The road to hell is paved with good intentions by Susan Bistrican

Gallagher enlightened me to the idea that teaching to the test isn’t detrimental when the test is worthy. I read a book in methods on planning backwards called Understanding be Design (Wiggins & MiTighe, 2005) that explains the concept of designing lessons and units primarily based on their assessments. Of course, assessments are supposed to be authentic and comprehensive of what instructors teach, not the “shallow” standardized tests that Gallagher describes in chapter 1. This type of lesson planning makes for better instruction and assessment, as both are considered as a unit, not two separate entities. Gallagher cites Langer’s study (2002) as evidence for the necessity of differentiated approaches to assessment: “Schools that rely solely on any one approach are unlikely to rise to the level of an effective school” (p. 25). This makes complete sense, especially when one focuses on the context of a single classroom and the success of its students. Good teachers assess in a variety of different ways—formal and informal, comprehensive and selective—to appropriately measure student learning in order to use that data for instructional decisions in the future. In theory, thorough instruction should prepare students for assessment.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for the current state of affairs in secondary education. Sure, the Department of Education isn't scheming to make teachers teach to the test thus allowing reluctant and undeveloped readers to fall through the cracks. But Gallagher’s argument isn’t about intentions, as he says over and over. That’s fine and dandy that the government had “good” intentions with NCLB—after all, they set out to measure whether or not students are learning and use that data to assess whether or not teachers are teaching. Their intentions don’t change the fact that (a) standardized tests assess a breadth of information that teachers can spend only so much time covering, (b) teachers make the decision to teach to the test because their jobs depend on it, and (c) some students are ALWAYS going to be considered “failing” (helllooooo bell curve!).

The system is broken, plain and simple. I’m so glad Gallagher cites Ravich as well. She explains the detriments of standardized testing in an accessible way, as a former NCLB’er. Assessment is invaluable; it allows teachers and school officials to measure progress in order to make instructional decisions so they can meet student needs. Standardized tests don’t work that way, as is Gallagher’s argument and in turn, they produce “readicide.” Struggling readers are caught in a cycle of failure and aren’t given the chance to enjoy reading because they are thrust in lifeless, soul-sucking remedial courses  that teach them to be shallow readers, if they even improve at all.