Response to testing

Another friend's response to my last email (by the way, my "enthusiastic endorsement of testing" doesn't mean I think the current system is perfect.  Far from it.  While it's not as horrible as critics claim -- most of them just don't want any testing or accountability at all -- there's definitely lots of room for improvement):

I'd like to make a point in response to your enthusiastic endorsement of  testing.  I think teachers in high-poverty schools rightfully object to the additional pressures presented by high-stakes testing because they find it  very difficult to "teach to the test," while also making the material engaging  for their students.  The older the students get, the farther they  fall behind their grade level, and the more difficult it is to catch  up.  With these academic challenges, combined with the immense challenges  and distractions they face outside of school, it's no wonder that it's hard to engage students in school.  Many teachers feel that these tests take the joy out of teaching and suck the life out of the student's learning experience.

Here is a constructive solution.  When I was working in education reform,  experienced teachers would say: "A good teacher can prepare students for the test and incorporate state standards, while also using creative, engaging lessons that require critical thinking."  Most novice teachers have a very hard time developing this skill.  I believe that many teachers would benefit immensely from some form of professional development  and mentorship in this area, or better curriculum packages  and lesson plans that stray from the usual, rote, test-prep approach and incorporate some more excitement.  I've talked to teachers who are dying for this type of training and support.  Current systemwide PD  policies and teacher supports, however, are not geared toward what teachers actually need to be successful.  For instance, the New York City  DOE's new interim assessment strategy requires teachers to incorporate interim assessments (from a confusing array of vendors) in their classrooms, yet provides minimal training in using the assessments and invited very little teacher voice in the initial decision-making process.  These implementation strategies set teachers up for failure and don't consider what teachers really need to be successful.   If teachers are now required to prepare students for so many tests, give them the tools they need to be successful!   Don't give them more tools that they don't know how to use.

As  I'm ranting, I'd like to raise another issue that I would love to  see addressed in your blog:  Who is holding the DOE  accountable for its service delivery to schools? By what metrics do they measure their success?  Big ideas must be  met with effective implementation.  For instance, if principals are now  in control of their budgets, do the proper technology systems exist at the  school level to manage these new responsibilities? If the DOE is still responsible for basic instructional and operational supports (as stated  in the SSO contracts) and plans to deliver those services through Integrated Service Centers (ISCs), are those centers fully functional come Sept 1st (or Dec 1st for that matter)?   How long does it take to get a phone call back from the ISC?  How long is a principal on hold, when he/she could be attending to the students in his/her office?  These implementation issues are the day-to-day concerns that principals deal with  every day, and these issues prevent principals from focusing on the instructional leadership necessary to make their schools successful.  These are the real challenges that a large system faces when  implementing rapid changes year-to-year.  We all agree that reform is good.  The old system was obviously broken.  But if the DOE's mantra  is accountability, they should be held accountable for their performance as  well, and should be transparent about their results tp schools, teachers,  students, parents, and the general  public.