The assumption, as usual, is that the state tests are the gold standard. This is odd, since just a few weeks ago, the Post was calling the NAEP the gold standard and saying its results were "final proof" of de Blasio's educational failure.
It's not surprising when a paper's editorial staff is out of sync with its reporting staff. I see it all the time. Daily News and NY Times editorials are generally no kinder to us than those of the Post. But the more I read the editorials, the more I think people who write them just ignore current events and grasp at whatever to support their already well-established prejudices. Good reasons, bad reasons--who cares as long as the points they wish are made?
I don't know very much about math, and I don't know very much about state math exams either. Perhaps the state math exams are the best standardized exams on earth. I doubt it, though, since they're based on Common Core, exemplified by David Coleman's core philosophy, "No one gives a shit what you think or feel." I won't begin to speculate what that portends for math, but it's extremely hard to see how that philosophy motivates living, breathing students. (People are not very important in David Coleman's world, and I can see why. I, for example, don't give a crap what he thinks or feels, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he met many people with that opinion in his formative years.)
I'm a lot more familiar with English exams. The NY State English Regents is total crap. It doesn't measure reading or writing. I know students who've passed it with scores in the high 80s. Teaching them, I learned they were patently unable to construct a coherent sentence in English. I know students whose strategy to ace the multiple choice sections is to avoid the reading passage altogether and simply hunt for the answers.
It's hard for me to lend credence to an examination that actively discourages reading. It's hard for me to imagine any worthwhile writing being created by anyone who followed the Coleman philosophy. I certainly wouldn't want to read any such writing, and I can't imagine anyone other than Coleman who would. In fact, I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for reading what anyone at all writes on the English Regents exam. It does not elicit student thought or opinion, both of which interest me greatly. It gives two arguments and asks you to pick one. Create an argument yourself? Exercise independent thought? Take a passionate position on something, anything?
Nah. None of that.
Now it's entirely possible that some rogue English teacher somewhere encourages students to express themselves. It's entirely possible, in fact, that multiple English teachers have a feel for what good writing is. Not only that, it's entirely possible that English teachers with a mindset like that actually encourage it in their classes.
This is dangerous for a multitude of reasons. One is that a student might think good writing is something to aim for universally. Such a student could be taking the English Regents exam, have an actual idea, and express it. It's not that unusual for teenagers to have ideas. Some have very active minds and are thinking pretty much all the time. Of course, that can be inconvenient in the world of one-way test prep. What if they decide that you, the teacher, are wrong, and they persuasively explain why?
That very same troublesome spirit, when applied to the English Regents exam, could result in failure. In fact, I'm hearing that teachers seeking certification are now failing the certification test by expressing their opinions. This is not at all in the spirit of Common Core, which all the papers agreed to be the best thing since sliced bread.
We'll see whether the new standards change anything. Meanwhile, as far as I can see, the only thing the English Regents exam measures is the ability to deal with a pointless task. I have to admit, as a teacher, that's not remotely what I want to encourage in my students.
It may or may not be that these schools are juking the stats. I'd argue, though, that state tests and their results are neither here nor there in establishing that premise. To measure that, you'd need a yardstick that measured distance, as opposed to David Coleman's demeaning tinfoil-helmeted theories.
Posts
