From Teachers to Drill Sergeants

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 12, 2001; 11:47 AM

I have watched hundreds of teachers over the last two decades and am sure of one thing: I couldn't last two days in their jobs. After the first day, my throat would be sore, my legs wobbly and my energy level needle pointing below empty. That night I would fall asleep trying to make a new lesson plan. The next morning I would call in sick, making it clear I had an incurable, terminal illness.

So it is unbelievably presumptuous of me to write columns and give speeches on how to make schools better. I regularly remind myself, and anyone who might be listening, that when it comes to talking about education, I am just a balding, 5-foot-6-inch playback machine. The thoughts are not mine, but those of the many educators, as well as students and parents, who have patiently explained to me over the years what is going on, and why.

I am always amazed that such smart and busy people have time for me. That is especially true these last few weeks. Scores of readers have responded to the request in my May 22 column for a precise accounting of how the new state achievement tests affect teaching. I now have a much deeper appreciation of what the tests--and administrators' ill-considered reaction to them--have done to many schools.

Only about half of the teachers who wrote me said they had been forced to change their teaching, but that is because in many cases they refused to alter what was working for their students. "My philosophy has long been, continues to be, and . . . will continue to be largely to ignore the test," said Al Dieste, who teaches at-risk middle schoolers at Springfield Community Day School, a public school in Columbia, Calif. "I teach; the test be damned."

Lisa Donmoyer, a kindergarten to eighth grade science specialist in Easton, Md., said "a rich, interesting classroom is more likely to produce students who do well on the test than a classroom where the teacher employs the 'drill and kill' method."

But in many cases, teachers said, administrators made it very difficult to do the right thing.

* At one Fairfax County high school, non-honors students were dropped from in-class National History Day essay writing activities so they would have more time to study for the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) tests, even though some non-honors students had won previous district competitions.

* Hewitt, Tex., high school teacher Donna Garner resigned in protest when her popular program for teaching the lost art of grammar was banned because it conflicted with the step-by-step schedule for preparing for the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests.

* A third-grade teacher in Fort Worth, said her principal asked her if she had designated as many students as possible for special education classes so they would be exempt from the tests and make the school average higher.

* Raymond Larrabee was told his son's eighth-grade honors English class would not have time to read all of Charles Dickens' "David Copperfield" because there were too many topics to cover for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test.

* A Florida principal told a novice teacher that her wide-ranging discussions of the possible answers to sample test questions was a waste of time. Just tell them which answers are correct, she was told.

* Doug Graney, a history teacher at Herndon High School in Fairfax, and a recently retired Arlington teacher who asked not to be identified, dropped theirengaging approach to U.S. history because of the SOLs. They had been starting with post World War II history, stimulating family discussions about events their students' parents and grandparents had witnessed. Then they went back to colonial days to show how it had all started.

The e-mails illuminated two problems that I think all sides in the testing debate would acknowledge. First, some states may be demanding that teachers cover too much, ensuring once-over-lightly instruction. Second, many principals, moved by blind panic or cross-town rivalry, are demanding more test prep--taking practice tests, learning testing strategies, memorizing key essay words--than is necessary or useful.

Problem one is something for state school boards and superintendents to ponder. Problem two is, at least in part, something that teachers can do something about.

Okay. I know. I am the coward who lacks the fortitude to even try teaching. But I think many educators are right when they say that too many of their colleagues are obeying their principals rather than their principles.

Even pointy-headed, fire-breathing managers will back off if key employees tell them results will only come if they butt out. That takes gumption, but it is worth a try.

There are many good examples to cite. Gerald Gontarz, a sixth-grade science and social studies teacher in Plymouth, N.H., drops raw chicken eggs from airplanes and sends up hot air balloons to involve kids in his lessons. "Much of the time I spend on this stuff will not help my students take the test," he said. But "it really turns them on, and honestly, there is no state test that measures' students' motivation."

Kenneth Bernstein, a ninth-grade social studies teacher in Prince George's County, stated what should be the teacher's creed: "I will not object to testing if you will allow me to get my kids ready the best way I can, and not also mandate the specific steps of instruction, for then I cannot teach the individual child."

I sensed some teachers are having second thoughts about groveling before the testing gods. Graney, for instance, told me in a follow-up e-mail that he plans to return to his reverse approach to U.S. history.

The results are still important. A teacher should be able to raise his class's overall achievement level a significant amount from September to April or May. Some students will falter because of unhappy home lives or test anxiety or other factors beyond a teacher's control, but on average there should be progress. If there isn't, I don't think the teacher can blame the test.

Many educators will object to this. They say the tests are too narrow and their own assessments of each child should be enough. In many cases, they are right, but parents cannot stay in the classroom all year making certain of this. I don't think I will ever be comfortable without an independent measure of how my child and her school are doing, and I think the vast majority of parents feel the same way.

I think we can agree on one thing: Principals and superintendents should not force good teachers to turn themselves into drill sergeants if there are better ways to teach the material. Administrators should set the goals and let their teachers decide how to meet them, then find ways to help those teachers who do not measure up.

Most principals already do that, but since so many of them are portrayed as clumsy villains by my e-mail correspondents, they deserve a chance to defend themselves. My e-mail address is mathewsj@washpost.com. How many of you administrators are telling your teachers to fill their class time with practice tests? Are you sure that is the best way to go?

© 2001 The Washington Post Company