I'm starting to wonder about the point of all this.
What happened to poetry? What happened to intense discussions about literature and life? What happened to the love of learning? What happened to kids reading for pleasure? And what are the costs of making kids feel as though not just their futures, but their self worth, depends on the outcome of an exam?
Exams do have their benefits. As I've argued in the past, they force teachers to teach to mastery (as opposed to mere exposure), and they hold everyone -- teachers and students -- accountable for student learning. They also teach kids to cope with stress and pressure, and students certainly learn a lot about self-discipline and the subject-matter itself as they move through the process.
When I taught in the US and didn't have the pressure of an external exam, I do think that more kids fell through the cracks; it was easy for kids to just move from one grade to the next without really mastering skills or content, or without really being held accountable for their learning. And of course, teachers could do pretty much what they wanted -- a little grade inflation here, a lack of rigor there, and no one would be any the wiser because there was no external, objective exam board evaluating your students' skills. Teachers could just say things like," Every child learns at his own pace" and move the kids along. And no one would know or care that the kid couldn't really write a sentence to save his life. Without external exams, there was no pressing need to confront and deal with a student's academic gaps and failings.
But, exams also have a high opportunity cost, don't they? When we spend so much time teaching to a test, we lose time that could be devoted to cultivating a deep and abiding love of learning. And could we (and this is a thought that frightens me) even be killing a student's sense of creativity and individuality? After all, exams expect one answer -- the right answer -- and there's very little room for divergent thinking, originality, and out-of-the-box approaches. You're better off with a formulaic approach, if your goal is acing an exam where the examiner is expected to grade according to strict rubrics and criteria. In fact, in many ways, exams are the antithesis of creativity.
So, here I am, faced with a strange dilemma: I want my students to do really well on these exams. And I want the satisfaction of knowing that my students have mastered crucial skills that they will need for life -- critical reading skills, control over language, an ability to craft a well-structured and convincing argument, the ability to appreciate and analyze literature and literary techniques.
And yet, I also want to feel as though I'm firing these kids up, inspiring them to love language and literature, giving them the freedom to discover and express their innermost selves, and helping them become passionate readers and learners.
Are these goals mutually exclusive? When we prep kids for exams and create an exam/achievement culture for our kids, do we inevitably sacrifice that creativity and inspiration? Or can teachers strive to do both: teach skill mastery for exams and also fire-up passion?
I think the solution lies in poetry.
I want to turn to poetry for sustenance. Food for the soul. The more intense the focus on exams become, the more determined I am to begin my lessons with poetry, with "thoughts that breathe and words that burn," so that my students can spend some time at the beginning of each class feeling intellectually moved and energized. We can share poems, they can write poems, we can seek and appreciate the beauty around us. And then, perhaps, when we go back to the skills and the texts that will be tested, we can focus not just on the upcoming exams, but also the learning involved and the beauty of language.