In Education
Then drag them through the dust...
This is one of the biggest problems that stands out like the star on a Christmas tree; Standardized testing. When the No Child Left Behind Act came into place, funding became test score dependent and the switch between teaching to help kids learn and teaching to help earn funding came about. The test hangs over the head of parents, students, and educators alike and everyone feels the weight of it on their backs. It creates stress which can develop problems in children such as test anxiety. Test anxiety causes volatile physical reactions such as vomiting, shaking, trouble breathing, and crying. The mental affects can lead to the best students forgetting even the most basic of formulas. The anxiety itself prevents the test from properly showing how much the children taking it have learned, thus showing improper scores. Another problem is that the test is multiple-choice. This forces educators to teach children how to find one right answer when in reality they should be teaching children creative problem solving which could help them more in the future. Instead they learn which shortcuts will help them best in the test and how to eliminate least likely answers. There is also encouragement to cheat or manipulate test scores by the school themselves as the threat of losing funding comes near. One might ask that if these tests are so important, what are they used for? The test results are supposed to show what children are having trouble with and how the teacher can adjust to help them learn it. The problem is by the time most teachers receive the results, that class has graduated and moving on making the test results useless.
Why are we even using a model that has been proven again and again with each year to fail? Why use a model where we put children in grades just because they are old enough instead of with children on the same level? Why put so much stress on a child that they become ill physically and mentally? Why make children feel like dropping out of school is a healthier option than braving through the test? Why do we teach to test? Why are we letting the government decide what’s best for our children instead of the educators?
The truth is that educators are trying to battle it. They do not want to eliminate all testing because it is good when done appropriately. It helps find out what the students are having trouble with and what needs to be reviewed or reworked. It just does not need to be all that the children see. Testing should not be more important than education itself. The dream system would be to allow children the ability to learn and collaborate, to create and destroy. Educators would be there like mentors, to teach and guide their class groups through their projects. It would also be better if mentors could work together. It is good to separate subjects when learning the basics but why keep them separated beyond that when children could be learning the basics of engineering and the importance of design if we combined them together? Imagine a system where everyone works together instead of looking for a single puzzle piece to fill the slot.
The truth is that educators are already working to find a better way for their students, even if standardized testing is in the way. There are classrooms where the teacher will hand out the tests and tell the children to form groups. That group is now their life line. Instead of forming the nauseating stress that comes from an individual struggling alone, they now have comrades to think with just like they would in a real work force. Perhaps only one person on the group knows how to solve the problem but under their influence, their team mates can learn how to work it as well. Maybe none of them know at first but through working together they find the solution. Then again, maybe even through team work none of them figure it out but at least they know they are not alone and as a team they tried their best. This system has been proven to help promote thinking in the classroom even if it is seldom used.
Another way is to allow the student to defend their answer. Perhaps the student does not think any of the answers are correct or thinks their answer is more correct than the one the educator has chosen. The educator then allows them to defend their choice. Perhaps their answer still is not right in the end but the child is learning how to state their process and how to think outside of the box that was set up around them. In real life there is never just one answer so why not allow the student to find a second if there is one?
One stellar example of an educator going above and beyond is Stephen Ritz who used the resources outside of his school to help better his students. He lives in Bronx which is not the wealthiest of areas to live in and his students suffer from unhealthy diets which can tax the mind. Through collaborating with George Irwin from Green Living
Technologies he taught his children how to grow plants and then how to do vertical gardens. The best thing about these gardens were that many of the plants were edible. By Ritz’s thinking bravely outside of the box on how to help his students he helped them find a way to secure jobs in an increasingly popular field and to bring free food to their community. The best part about Ritz is that he never says it was thanks to him, but thanks to his students. He believes in their abilities fully and trusts them to continue onwards with the future he has helped set the first stone down towards. Ritz story is important because a great majority of teachers and students alike feel like their situation is hopeless. Ritz proved that an educator can help his students regardless of the tight binds that standardized testing has put on them. His students proved that just because they were born into poverty or were homeless that they were not destined to be so all of their life. That anyone and everyone is possible of learning and change.
A problem that helps prevent change like Ritz advocates for is that too while many educators and administrators are willing to take the risk, the greater majority are too scared to which ““guarantee the isolation of the small faction of teachers who are willing to engage in change from the majority who find it an intimidating and threatening prospect, and [who] are likely to instigate conflict between the two groups of teachers that renders the scaling up of this reform highly unlikely.” (Miller, 1996)” (Bowman, 1999) That does not mean that the willing educators and administrators give up. Many still take the leap.
No Child Left Behind ?
