Thread: Helping Test Scores- Just How Far Do You Go?

DIfficult question John.

If your state standards are anything like mine, there is no way to meaningfully cover the entire curriculum in the course of a year. The test is usually in March or early April which cuts one or two months off what is there. There is just not enough time. SO yes I think some of the work should be divided up if it fits into the curriculum. I do not think a teacher should chuck what they are doing to cover another curriculum.

We have spent the last two years Mapping our Reading Writing and Math. Because Math is so obnoxiously packed with standards that there is no way to cover it all we found ways for the writing teachers to fit some math into their curriculum, and the reading teachers are doing it also. This way everyone helps out.

State tests are a thorn in our sides and until someone can talk sense into the politicians (who have no educational background what-so-ever). Until then, I believe we all have to pull together.

Jst my two pennies worth.

Today just finished our second in 8 days of state-required testing.

The curriculum has to be covered with nearly 2 months of school left.

We also have to give some locally-required tests, which cut into the "state testing" curriculum coverage time . . . and, of course, they don't MATCH WHAT WE'RE COVERING IN THE TESTS.

If I tried to answer the questions, I'd probably go off on a big rant, and I'm too tired to do it. Let's just say I know the song and dance well.

My thoughts are that this is a game. The state makes makes the objectives too broad to achieve in the average class. So then the schools feel accountable and start robbing Peter to pay Paul. If Paul is so important then why do we keep Peter?

I don't have a problem asking various subject area teachers to teach broad objectives that enhance testing. Reading, writing, thinking skills should be taught across the board. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about neglecting world history to teach American history.

IMHO, it's not fair to the kids in world history to short change them.

In our situation, we have 18 weeks, then final exams. It is generally preferred to spend the last 2 weeks or so reviewing. The bad part is that in all three courses, there is more than 18 weeks worth of material. In my teaching of World History, I've had to whittle most things down quite a bit, and tossed some things out altogether, just to make a sensible course that my students can handle. I cannot help but feel that the project in question is going to require still more paring down and tossing out on my part, which I don't like. (Of course, as I tell my students, whether you like it or not, has nothing to do with whether you have to do it, or not.)

I don't have a problem asking various subject area teachers to teach broad objectives that enhance testing.

As a school, at the behest of our principal, to his credit, we have attempted to do this for US History in the past couple of years. Similar to the Writing Across the Curriculum that we do for the state writing test. From my perspective, if it helped, it was minimal.