Is Testing Education's Red Herring?

flickr CC image via timparkinson

I'm blown away by the volume of Twitter posts addressing the issue of testing in education. An inordinate amount of time and energy is being spent on the controversy, and I'm of the opinion that this is taking us away from the real task of getting on with creating effective strategies addressing the assessment challenge, and also from other educational issues that have been pushed aside by the volume of debate over testing. Before you get all riled up about the title of this post, hear me out just a bit.

• I'm all for improving the manner in which we assess and evaluate students... we should never, never stop doing this.
• There are undoubtedly strong arguments favouring alternatives to high-stakes, one shot win or lose forms of summative assessment.
• We must evaluate students if we are to call ourselves professionals. To do so is responsible, necessary and important professional work.

I worry that the frenetic pace with which teachers around the world are slamming traditional forms of assessment is taking away from the real work of suggesting viable alternatives, and I don't mean alternatives that are so far removed from conventional wisdom that they don't have a chance in you know where of becoming common practice. There are logistical problems... how do we ensure that all kids are assessed fairly and comprehensively to establish appropriate educational transition plans, and to ensure that every one of them feels supported and enabled to approach their dreams without prejudice? This is no small task. I hear a lot of statements about what is wrong with the state of assessment in education, but beyond the regular "ban multiple choice exams" rhetoric, (perhaps there are viable alternatives,) I don't hear many really solid solutions to the problem... just bandwagon-jumping complaints addressing the inadequacy and inappropriateness of conventional testing methods.

Like it or not, education can't happen for free, and as long as taxpayers are paying government to provide an education system, there will be requirements for government to be accountable to them for their investment. This is not inherently bad really, is it? In turn, why shouldn't the education system be expected to be accountable for its investment in learning? It's not whether we should be accountable for what we do in education, but rather how we'll be accountable, that we should be discussing intelligently and openly. Whether students, parents, teachers or government, we should all be targeting the same outcomes surrounding and supporting student success... why not do this collaboratively in their best interests?

Cardinal rule  number one when making decisions affecting how we support kids- ask whether the decision is in their best interest to the exclusion of any other variable. If the answer is yes, you're likely on the right track, and I refuse to believe there is as agenda out there that intentionally damages kids... no matter the group, we need to default to a perspective that assumes people are doing the best they can for kids with the knowledge and experience they represent, and if that's not enough, we need to talk rationally about why, and where to go next.

Let's stop bandwagon-jumping and get talking about alternatives that have hope; alternatives that are viable enough to satisfy the testing gods on high because their effectiveness is undeniable. Let's be smarter than the problem. Let's do our homework, and instead of illuminating the problem, let's illuminate some solutions.

Morphic Resonance

-Christine Mason Miller

morphic resonance [ˈmɔːfɪk]

n

(Life Sciences; Allied Applications / Biology) the idea that, through a telepathic effect or sympathetic vibration, an event or act can lead to similar events or acts in the future or an idea conceived in one mind can then arise in another...

Good, effective leaders don't exude power, they exude character, morality, humanity and collaboration... the sort of stuff that rubs-off on folk without them even realizing it. Understanding morphic resonance makes leading people exponentially more efficient and effective because it moves leadership from transactional control to transformational collaboration... leaders working among their people as opposed to above them.

When educational leaders attempt to move schools toward desired futures, it's so important that their followers are on board. In my opinion, a vast majority of people appreciate leaders who lead by example; those that show they are willing to step out and be a tangible part of the effort toward that desired future as opposed to the one dictating it.

Nurturing morphic resonance is the ultimate version of leading by example. The function of leaders is to lead, but people need to follow if leadership is going to resonate. Of course, different forms of leadership are effective in addressing different situations, and we all have our preferred ways to be led; morphic resonance, however is a concept that applies to all forms of leadership... it's what happens when effective leaders tip their leadership so others are inclined to follow. Morphic resonance is what you feel when leadership has evolved from a form of control to a form of influence; the element that you tacitly feel when you enter a school displaying an authentic and positive school culture where every member of the organization is attuned to the same philosophical and systematic principles.

Morphic means having a specified shape or form. Resonance means having a lasting presence or effect; an enduring entity.The kind of educational leaders we need are those who know how to shape and form schools that work, and even more importantly, how to make that shape and form emerge and endure in the practice of others.

Systems-Centered Standards

flickr CC image via PinkMoose

The problem with education standards in North America is they are system centered. My friend Gord Atkinson (via Twitter @Principal20) came up with a sadly accurate definition of a system-centered education system- he characterizes it as budget crossed with social engineering. Brilliant, and tragically a massive reason why we're not moving education reform forward toward what it should be; a child development centered system.

It sounds crazy that a system centered approach to education would ever be good- like restaurants serving food without asking the customers what they want. Gord's assessment that budget and social engineering are at play makes the issue easier to understand, if not to accept.

To state the obvious, there is a cost to education. Of course fiscal responsibility is critical if government is to continue to provide any sort of education system; this isn't at question, but how much really is our system dependent on the almighty dollar? In "Why Is It Always About the Funding?" I stated that,

...obviously funds are required to support many elements of the education system. Teachers need to get paid, resources need to be supplied and schools need to be built and maintained, however, when it comes to ideas supporting better practise, I would submit that perhaps the best education reforms require no financial support whatsoever...  As intelligent professionals who know tacitly what works and what doesn't in their classrooms and schools, teachers typically integrate and synthesize their philosophical thoughts in an effort to reform their personal practise and refine their craft. I've had enough professional conversations with my teaching colleagues to know that collectively, we also have a lot to say about how these efforts can be extrapolated to a broader education reform context.

We need to accept that politics are politics, (party agendas, personal political aspirations, fiscal realities and the never-ending quest for power are obvious factors that affect not just the funding of education, but every publicly funded institution,) and if we're going to tip education reform so that it reflects a child development-centered philosophy we need to get past our obsession with blaming government for our system inadequacies. Government is what it is; it will always require that education answers to a set of standards that reflect the relative success of the system. Understanding this, and also being pedagogical experts, it's incumbent upon teachers to show government that we too aren't interested in removing standards, but that we are interested in defining better ways to reach them. Let's let the government define the standards, while we define the path to get there.

As opposed to what we seem to approach as an absolute process with end goals, education reform should be a ubiquitous, constant, never-ending process. If we intend to move toward a child development-centered education system, teachers need to take the lead role in showing government that we know better ways to teach and evaluate kids so learning is evident, and that in many cases will cost less. The obvious example is weaning the system from high-stakes, standardized testing routines. We have come to accept these tests as just something we do, but this hasn't always been the case.This interesting article from the New York Times highlights the arbitrary and inconclusive nature of these tests. Amidst this controversy and considering the massive cost to administer these tests, why not instead let teachers decide to what degree learning standards have been met by individual students? After all, teachers spend two hundred days with their students every year; can we not trust their insight into how well curriculum goals have been met in each student's case?

Another cost-saving measure could be to move away from unsustainable forms of teaching and learning resources; paper textbooks being the obvious example. As soon as a textbook is published, contemporary access to digital information has made it yesterday's information. There is also an argument that textbook learning perhaps isn't the most effective way to learn anyway. Teachers know that authentic learning is displayed when it's relevant, current and applicable to a student's future, and they also know that a textbook isn't required as part of the process. Let's increase access to the digital universe, and allow teachers unfettered access to assist in creating relevant, current and applicable learning environments.

High-stakes standardized test routines and textbook style learning resources are not necessarily the only ways to measure and apply teaching and learning. They are multimillion dollar enterprises though, and the cost to education is unimaginable. All of a sudden, teachers start to look like a bargain at twice the price when compared to the cost of standardized tests and textbooks considering we can provide better, more authentic, child development-centered learning and assessment environments without either of these influences.

Authentic Learning is the Kind We All Remember

flickr CC image via stevendepolo

As much as I was dangling them in junior high school, I cant remember the rule about participles. Maybe a more authentic lesson would've helped me get it right on the test.

In all seriousness, I was speaking with parents at parent/teacher interviews last week about the difference between how kids were taught a generation of students ago, and how we are teaching their children today, (or at least how some of us are trying.) I can remember doing worksheet after worksheet correcting sentences that contained dangling participles, but although I know one when I see it, I couldn't give you a really good description of what one is. Perhaps it's not important beyond knowing what one looks like so I can avoid using them in my writing. That's where authentic learning comes in.

With regard to developing writing skills, why not allow students to simply write? They can write about whatever they want in so many many different forms... and I'd know they used dangling participles because I would read their writing. After reading, I would provide feedback regarding how to do it differently and more appropriately. My kids love to write; they do it all the time. When we're at home and they ask me to read their writing, I don't give it a mark as if it were one of the worksheets I did so long ago; I just tell them that I'm proud of how hard they worked, and then I suggest some things they could do next time to improve their writing. They seem to appreciate this feedback. If it works with my kids at home, why can't it work for my students at school?

One way for teachers to provide more authentic learning opportunities for their students is to provide choice in the manner students desire to show us what they can do, and then use formative feedback to assess how they're doing. I had some really good teachers in junior and high school, and I remember many writing assignments they gave me; all with an element of choice embedded within them. One of my favorites was a poetry assignment within which students were to choose animals that each of their classmates reminded them of. The teacher made a list of students and the animals that were matched to them, and then we were to choose one from the list that matched our name and write a poem about ourselves as characterized by the traits of that animal. Another one was to write a manifesto that was designed to change the world... just like that; whatever we wanted to write. I chose to write a statement about how to solve the world's eventual overpopulation problems. Yet another was to write a first-hand account of the scariest thing that ever happened to me without using a single adjective. I wrote about my first spill of one of our horses.

I'm sure that all three of the teachers that assigned me these tasks provided feedback; after all, that's their job- to assess my writing- but the fact that I remember these assignments at all over twenty five years later is a testimony to their skill in designing writing activities that are fun, meaningful, motivating and dare I say, authentic.

I am certain my love for writing is in no way attributable to those damn worksheets. Other than remembering having to do them, those worksheets didn't leave me with a lasting impression at all.

Homework shouldn't be assigned, it should be inspired!

flickr CC image via ultrakickgirl

My good buddy and colleague, Joe Bower, is a passionate and intelligent person. I just finished reading his last post at his education blog, 'For the Love of Learning'. In The Destructive Forces of Homework, Joe states that,

If we are to walk the talk of life-long learning, we must care how kids feel about their learning. If ever there was a consensus among people, it could be found among kids and their hatred for homework. So if we truly care about students' attitudes towards learning, and we are doing something that is sabotaging that attitude to go on learning, then we have a professional obligation to stop.

OK Joe, I'm going to challenge you on this statement... I totally agree with your first point, "if we are to walk the talk of life-long learning, we must care how kids feel about their learning." This point is inarguable. Perspective is the key to motivation. I would also agree that there is a wide-spread (almost cliche) negative perspective toward homework among the student set, but I ask myself why this is. Do students hate homework, or do they hate what we call homework? I submit the latter is more true.

We need to contextualize homework. If students love what they do in school so much that they want to continue to do it at home, can we not call that homework? The logic you suppose is based on your position that homework is inherently bad, and therefore "sabotaging" student's attitudes to go on learning. I can't necessarily agree. If teachers are engaging students in meaningful and authentic ways at school, and that learning continues at home, (a good thing in my opinion,) I don't think my definition of homework sabotages anything; I actually believe it would enhance learning.

After reading some of the comments on your post, and considering the litany of comments in various teacher circles related to the homework debate, I must say that teachers have done an incredible disservice to the topic of homework in general. True life-long learning as an attitude is something that we should embrace to be sure, but I can't see how that can perpetuate if we are saying learning is defined in such narrow parameters as whether homework is either good, or bad. I cringe when I consider that homework as most people define it, (unfinished work, worksheets for drill or memorization of facts,) is really just more of what already happened in school on any given day, and if we're saying homework is inherently bad, what are we saying about school?

I would like to pose the challenge that homework doesn't have to be absolutely bad. It doesn't even necessarily have to be done as an "assignment" that everyone is expected to do, and that those who don't are somehow punished for as a result. For example, if I asked my class to go home with some basic instructions on how to build a cell battery out of some paper towels, pennies, copper wire, tape and salt water, and the majority of them actually do it, (not because it was for marks, or because I said they had to,) and then brought their excitement and batteries back to class the next day wanting to show the kids who didn't build one, for whatever reason, how they worked, I'm going to say this is a good learning situation, (a true story from my class this past week.) This is also a process I would call homework that certainly doesn't damage attitudes toward learning, but rather improves them.

We don't have a professional obligation to stop sending homework; we have a professional obligation to start sending homework that is meaningful to students, applied to the exciting teaching and learning going on in our schools and that students will do because they want to, not because they have to.

Calling All Experts- What is Authentic Learning?

flickr CC image via mzagor

Learning should be an organic, concentric process, not a linear one. The world surrounds us; it's not a point to point path. However, our education system is set up as a from here to there journey- not a great reflection of the broader world we are a part of. Enter authentic learning.

There is a debate brewing over what authentic learning looks, sounds and feels like, I just know it. I'm hearing people make reference to the term, but I'm not sure if people know what it means. I'm not even sure if I know what it means. I have my point of view on the concept, but I haven't actually heard a definitive explanation. Sad it would be if the potential value of what authentic learning has to offer kids were to be diminished as a result of teachers bantering the term about without actually creating authentic learning in their classrooms. (Reminds me of what's happened with PLC's. Alarmingly, many teachers claim to be involved within a professional learning community, but they have no idea what Richard DuFour intended that to actually mean... I know because I've asked them.)

So what is an authentic learning environment? Here's some examples of what I think an authentic learning environment might look, sound or feel like:

• Kids who go home at the end of the day and do homework that I didn't assign, but that is totally related to what we did in class that day
• Unit and lesson plans that adjust for the unforeseen possibilities that crop up in an organic learning environment (a.k.a. teachers who aren't slaves to their well-thought out plans for instruction; those that think on their feet)
• Evaluation and assessment practices that reflect student's progress against his/her personal goals and aspirations, and that are relative to where the student jumped off at the beginning of the learning journey
• Learning activities that provide multiple formats and opportunities to display learning
• Learning that stimulates all modalities; that draws the whole person into the process... there's more to learning than just what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears
• Learning in three dimensions (can you say paperless teaching?)
• Kids suggesting what we should do next in whatever class to extend the learning objective we just met
• Parents knowing what their kids are doing at school because the kids are so darned excited that they can't wait to tell them every day
• Teaching and learning that understands we are emotional beings; that we need to reach people on personal levels before we can reach them on cognitive levels (and that by doing so, we can go so much further in the cognitive domain)
• Teaching that exploits all degrees and variations of student strengths without apology with the understanding that there is no limit to what can be learned
• Teaching from a perspective that doesn't recognize or validate failure, only relative degrees of success
• Teaching that utilizes various forms of technology as critical tools toward creating authentic learning when the lived experience isn't possible (field trip to the moon)
• Teaching and learning that incorporates the fine arts and physical movement into all learning activities as opposed to the traditional practise of conducting classes for these as separate 'subjects'
• Teaching and learning that incorporates the issues, challenges, contexts and mysteries that the broader world provides
• Teaching and learning that perceives mistakes as critical and valuable elements within the process of searching for understanding
• Teaching and learning that accepts the connectivity we enjoy in our global environment not as a novelty, but a necessity
• Teaching and learning that exudes creativity and takes risks understanding that the two mixed together equal opportunity 

OK you experts, how am I doing? I swear I have not looked up authentic learning on Wikipedia, nor have I done research anywhere else on the topic whatsoever. I'm just throwing this out there hoping I'm close to the mark because I sure like the thought of teaching in a class that looks, sounds and feels like what I describe.