Drill and Practice becomes Drill and Test

With all this focus on No Child Left Behind and the ensuing testing culture that's been created I wonder how many people have noticed that the predominate methodology used in schools has gone from Drill and Practice to Drill and Test.

Drill and Practice is an instructional strategy developed and used for much of the history of schools and schooling. Many people feel the practice is out of date and not appropriate for meaningful learning to take place. On the other side of the argument, people that still support the idea of drill and practice as an effective teaching methodology suggest that repetition is necessary for the brain to 'wire' itself appropriately.

From a web site on instructional strategies:

As an instructional strategy, drill & practice is familiar to all educators... Drill-and-practice, like memorization, involves repetition of specific skills, such as addition and subtraction, or spelling. To be meaningful to learners, the skills built through drill-and-practice should become the building blocks for more meaningful learning.
http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/drill/index.html

From another web site:

Development of basic knowledge and skills to the necessary levels of automatic and errorless performance requires a great deal of drill and practice. . . . drill and practice activities should not be slighted as “low level.” Carried out properly, they appear to be just as essential to complex and creative intellectual performance as they are to the performance of a virtuoso violinist.
http://www.audiblox2000.com/repetition.htm

I believe the accelerating focus on testing has shifted teaching methodologies to be more akin to drill and test. Tests are taking up more time and focus in the school setting. Many people have complained that teachers are teaching to the test at the cost of learning.

So the old method of drill and practice is giving way to the new method of drill and test. Learning suffers as a consequence.

From a Carnegie Mellon article:

A recurring criticism of tests used in high-stakes decision making is that they distort instruction and force teachers to "teach to the test." The criticism is not without merit. The public pressure on students, teachers, principals, and school superintendents to raise scores on high-stakes tests is tremendous, and the temptation to tailor and restrict instruction to only that which will be tested is almost irresistible.

further it says:

There is a lesson here for teachers and assessment specialists alike. The tension between the instructional and assessment communities, as well the pejorative connotations that "teaching to the test" entails, will continue unabated so long as testing and assessment are seen as something quite apart from instruction and learning, rather than an integrated reflection of what was intentionally taught. To paraphrase A. G. Rud of Purdue University, what is needed is a deliberate attempt on the part of all parties to link curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards in a more generative and even transparent way.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for either of these methodologies. In fact, I don't recommend either methodology as being the right thing to do in today's environment. The purpose of pointing out what I think is happening is to support people to make conscious choices - to know what they are doing and why.

In today's world I recommend a whole person and brain based approach to learning - with the focus on learning NOT on teaching. Drill and practice is a good method for memorization but as I've said in another post memorizing is not the same as learning.

Redesigning a System

Does the US have a process or a method to redesign the US Education System? I was remembering that the old Goals 2000 program in which there was a new corporation set up to manage the Research and Development process for 'new schools.' There was a lot of fanfare and proposals were submitted for funding (heck, my colleagues and I even submitted a proposal). These proposals were for funding 'experiments' that could then be tested - and possibly scaled up - to help the rest of the system.

That seemed like a good idea at the time. That was 1992.

I just looked to see if that corporation was around. The New American Schools Development Corporation has merged with the American Institutes for Research (which means it is no longer around). I couldn't find any thing about them. Maybe it's there I just didn't see it.

So what is the US doing to insure that young people are prepared and can thrive in the 21st Century? No Child Left Behind! Get young people to pass high stakes tests every few years and other kinds of tests every year and walla! Presto, Chango! Magic happens and a new system emerges!

I get more concerned every day about the state of the education system in the US. Here is a few comments that give me hope - but I can say, even though people might know what to do, actually doing it is a lot harder (especially within the system as it currently exists).

We have to not think of education as the sole province of schools, but, rather, begin to create what we at the institute call smart education systems. And I want to make it clear I didn't say smart school systems. We need to develop a range of cognitive abilities, social skills, and communication skills. There's considerable work that students have to do inside the schools, but they also have to have support in applying that knowledge to real-world problems.

Which means they have to do a considerable amount of engaged learning in their family and community settings. We have to think about how to build a smart education system that integrates the assets of municipal agencies such as housing departments, parks and recreation departments, or cultural-affairs departments so that, particularly in disadvantaged communities, students and their families begin to get the supports they need to hone higher-level skills.

You can read the whole article here if you have interest: Apostle of Change