The dangers of Teaching to tests.

This is a transcript from this video here

It gives me a premise for my next blog here. 

Anchor CNBC : Howard Gardner is one of the world's leading thinkers on the subject of how children learn and so we've invited him to be our guest here tonight to discuss the value of standardized tests like the SATs. 

A psychologist and educator at Harvard University, Dr Gardner is the author of 17 books including his latest, "The Disciplined Mind".  Dr Gardner joins us from Boston this evening. 

Anchor : Do you think that taking cultural factors into account is a good thing?

HG : At first ...I like the idea very much. Basically, it's an attempt to even the playing field in making judgments about something that is very consequential like college admission. We all know that some people have huge amounts of advantages when they start off, because of the wealth of their family to the schools they go to and the amount of education at home and so on....and other people have huge disadvantages and while at the end of the day it's true that you get credit for what you can do and not for what yo can't do, and when we're making judgments about people's potential, we really need to say, "To what extent have they overcome their circumstances and under what circumstances have they made good use of them? (overcoming their circumstances.)"

Anchor :What about the statement in (..earlier....) It's sort of telling a student : You did good for you. Isn't that a bad place to put a striving student?

HG : I don't think so because after all we're not saying that you can't get the raw score, the actual score the student received, we're saying in addition we're going to talk about what you did compared to other people who had the same things going for you. In a sense, it's almost like the zipcode. If you tell me somebody's zipcode, I can give you a pretty good prediction of how they're going to do on a college board test. 

Anchor : Really?

HG : and because of the amount of resources available for the people in Beverly Hills compared to say, to (...) or Compton, this is just giving us a more objective of saying, "Well, how well did this student do compared to other people who had the same amount of resources the student did."

Anchor : I wondered too how much of the problem - and I think back to the dates when I had to memorize all the dates in History class and wondered, "When the heck am I going to need those?" - Is the problem instead of teaching children how to learn and fostering their intelligence, we concentrate more on drilling them with facts, facts, facts?

HG : Well, the (...) test is a very specific kind of test - the more it has high stakes, the more teachers and parents are inevitably going to train the child to do well in the test; it's common sense. So, the priority of the test becomes very, very important. In thinking about the SAT this evening (a test taken to see which college you can get into) I thought it would be nice to have a country or  schools where you could have an entirely new version of the test each year so that nobody could prepare just for that particular test ....

Anchor : That's fascinating!

HG: ...so if, for example, you wanted to know how well a student is reading,and obviously that's very important to know, you wouldn't know from one year to the next whether you're going to have (this format) or (that format) or (another format) test so that there's no possible way where someone could practise for a particular version of a particular test....But if a student did pretty well on this randomly chosen reading test, you could be pretty confident they could read well.

Anchor : That's a (awfully fantastic idea!) ...I wonder why they don't do that?

HG : I can tell you why they don't do it. Because when they do bring in a new test, the scores will go back down again. I remember, looking at the test scores in Chicago several years ago and noticing that it would go up for a while and then go back down....and the answer is you can't (...) without immediately introducing a new kind of test where the students weren't ready for it. 

HG : So, there's a very big risk in teaching to the tests;  - It's funny, the SAT, 20 years ago, ETS said, "You can't drill for this. This is somehow an assessment of your true, intellectual potential. Then places like Stanley-Kaplan and the Princeton Review showed you could raise the points 100,200,300 and now ETS says, "Oh, we can show you how to get better (results) for this test, as well." So we have to be very, very careful that any type of measure isn't something you could drill for and get much better for. 

Anchor : See, this is why I like your work, Dr. Gardner. You always make me think differently.