A fair question. I was always pleased when my students did well on their standardized tests. But since I taught a nonessential subject—jr. high history—standardized tests were dropped because of the expenses involved. (No, the tests aren’t free and after a while one can start to question whether the expense is worthwhile). I always measured my own success as a teacher by what my graduates told me of their high school experiences. If they said that high school history was easy compared to my classes, then I figured I had done my job well.
But let me ask you a question, if I may. Of all the teachers you had, at all of the levels of education you attained, how many of them do you remember fondly? If you are like most, you can count them on the fingers of one hand. You know what I mean, the ones who somehow made a connection with you and many of your fellow students. What made them stand out? Test scores?
In my opinion, teaching well is so much more an
art than it is a science. All that making good test scores the be-all and end -all of schools is that in the future there will be no remembered teachers, because they will interchangeable clones of one another. Everyone will be mediocre.
First of all, my wife was a junior high history and I liked it in junior high...so it might be non-essential but it’s certainly interesting.
I agree that teaching is part art and part science...and I’m someone who believes that it’s hard to measure the quality of art.
Unfortunately, public schools in the U.S. seem to be failing on both levels. With all due respect, the teachers seem to deflect all blame to parents (who don’t motivate the kids), taxpayers (who don’t pay enough in taxes), and management (who make teachers use the tests) while completely absolving themselves of all blame. I think the taxpaying public has become tired of it.
It also seems that test scores become worse as kids stay in the system, so your metric of measuring your success by how well the kids in high school might work in some cases but doesn’t seem to be working overall. Teachers (unions) have seemed reluctant to agree to any sort of systematic measurement of success in any aspect. Since you theoretically can’t test the “art” component, you need to test the science, i.e. subject matter, component of teaching. Hence, the tests.
To answer your other question I pretty much liked all of my teachers all though school (1967-1984). The ones I didn’t like were people whom I wouldn’t have liked regardless of their job. My favorite and best grade school teacher was a test-score-driven teacher who force-fed algebra in order for us to do well on the Catholic School Entrance Exam. My favorite high school teacher taught Latin basically by memorizing vocabulary and syntax, which is essential in learning Latin. By my junior year I could read it like English. I can still read it, though a dictionary helps. Maybe I learn better by rote memory and testing.
As far as making a connection, some made a connection and some didn’t but none of them really worried about making a connection with the students. They taught us and tested us on what we knew. To your point about making future school easier, their approach did make college courses seem easy because they demanded a lot out of us. We didn’t take standardized tests; however, they could say that every student in my class either went to college or the military.