the framework is.” In the end, whether testing saps creativity depends on how teachers and principals react to the use of the assessments. And for many teachers in our Arkansas sample, the testing regime fostered greater creativity.
Theme 4: Testing can lead to collaboration.
Many teachers claimed that the Arkansas exams encouraged teacher collaboration to ensure that students are well-prepared. As one teacher said, testing “does give us a common goal and we can work together.” We were pleased to find that most teachers we encountered rose to the challenge that the testing provided by teaming together to enhance student achievement.
Theme 5: Accountability is useful.
This final theme was the most surprising; teachers in our focus groups made the argument that the Arkansas Benchmarks encourage teachers to feel an even greater responsibility that students learn the material. One teacher summed this up best, stating, “I’ve totally changed my philosophy of teaching. I used to stand up there and teach the best of my knowledge and ifthey didn’t get it, ‘Sorry, we’ve got to move on,’ but now it’s, ‘OK, these kids didn’t learn it; what’s the plan?’ ” These teachers used to hold themselves accountable for delivering good lessons; now, thanks to the testing regime, the teachers can take this personal responsibility one step further.
In the end, we were pleasantly surprised that so many teachers viewed our state exams as opportunities to actually add to the learning process. Indeed, most teachers are in favor of the general concept of student assessment; they reveal this in their actions each day when they ask their students to prepare for tests and quizzes and submit homework assignments. And the teachers in our sample demonstrated that, if they want to, they can use state standards and state exams to become even better educators through more data, coherence, creativity, collaboration and even accountability.
Stuart Buck is a research associate, Gary W. Ritter is a professor of education policy, and Nathan C. Jensen and Caleb P. Rose are research associates in the College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Perspective, Pages 82 on 04/11/2010