National Education Goals (Congress, 2000) indicates that, the percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially. Senator Paul Wellstone in an article entitled, “High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children” notes that education is a process of designing the moral imagination, character, skills, and intellect of children; thus requesting their participation into the conversation of our moral, cultural, and intellectual life and providing the resources necessary for their preparation into the life of the nation and the world.
Increasing standardized test scores (Guisbond, 2004) take priority in schools, however, this premise leads to a one size fits all teaching style whose primary
attention is aimed at test preparation, which in effect, sabotages efforts to provide all students with a high quality education. “This scripted approach to learning and emphasis on test-taking strategies makes schools more like private, for profit, test-prep centers in the mold of Kaplan or Sylvan and less like schools—at least American schools of the past (Baines & Stanley, 2004).”
According to Cimbricz & Mehrens (as cited by Yeh, 2005) two reviews on research found that in some cases state-mandated tests narrows the curriculum. Those schools that are designated as being on probation or unacceptable as a result of low scores on state exams the pressure builds and the curriculum narrows even further (Baines & Stanley, 2004). As per Vogler & Kennedy (2003) an elementary school in Lawrence, Massachusetts was forced to discontinue for a while the core subjects and implement a 15 week two-hour a day drill instruction measure specifically designed to increase state exam scores. According to Wellstone (2000) making students accountable for test scores looks good on a bumper sticker and helps politicians look good as they discuss the lack of tolerance for failure, however, it does not improve education. It is more likely that these measures mark a major decline from fairness, accuracy, quality, and equity.
Educators are asked to utilize an array of teaching styles to reach all learners, yet on testing day only one format is used (Hill, 2005). Baines & Stanley (2004) note that teachers’ having daily contact with students have little voice in determining the composition of classes, curriculum, or assessment; yet the system is designed to hold them accountable.
First and foremost, I firmly believe that it is grossly unfair to not graduate, or
to hold back a student based on a standardized test if that student has not had
the opportunity to learn the material covered on the test. When we impose high
stakes tests on an educational system where there are, as Jonathan Kozol says,
savage inequalities, and then we do nothing to address the underlying causes of the
those inequalities, we set children up to fail (Wellstone, 2000).
Attention to new standards in America's schools (Hilliard, 2000) has influenced one of the most active reform movements since the 1970s; the past 30 years, have seen the extensive use of testing to provide school accountability information, evaluate reform efforts, and to communicate important learning targets to schools. The fact is that in few districts do the goals set by boards of education match the standards reflected in a school's curriculum. In some cases, neither the school goals nor the high-stakes standardized tests reflect high standards (Hilliard, 2000).” However, as apposed to decreasing class size, increasing instructional time, and providing other beneficial initiatives, the implementation of standardized testing can be enacted more rapidly (Lin, 2002).
Instead of utilizing testing measures that penalize those students not meeting mastery criteria, standardized testing measures can be utilized as a diagnostic evaluation intended to delineate the skills that need to be attained. All learning involves thinking, therefore, what is needed is an assessment model designed to produce "thinking curriculum," in which students are able to learn in many domains. Despite that they may not have the background knowledge needed in a particular area they are adept at knowing how to go about gaining the knowledge needed (Lin, 2002). Accountability measures to some degree are a necessary evil, but when used to these ends they defeat the purpose.
References:
Baines, L., & Stanley, G. (2004). High-Stakes Hustle: Public Schools and the New
Bilion Dollar Accountability. The Education Forum, 69(1), 8-15.
Congress (2000). National Educational Goals. Retrieved on September 1, 2004 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.html
Guisbond, L. et. al. (2004). Failing Our Children: No Child Left Behind Undermines
quality and Equity in Education. The Clearing House, 78(1), 12-16.
Hill, B. (2005). Learning Styles and Standardized Test Scores: Is There a Connection?
The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 71(3), 27-30.
Hilliard, A.G. III. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized
testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 293-304.
Lin, Q. (2002). Beyond Standardization: Testing and Assessment in Standards-Based
Reform. Action in Teacher Education 23(4), 43-9
Wellstone, P. Sen. (2000). “High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children”
(2000) Teachers College; USA Today.
Vogler, K. & Kennedy, R. (2003). A view from the bottom: What happens when your
school system ranks last? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 446-448.
Yeh, S. (2005). Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(43) Retrieved October 21, 2006, from
Increasing standardized test scores (Guisbond, 2004) take priority in schools, however, this premise leads to a one size fits all teaching style whose primary
attention is aimed at test preparation, which in effect, sabotages efforts to provide all students with a high quality education. “This scripted approach to learning and emphasis on test-taking strategies makes schools more like private, for profit, test-prep centers in the mold of Kaplan or Sylvan and less like schools—at least American schools of the past (Baines & Stanley, 2004).”
According to Cimbricz & Mehrens (as cited by Yeh, 2005) two reviews on research found that in some cases state-mandated tests narrows the curriculum. Those schools that are designated as being on probation or unacceptable as a result of low scores on state exams the pressure builds and the curriculum narrows even further (Baines & Stanley, 2004). As per Vogler & Kennedy (2003) an elementary school in Lawrence, Massachusetts was forced to discontinue for a while the core subjects and implement a 15 week two-hour a day drill instruction measure specifically designed to increase state exam scores. According to Wellstone (2000) making students accountable for test scores looks good on a bumper sticker and helps politicians look good as they discuss the lack of tolerance for failure, however, it does not improve education. It is more likely that these measures mark a major decline from fairness, accuracy, quality, and equity.
Educators are asked to utilize an array of teaching styles to reach all learners, yet on testing day only one format is used (Hill, 2005). Baines & Stanley (2004) note that teachers’ having daily contact with students have little voice in determining the composition of classes, curriculum, or assessment; yet the system is designed to hold them accountable.
First and foremost, I firmly believe that it is grossly unfair to not graduate, or
to hold back a student based on a standardized test if that student has not had
the opportunity to learn the material covered on the test. When we impose high
stakes tests on an educational system where there are, as Jonathan Kozol says,
savage inequalities, and then we do nothing to address the underlying causes of the
those inequalities, we set children up to fail (Wellstone, 2000).
Attention to new standards in America's schools (Hilliard, 2000) has influenced one of the most active reform movements since the 1970s; the past 30 years, have seen the extensive use of testing to provide school accountability information, evaluate reform efforts, and to communicate important learning targets to schools. The fact is that in few districts do the goals set by boards of education match the standards reflected in a school's curriculum. In some cases, neither the school goals nor the high-stakes standardized tests reflect high standards (Hilliard, 2000).” However, as apposed to decreasing class size, increasing instructional time, and providing other beneficial initiatives, the implementation of standardized testing can be enacted more rapidly (Lin, 2002).
Instead of utilizing testing measures that penalize those students not meeting mastery criteria, standardized testing measures can be utilized as a diagnostic evaluation intended to delineate the skills that need to be attained. All learning involves thinking, therefore, what is needed is an assessment model designed to produce "thinking curriculum," in which students are able to learn in many domains. Despite that they may not have the background knowledge needed in a particular area they are adept at knowing how to go about gaining the knowledge needed (Lin, 2002). Accountability measures to some degree are a necessary evil, but when used to these ends they defeat the purpose.
References:
Baines, L., & Stanley, G. (2004). High-Stakes Hustle: Public Schools and the New
Bilion Dollar Accountability. The Education Forum, 69(1), 8-15.
Congress (2000). National Educational Goals. Retrieved on September 1, 2004 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.html
Guisbond, L. et. al. (2004). Failing Our Children: No Child Left Behind Undermines
quality and Equity in Education. The Clearing House, 78(1), 12-16.
Hill, B. (2005). Learning Styles and Standardized Test Scores: Is There a Connection?
The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 71(3), 27-30.
Hilliard, A.G. III. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized
testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 293-304.
Lin, Q. (2002). Beyond Standardization: Testing and Assessment in Standards-Based
Reform. Action in Teacher Education 23(4), 43-9
Wellstone, P. Sen. (2000). “High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children”
(2000) Teachers College; USA Today.
Vogler, K. & Kennedy, R. (2003). A view from the bottom: What happens when your
school system ranks last? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 446-448.
Yeh, S. (2005). Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(43) Retrieved October 21, 2006, from
2 comments:
High stakes testing in education is a huge debate. I look at the following quote, “education is a process of designing the moral imagination, character, skills, and intellect of children… and providing the resources necessary for their preparation into the life of the nation and the world” which indicates we have a real purpose. However, we are going about it all wrong. We need to up the standards for everyone one in education and assessment is a key component of seeing if the process is gaining the desired outcome. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the faculty assessments, so we have to create higher standards at local, state and national levels. This makes good sense; however, there is no way to work blooms taxonomy effectively into the assessment process when you are limiting your assessment format to multiple choice and a restricted setting. 1) it does not cater to different learning styles, 2) it creates unnecessary stress and focus on the test, and 3) it does not demonstrate the kind of thinking that our youth need to pursue the future of our global nation. Julia
What are the goals of high-stakes testing? It seems that high-stakes testing in most states is a political product that focuses on numbers or student scores. A few months ago, I was in a hostile committee meeting where a parent insisted that the goal was to increase students grades in class and scores on high-stakes test. Everyone seemed to agree until one administrator stopped everyone and said, “ I disagree. Our goal is to provide students with the best education possible.” Somehow it is very easy for grades and test scores to be viewed as the means and the ends. Yet, provision of an exceptional education, and well educated students should be the means and the end.
Best,
Chris J.
Post a Comment