Stati Uniti in difficoltà per migliorare il
sistema scolastico.
Premessa.
Gli Stati Uniti sono 50 e ciascuno segue una propria politica dell’istruzione.Non
tutti sono impegnati nello sforzo di migliorare gli standards dell’insegnamento.
Inoltre, gli Stati non partono da stessi livelli di qualità. In testa alla
classifica, Solid Standards ( media di voti riportataA-B, secondo l’indagine
State of State Standards 2000), ne troviamo 5, “the Honor Roll”: California,
Texas, Alabama, North Corolina e South Carolina ( 4 Stati del sud e uno del
centro, nessuno del nord ). Poi, con valutazione Mediocre Standards (media C),
seguono 10 Stati, tra cui New York e Florida. In fondo alla classifica,
numerosissimi, oltre 20 Stati, quelli della “frontiera”, Wyoming, Montana,
Oregon, North Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii, ecc., ma anche Stati del New England, dove
hanno sede alcune delle università più prestigiose.
Questi Stati non hanno standards e livelli di apprendimento confrontabili.
Vengono definiti “Irresponsabil States”!
L’Education Act di Bush vuole introdurre test annuali, uguali per gli Stati, per
scuole e per classi entro il 2005. Questo crea malumori nella classe docente che
vede il compito arduo se non impossibile. Non è facile insegnare in classi di
studenti, provenienti da tutto il mondo, che spesso hanno difficoltà a
comprendere anche l’inglese. Se poi le scuole sono ubicate in quartieri a
rischio e gli studenti, cresciuti per strada, portano la violenza in classe, gli
spazi per insegnare si riducono al minimo.
Comunque, alcune scuole hanno trovato il modo per allenare gli studenti al
superamento degli standards. Impostano le lezioni sulla somministrazione di
tests.
Naturalmente, questo modo di insegnare è abbastanza riduttivo. Alcuni tests
accertano competenze e capacità di base ( basic skills) ma ne ignorano altre,
quelle più complesse (high order skill). E sul mercato esiste un ‘enorme offerta
di tests, a cui le scuole si affidano per la preparazione dei loro studenti.
Tests che spesso si rivelano inaffidabili (basta leggere l’articolo di Richard
Rothsteins).
Concludo rivolgendo una domanda al ministro Moratti: “Perché si appassiona tanto
ad un sistema scolastico, quello USA, così poco entusiasmante, pochissimo
efficiente, per niente omogeneo e addirittura sfilacciato? “
(Santi Coniglio)
Dal New York Times 1 maggio a cura di Richard Rothnstein.
States Teeter When Balancing Standards With Tests.
Critics of standardized tests lament that teachers are now being compelled to
"teach to the test." Most people are befuddled by this complaint. As President
Bush said, if we are teaching math and reading, teaching to math and reading
tests makes sense.
But the critics do have something of a point. Math and reading include many
distinct skills. If a test gauges only a few of the skills regarded as important,
teachers may emphasize only those that are tested, ignoring other skills that
are just as crucial.
Almost every state has adopted higher standards and tests to see if students
meet them. Most officials, however, don't know if their tests are any good. So
some states have asked Achieve Inc., a nonprofit consulting firm, to evaluate
some of their tests. Achieve's board includes governors and executives, led by
John Engler, governor of Michigan, and Louis V. Gerstner Jr., chairman of I.B.M.
Achieve has found that most tests are poorly matched to state standards. As a
result, states are requiring one set of skills while creating incentives to
teach a different set. Of all the tests it studied, Achieve found that only the
Massachusetts 10th grade tests were relatively well-aligned with the state's
standards. (Achieve's evaluations can be seen at www.achieve.org.)
There are two criteria for judging if tests and standards are aligned, but
states typically fulfill only one. First, every test question must assess a
skill actually found in the standards. This mostly happens.
Second, every required standard must be assessed, either by tests, student work
samples or other evaluations. Over all, skills should have the same relative
importance in tests as in standards. Otherwise, teachers will have incentives to
give less emphasis to skills not found on tests.
States have mostly failed to keep this balance between standards and test
questions. Consider a Minnesota fifth-grade reading standard that expects pupils
to identify both the main idea and supporting details in a passage. That is a
good standard; if Minnesota assessed it, teaching to its test would indeed teach
reading.
But the state's test emphasizes identification of details, not the main idea. A
test with this flaw might have a passage about Harriet Tubman but then have
pupils identify her home state (Maryland) without asking them to articulate the
theme of the passage: how the underground railroad advanced anti-slavery
struggles.
Educators call identifying details a "basic skill." Discerning a main idea is a
"higher-order skill." Teachers preparing for tests mostly of basic skills will
not do much to train students in higher-order thinking.
Jennifer Vranek, now director of a group that promotes higher standards in
Washington State, oversaw most of Achieve's studies. Ms. Vranek said that state
tests typically overemphasized basic skills. Every state has a middle school
geometry standard about measuring figures like triangles, squares, prisms and
cones. But tests ask mainly about the simpler forms, like triangles and squares.
Most people think that if test scores are low, basic skills should be a priority.
After all, it seems, students should master the basics first. But good teaching
lets basic and higher skills reinforce each other. With the Tubman passage, a
child need not perfect an ability to recall details before learning to summarize
a main idea.
Or consider a basic skill like two-digit multiplication. Students who can
multiply may still make errors and fail test questions. But students can move on
to somewhat more advanced skills, like solving simple algebra equations, while
continuing to practice multiplying. If tests focus mostly on basics, teachers
may assign too much multiplication and too little algebra. Higher scores will
make it seem, wrongly, that students met state standards.
Misalignment mostly results from wanting tougher standards on the cheap. It
costs more to test complex skills than basic ones. Many standards cannot be
assessed with inexpensive, mostly multiple-choice tests, even if the tests also
ask for a few short-essay answers.
Wisconsin's literacy standard, for example, expects high school students to
prepare a research paper that detects bias in sources. Checking if students meet
this standard requires specialists to grade work samples, and it requires
trusting teacher evaluations of class projects. Instead, Wisconsin tests
literacy mostly by having students infer what reading passages mean. This skill
is important, but only part of the standard.
Achieve's analysts have concluded that standards and tests have gotten better,
and that more improvement lies ahead. Perhaps so, but until states create tests
that truly test the standards, teachers who complain about having to teach to
the test should be given a fuller hearing.