According to IRA standards, “the primary purpose of assessment is to improve teaching and learning” (International Reading Association, n.d.). This connotation would seem to contradict the uselessness of focused teacher-testing in today’s classroom during the major assessment phase of the school year. However, according to Johnson and Johnson (2002) and Steward (2004), they believe that assessments are useful in holding schools, states and nations, accountable throughout the educational process for student learning (as cited in Richardson, Morgan, & Fleener, 2009). As many of us educators in this district know, this accountability could be seen in our state’s profienciency exam, State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®), formerly the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), coupled with the No Child Left Behind policies.High-stakes testing has severe implications for English language learners (ELL) with language proficiency difficulties.These particular students need specific help to attain these high standards of learning. Today’s teachers, therefore, must be provided with the type of preparation that is needed for working with English language learners in America’s classrooms. Educators and politicians are still battling whether teachers are fulfilling this need through the No Child Left Behind Act.
The article, “A Child is not a Test Score: Assessment as a Civil Right”, reminds educators that one of the former presidents, George W. Bush, provided America with the No Child Left Behind Act, which served to change the testing procedures and stakes of students nationwide. (Neill, 2009). Also, in the article, current President Obama was quoted as saying “We should not be forced to spend the academic year prep...
... middle of paper ...
...ts, blame inadequate test scores on demographics, stating that not all students are exposed to the same material and many teachers feel that the NCLB Act has forgotten about the needs of diverse students. In fact, according to the Texas ELL Progress Measure data sheet, Texas has already modified and even lowered the STAAR ® testing expectations for students who are English language learners, yet another change that has baffled ESL teachers in the district (TEA, n.d.). As a teacher in a low socio-economic, majority Latino, school district more information on how students’ socio-economic and other demographic statuses affect standardized testing scores should be made available across the district to ensure that we are aware of what our students need in order to advance through the primary and secondary school levels and beyond into the college and career ready levels.
In the 1990’s, I grew up taking the TAAS test or Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. I did not know why we had to take them but everyone had to and teachers tried to prepare us as much as they can. Then in the 2003, the state decided to change it to TAKS test or Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. I knew that I had passed, but as a student we do not question why we have to take these tests. We are only told that they are important to our education and graduating to the next grade or from high school. A few years afterwards they had switched to a new standardized test form called STAAR which stands for State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. It seems that a last few tests were not accurate in monitoring students’ progress and controversy surrounding incorrectly scored questions. The STAAR test which has been supported in legislative passage will now be the current standard method of assessing students and districts. The focus shifting mainly on standardized testing has left Dallas Independent School District with less than stellar performance compared to other districts.
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, otherwise known as the TAKS, is a standardized test used throughout the state of Texas to determine whether or not a student is prepared for the next grade level. The TAKS test was implemented in 2003 to replace the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills in concurrence with the “No Child Left Behind Act”. The new test added science and social studies portions to the already existing sections of math, reading, and English. The purpose of this was to obtain more information on where students are academically. However, since its inception, the test has been criticized for numerous reasons. The TAKS test has become ineffective in several capacities and has been used to determine teacher bonuses and assessment of how well a teacher is communicating, evaluations that it was not originally intended to decide. When taking into account all of these points of view, I have come to the conclusion that the TAKS test should no longer be used in its present function.
Another major criticism of the “No Child Left Behind” deals with the implications of using a standardized test as means of assessing achievement.
The United States of America has placed low on the educational ladder throughout the years. The cause of such a low ranking is due to such heavy emphasis on standardized testing and not individual student achievement. Although the United States uses standardized testing as a crutch, it is not an effective measure of a student’s ability, a teacher’s competency, or a school’s proficiency.
Since the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind program, standardized testing has become the norm for American schools. Under this system, each child attending a school is required to take a standardized test at specific grade points to assess their level of comprehension. Parents, scholars and all stakeholders involved take part in constant discussions over its effectiveness in evaluating students’ comprehension, teachers’ competency and the effects of the test on the education system. Though these tests were put in place to create equality, experts note that they have created more inequality in the classroom. In efforts to explore this issue further, this essay reviews two articles on standardized testing. This essay reviews the sentiments of the authors and their insight into standardized examination. The articles provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that standardized tests are not effective at measuring a teacher’s competency because they do not take into account the school environment and its effect on the students.
Standardized tests are biased to certain students whether it is race, or even how much money the parent(s) earn. According to Standardized Testing and Its Victims by Alfie Kohn, the tests are a lot easier for children coming from richer communities like Dublin for example, then Cleveland where funding is scarce (Kohn, 2000). It is not just a rich and poor battle it also is a battle with students and regional or language barriers. According to Uyen Zimmerman, my former math instructor from Dublin Coffman, explained English as a second language students interpret asked questions phrased strangely to them differently than a student whose primary language is English. For example, she said there was a question on the ACT that asked a question about folding pizza and an ESL student thought that it meant putting pizza into a folder. Another example is asking students about black ice when students in states such as Hawaii and Louisiana, have never seen or heard of black ice (Zimmerman, 2014). I agree with her completely. All standardized tests are playing with what the creators of the test think is a “standard” and testing all students across America with the exact same questions.
Current educational policy and practice asserts that increased standardized student testing is the key to improving student learning and is the most appropriate means for holding individual schools and teachers accountable for student learning. Instead, it has become a tool solely for summarizing what students have learned and for ranking students and schools. The problem is standardized tests cannot provide the information about student achievement that teachers and students need day-to-day. Classroom assessment can provide this kind of information.
The ability for all children from varying walks of life to receive a well-rounded education in America has become nothing more than a myth. In excerpt “The Essentials of a Good Education”, Diane Ravitch argues the government’s fanatical obsession with data based on test scores has ruined the education system across the country (107). In their eyes, students have faded from their eyes as individual hopefully, creative and full of spirit, and have become statistics on a data sheet, percentages on a pie chart, and numbers calculated to show the intelligence they have from filling out bubbles in a booklet. In order for schools to be able to provide a liberal education, they need the proper funding, which comes from the testing.
Standardized testing scores proficiencies in most generally accepted curricular areas. The margin of error is too great to call this method effective. “High test scores are generally related to things other than the actual quality of education students are receiving” (Kohn 7). “Only recently have test scores been published in the news-paper and used as the primary criteria for judging children, teachers, and schools.”(2) Standardized testing is a great travesty imposed upon the American Public School system.
Standardized testing is an unfair and inaccurate form of judging a person’s intellect. In many cases, people are either over- or underrepresented by their test scores, partly because America does not currently have the capabilities of fairly scoring the increasing number of tests. Additionally, many students today are not native English speakers, and their capabilities could be grossly underestimated by these types of exams. Although President Bush is a supporter, many influential people are against this bill, including the largest teacher’s union in the United States, which has formed a commission in opposition to the President’s proposal.
There are pros to standardized examinations as tools for gaining information about student’s literacy strengths and weaknesses that can influence instruction. A pro to standardized examinations is that every student in the same state will take the same tests. This allows a precise comparison between schools. There are negatives to this comparing schools in this manner. These are that some schools or specific educators are obligated to teach to the test. Educators are suffering from an extreme amount of pressure to prove they are effective educators. Regrettably, the primary statistic judged is the success of their student’s performance on these standardized examinations. Some school reprimand there educator if too many students fail thus, scaring educators to teach to the test.
Cohen et al. (2010) wrote that assessment can be a major contributor to raising standards in schools in terms of teaching, learning and student achievement. In addition, if assessment is properly handled with consistency, reliability, validity and rigour, it can have a possitive effect on learning and can improve students' own understanding of how can they learn more effectively and improve.
“If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn't be here. I guarantee you that.” This quote by Michelle Obama illustrates the idea that standardized testing should not have such a large influence on education in America. However, a majority of people are under the impression that standardized tests are an accurate method to measure a person's intellectual ability. I believe that standardized tests have developed into a very critical part of the American education system that is hindering the growth of students and teachers instead of providing a tool that can accurately measure knowledge.
Based on the Programme for International Student Assessment’s 2012 results (PISA), the United States has ranked 30th in comparison to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) participating countries. The United States, a country that has once held the ideal for educational standards, has now ranked just slightly above other countries that are just being developed. By using high-stakes test statistics to drive America’s educational standards, classrooms are beginning to lose their meaning of helping students to learn and grow as individuals. Because of classrooms just teaching the test are beginning to lose the meaning of helping students to learn and grow as individuals, results of high stakes testing which can be affected by the minutest details, are not a reasonable way to judge overall student competency; a better alternative would be by performance based assessments. “Test developers are obliged to create a series of one-size-fits-all assessments. But, as most of us know from attempting to wear one-size-fits-all garments, sometimes one size really can’t fit all.” (Popham, James W.). High stakes tests are not a reasonable way to judge overall student competency because educators can not expect to have accurate and precise results in just one sitting for 12 years of learning. Although tests pose an important role in education, they should not be given such high stakes of determining if a student should be rejected from a college “based solely on the fact that their score wasn’t high enough” (Stake, Robert.).
Assessments were not aligned and incongruent with what was happening in the classroom. It was difficult to accurately measure student success (Polikoff, Porter, & Smithson, 2011). One of the greatest contributors to the difficulty of aligning assessments to standards is that the standards are so complex (LaMarca, 2001.) How can a single assessment demonstrate mastery of so much content? Also, some assessments items measure multiple standards. This can be difficult to analyze. Furthermore, some assessment contain content that is neither developmentally appropriate for the intended audience or it may content that is not mentioned in the standards (Polikoff, Porter, & Smithson, 2011). This can be discouraging and frustrating for both students and