The past few months have been a dry spell for my 2 GED classes. I've always had people pass their tests in the relevant subjects within relatively short periods of time, and generally most students don't have to take more than a couple of practice tests before they pass and are ready to take the official version at our local community college. For some reason, for the past two months, this has changed drastically for both my classes. The tests are the same, my teaching is mostly the same as far as I can tell, but the students are different, and they just haven't been passing. We've been working with various students outside of class, and I've tried adding a few new elements to what I usually do. No dice so far.

I was saying to my boss today that I feel like this somehow must be my fault (some of the students are simultaneously taking other classes and passing tests in those subjects). She's always been really supportive of me and my sometimes nutty teaching methods (I even kind of suspect that they are part of why she hired me)--although they also have always gotten results before now. She basically responded that she totally supports the way that I teach, and supports my continuing to teach that way, because she sees how much the students are learning, but that if I want quick test results, the way to do it is really to work through the GED book in a very calm, predictable way. Her point wasn't that they would learn more that way, per se--just that they would become very accustomed to the test itself and picking the right answer more often more quickly.

I am not sure what to think about this. On the one hand, I know that regular attendance is tough for all my students. So shouldn't my goal always be to have them pass quickly? On the other hand, is what she's saying really true? I have a lot of respect for her experience, since she's being doing this for so long. On the third hand, if it really is true, should I really do it all the time? I've been seeing the current students as somewhat unusual, but if just going through the book will get all students through faster, maybe I should always do it. Is it fair to be slowing my students down in some sense? Is that what my regular method of teaching does?

I am so sad at the thought of giving up the stuff I usually do (I see Arne Duncan popping up to raise the specter of teacher selfishness, but I'm not sure it's all about me--I think these things are good for the students, too). We just, for example, spent a few days writing letters to President Obama in social studies/writing class. I explained what a swing state is and why Obama does care what folks in our state think right now.  I think it was probably the first time in our class that they've taken the writing/proofreading process so seriously. They were also pretty astonished that it was OK to write to the president about what they think, and that he might even pay some attention. But the GED writing essay is never on a political topic, and the social studies test focuses heavily on past history and a certain version of civics. If I were really to work through both those GED books on the theory that the activities we do in class should mimic the GED as closely as possible, we couldn't write to Obama.

I recognize a certain privilege and irony in the fact that I'm thinking through a choice that public school teachers are no longer given. I also just am perturbed. I've always stood pretty strongly on the side of the importance of broader and more creative learning; I've especially felt strongly about giving my students at least some access to it, since it's something most of them have really been denied in the past. I've been lucky, though, in that what I was doing hasn't seemed to militate against their more immediate goals of passing tests.  But passing the GED really does count for students, particularly in allowing them to advance to post-sec training that will hopefully lead to a living wage, which they need. I don't want to be keeping anyone in poverty. But shouldn't they know how to write to Obama? Should that even be my concern? If I switch up on the theory that my usual methods aren't working for this particular group, does that mean that's how I should continue to teach?