K-12 Curriculum Development

Teaching to the Test: Is it a best practice or education malpractice?  Since the introduction of high-stakes testing, educators have attempted to weigh the benefits versus the consequences of teaching to the test.  Some educators argue that teaching to the test is unethical.  In most states, teachers can lose their teaching license if they are caught teaching to the test.  However, if you are teaching in a standards-based education system (all 50 states in the U.S.), then teaching the standards could be viewed as teaching to the test.  If teaching to the test means that students have been exposed to the standards and there are no surprises on the End-of-Grade or End-of-Course test, then this practice could be viewed as ethical.

James Popham (2001) wrote an informative article titled, Teaching to the Test: High Crime, Misdemeanor, or Just Good Instruction.  Popham suggested that educators should "immediately expunge the phrase 'teaching to the test' from our educational lexicon, forcing folks to say either 'teaching to the test's items' or 'teaching to the knowledge/skills' represented by the test."

Common Problems with "Teaching to the Test":
1.  Curricular Reductionism
A narrow focus on the tested subjects or excluding certain skills and concepts because they cannot be measured on a multiple-choice test

2.  Covering standards (a.k.a. "Coverage")
Wiggins and McTighe (2005) discuss the Twin Sins of Curriculum Development and they call the twin sins coverage-focused teaching and activity-focused teaching.  In today's high-stakes era of testing and accountability teachers feel pressure to 'cover' material, rather than teach for understanding.  Covering material may indicate that a teacher has taught content or checked off each state standard, but it does not mean that student understanding took place.

3.  Test Prep Activities
In defense of classroom teachers, I have rarely met a teacher who enjoys "Drill and Kill" test prep for the final month of the school year.  By looking at the faces of students, it appears that drill and kill lessons take the joy out of learning.  If you have ever visited a low-performing school or a school that is focused on increasing test scores at all costs, then you have probably witnessed Test Prep Activities.  Some Superintendents even praise principals who raise test scores using these practices.  While test prep activities may increase scores, the activities rarely transfer to student understanding or transfer of learning.

Conclusion:
I could cite over 20 problems with "teaching to the test", but educators already understand the problems and know the solution to many of these problems.  As Popham suggested, "teaching to the test" is a phrase with multiple meanings.  As we enter the second semester of the 2009-2010 school year, I encourage educators to have this conversation in each school and each school district.  What do we mean when we say "teaching to the test?"  What are the 'benefits' of teaching to the test?  Does "teaching to the test" help all students?  Do we want to teach to the test or teach for student understanding?  What are the consequences of spending the final month of school on test review and test prep activities?  Is teaching to the test a best practice or education malpractice?

Final Thought:
"Whatever else Opportunity to Learn (OTL) may entail, it must surely encompass a consideration of the content taught.  Students can scarcely be said to have had an opportunity to learn content they never encountered" (Moss, 2008, p. 19).  If Teaching to the Test means that every student in a school district receives the state and local curriculum and that the curriculum is not reduced to tested subjects or tested items, then I favor teaching to the test.  Student achievement should not be dictated by a zip code, student assignment, board policies, teaching practices, tracking, or school leadership. 


Please feel free to share your thoughts on testing and accountability, teaching to the test, and other thoughts you have on these important topics and policy issues.