week four: learning to love it

Really? "For most of us, grading is the part of teaching we like the least" (Dornan et al., p. 181). Maybe I'm inexperienced, maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm just an eternal optimist (that I know is true). But I can't understand how the part of teaching where we actually get to read, experience, see, feel, etc. etc. etc., our students' hard work and creativity and ingenuity and brilliance, could be the part we like the least. What would be the point of going to work every day (for much less money than we deserve), spending all that time planning lessons and activities, not to mention dealing with the hormonal teenagers themselves, if we didn't absolutely love what the students can do? The actual, tangible, stuff that they produce, imperfect as it may be? And if we don't love it...what are we doing here?

I understand, of course, what the authors might be saying. They might enjoy the stuff, but they don't like assigning grades and administering high stakes tests and trying to fit real students into little standardized boxes. But right now (and this is where my optimism meets my also-constant impatience) I want to say: suck it up. Students need assessment. They need feedback. Rubrics are helpful. I actually like them, when done well. Stop thinking about THEM (those faceless drones who write and grade tests like the MCAs) and focus on your classroom, your texts and objectives, and your kids. If your goal is to teach students to be critical thinkers, include test-taking in that mix. Let them know that this test is a product of a culture, written by a certain group of people who think in certain ways. And the culture of "school" requires that we take these tests, and while the results are important, they are not complete measures of who we are. They are not even close to being complete.

To be honest, the Dornan text has always been a bit overwhelming and dry to me, and while the Adger article had some interesting insights into assessment, it mostly focused on vernacular language (which, although fascinating, isn't the focus of this post). So I turned to NCTE for a bit of clarity. Probably because they know how many confused and anxious English teachers there are out there in the world, roaming about, NCTE has published a "Guideline on Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing." It states:

1. The interests of the student are paramount in assessment.
2. The primary purpose of assessment is to improve teaching and learning.
3. Assessment must reflect and allow for critical inquiry into curriculum and instruction.
4. Assessments must recognize and reflect the intellectually and socially complex nature of reading and writing and the important roles of school, home, and society in literacy development.
5. Assessment must be fair and equitable.
6. The consequences of an assessment procedure are the first, and most important, consideration in establishing the validity of the assessment.
7. The teacher is the most important agent of assessment.
8. The assessment process should involve multiple perspectives and sources of data.
9. Assessment must be based in the community.
10. All members of the educational community -- students, parents, teachers, administrators, policymakers, and the public -- must have a voice in the development, interpretation, and reporting of assessment.
11. Parents must be involved as active, essential participants in the assessment process.

I do love this. Interest of student, fair and equitable, based in the community, reflecting and allowing for critical inquiry. The thing that strikes me the most, however, is that the "teacher is the most important agent of assessment." What would NCTE have to say to No Child Left Behind? I do not have the answer to the question of how to balance classroom-based authentic assessments and state-mandated standardized tests. It's a conundrum. But I do think that griping and complaining isn't doing our students any justice. I guess my goal right now is to think about how I can be an effective assessor and evaluator. The answer seems clear--I simply won't create summative assessments that will bore me. I'm in charge, so why not have my students do something interesting, for them and for me? And I still (optimistically) think that if I'm a good teacher and help my students to be good thinkers, readers, and writers, they'll do well on those required tests, annoying as they may be.

I have one more thought, or question. Those who speak out against standardized testing, those who want to place methods of evaluation completely in the hands of the classroom teacher--they must have great faith in the ability and skills of that teacher. But I think we need to be careful here. One thing No Child Left Behind has done is raise the standards of our profession so that students are not being taught by people who don't even have college degrees, or so that math classes aren't being taught by music majors--so that there is more uniform accountability. I wonder, if we do leave assessment to the teachers, how will we guarantee that all teachers have high standards? I guess this is where my optimism hits a wall. I've met and have heard of enough teachers who've become apathetic, who've lost the will to care. I'll gladly put assessment in the hands of a passionate, committed teacher...but in the hands of those who've given up? Is that the hole standardized testing is trying to fill?

So many questions. I will say that I can't wait to read my students' essays, and yes, grade them.

LINK



















I typed this in my own handwriting...you can create your own font too!