This week, inmates are being tested again. We had the TABE today (Test of Adult Basic Education). Those who "pass" with a grade equivalent of 9.0 or better will take the pre-GED on Wednesday. If they pass that test they can look forward to the actual GED next Monday. It is a gruelling schedule, especially since they know that those who don't qualify get to stay in bed. As good teachers, we all immediately start reciting the long-term benefits that will out-weigh this short term "reward" for not making the grade. It doesn't wash with inmates.
Teachers in public schools have the lofty goal of avoiding teaching to the test. They want their students to learn more than how best to tackle multiple-choice questions, and they want education to be more meaningful than a grade. Interestingly, however, the more tests students fail, the more they have to take. When students fall behind on the FCAT, they are immediately subjected to reading inventories, and math diagnostic tests. If they fail there, Title One and Special Education teachers step in with a whole new battery of tests to pinpoint deficiencies. Once the IEP is written, students have to prove their progress (or lack thereof) on tests as often as every three weeks -the government wants concrete proof that no child is being left behind.
In the prison system, academic testing reaches new heights. No one pretends that there are other goals than the acquisition of a certificate. An inmate with a GED and a vocational certificate or two is far more likely to stay out of prison than an inmate with no proof of education. Inmates are tested, retested and tested again. There is no room for art or music in the prison classroom. Teachers may lament that they are teaching to the test, but heck, what else can they do? The number one question from inmates at the beginning of each lesson: Will this be on the test?
About thirty percent of prison inmates are eligible for Special Education. They are used to being tested to death. Amazingly, most of them take it in stride and very few refuse to take tests. But how must it feel to take test after test, knowing that you are below average, not making adequate progress, and getting too old for school? That's gotta hurt.
Sometimes teachers throw up their hands when an inmate fails to show up for a test, or "Christmas trees" his answer sheet. "He was so close!" they say. But for the inmate, it was just another test point on a long continuum of failures. It's not important to him any more to try his best because the results can be just as bad whether he tries or not.
A psychologist once showed our staff members a test result of an inmate who had killed his mother. It showed that he was perfectly normal. "What does this tell us?" she asked. "That you gave him the wrong test!" someone replied. But really, did they need a test at all? Perhaps tests aren't that reliable after all, and perhaps we don't need a test for everything!
We do need tests to see what a student is capable of, and we need tests to provide statistics on how good a job we are doing. But do we need them to keep proving that a student cannot perform up to a certain standard? Why can't certificates have no minimum requirement? Why not simply state a level of achievement and leave it at that? Leaving no child behind should not mean that we will whip them on until they reach an arbitrarily set, one-size-fits-all standardized test. It should mean that we will adjust to their tested strengths and make a place for them in our society.
Teachers in public schools have the lofty goal of avoiding teaching to the test. They want their students to learn more than how best to tackle multiple-choice questions, and they want education to be more meaningful than a grade. Interestingly, however, the more tests students fail, the more they have to take. When students fall behind on the FCAT, they are immediately subjected to reading inventories, and math diagnostic tests. If they fail there, Title One and Special Education teachers step in with a whole new battery of tests to pinpoint deficiencies. Once the IEP is written, students have to prove their progress (or lack thereof) on tests as often as every three weeks -the government wants concrete proof that no child is being left behind.
In the prison system, academic testing reaches new heights. No one pretends that there are other goals than the acquisition of a certificate. An inmate with a GED and a vocational certificate or two is far more likely to stay out of prison than an inmate with no proof of education. Inmates are tested, retested and tested again. There is no room for art or music in the prison classroom. Teachers may lament that they are teaching to the test, but heck, what else can they do? The number one question from inmates at the beginning of each lesson: Will this be on the test?
About thirty percent of prison inmates are eligible for Special Education. They are used to being tested to death. Amazingly, most of them take it in stride and very few refuse to take tests. But how must it feel to take test after test, knowing that you are below average, not making adequate progress, and getting too old for school? That's gotta hurt.
Sometimes teachers throw up their hands when an inmate fails to show up for a test, or "Christmas trees" his answer sheet. "He was so close!" they say. But for the inmate, it was just another test point on a long continuum of failures. It's not important to him any more to try his best because the results can be just as bad whether he tries or not.
A psychologist once showed our staff members a test result of an inmate who had killed his mother. It showed that he was perfectly normal. "What does this tell us?" she asked. "That you gave him the wrong test!" someone replied. But really, did they need a test at all? Perhaps tests aren't that reliable after all, and perhaps we don't need a test for everything!
We do need tests to see what a student is capable of, and we need tests to provide statistics on how good a job we are doing. But do we need them to keep proving that a student cannot perform up to a certain standard? Why can't certificates have no minimum requirement? Why not simply state a level of achievement and leave it at that? Leaving no child behind should not mean that we will whip them on until they reach an arbitrarily set, one-size-fits-all standardized test. It should mean that we will adjust to their tested strengths and make a place for them in our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment