After two days I feel there’s enough water under the bridge (the chain bridge of course) here in Budapest to circle back to my 1st blog, which voiced my concerns about adolescents losing the spark of curiosity and the confidence in themselves to take chances in a classroom. What I am finding here is no different than the observations that I’ve seen over the last dozen years in classrooms in Baltimore. Towards the end of my time teaching in Baltimore County Public Schools, the State of Maryland instituted state tests in various courses taught in Maryland high schools. The ramifications of these tests were not inconsequential as students could possibly find themselves repeating a course if they were not able to earn a sufficient score on the test. Moreover, teachers and schools could find themselves in hot water if their students did not perform up to standards. These consequences were serious enough that more than a few schools were found guilty of changing students’ scores in order to reflect better performances.
As a result, teachers designed their entire curriculum around this test. What’s the harm in this some might ask? After all, if the test assesses the necessary skills and understanding of the core concepts of the course, then wouldn’t a comprehensive curriculum built around such a test be a good thing? At first blush, one might argue that the teaching of such a course might be good for a beginner teacher, who doesn’t yet have the experience to adapt to the ever changing dynamics of the classroom. They may surmise that the more formalized and structured curriculum would take the guess work out of teaching and allow for a better transition into the profession. Yet, my anecdotal evidence is that this is not the case. While it is the hope that all teachers continue to improve over time, it is also true that the really good teachers are really good from year one. An old saying states that “if a dog’s gonna bite, he’ll bite as a pup.” Great teachers bite early.
So what are the negative outcomes that could arise from teaching to the test? This thought takes me back to a Sociology of Work course that I took in college. One of the readings of the course outlined a survey that was given to workers in an American industry. One of the questions asked the workers to rank the importance of various attributes of the workplace. While I readily admit that I don’t remember the question verbatim, what I do remember is that the variable that respondents listed most was efficacy in the workplace. More than income, more even than the ability to achieve promotions was the individual’s need to feel as though they had a voice in achieving the desired task of the job. In other words, they wanted to feel as though their opinions and suggestions mattered. Students are no different. They want to feel that they are an active voice in the classroom. They want to feel as though the teacher respects their opinions enough to give them that voice. Such a relationship between teacher and student gives the student confidence to voice their opinions and, instead of sapping one’s individual curiosity, it develops and encourages it.
This belief was borne out yet again today at Scheiber Sandor School in Budapest. I walked into a high-level 12th grade class, which I had also taught on day 1. Like any remotely competent teacher, I walked into the class with a lesson plan. The lesson plan was good, really good, and I couldn’t wait to get started. But then a spectacularly bright young student named Hanna totally botched my plans. What was her crime? She asked a brilliant question that stimulated a conversation that involved at least eight other students in the class before it was finished. Of course this new discussion, which I hadn’t planned for, only spurred more questions related to the first. Very quickly I turned my brilliant lesson plan upside down on the table and never looked at it again because this one student achieved as much as any lesson I’ve ever created: it completely changed the dynamic of the classroom from a teacher-directed lesson to an enthusiastic discussion that directly related to the needs of the students, while also covering many of the same objectives for which I had planned.
Towards the end of class the conversation had ebbed and only a few minutes remained. As I looked out at the students I was as happy as I’ve been in a long time in front of a class. The students were energized and happy, moreover, the learning that had just taken place was profound, yet I had very little to do with it other than to allow it to happen.
As if I needed any reassurance, I was reminded yet again how fortunate I am to teach at a school that doesn’t force me to teach to a test. A school that allows me the freedom not to worry if I’m not on page 96 of the state-mandated curriculum guide on Nov. 10 or 11 or whatever day they say my class should be there.
Ultimately, my students may not have covered quite the amount of content that they would if I kept true to a defined schedule. However, I have absolutely no doubt that this deficiency in content is more than made up for in the students’ understanding of the material that is covered. And, more importantly my students are able to walk into my class everyday knowing that at any time they will be allowed to ask a question that may totally transform the class and validate their place in my classroom.
