Apple (2001) finds national testing to be the main culprit for these alternating values. To illustrate this, Apple (2001) takes the value of equity, which, due to the rapid speed of changes in curriculum and assessment makes it impossible to monitor and prove beneficial for all social groups equally (p. 192). As he ironically notes, the combination of neoliberal market and regulatory state works perfectly, but only in a different, distorted reality (Apple, 2001, p. 192). By constantly attacking the “managerial” (Apple, 2001, p. 182) approach in education, Apple (1993) cautions about its infeasibility and potential harm to teacher education; he will not compromise transforming it for the sake of “market practices” (Apple, 1993, p. 235). In this …show more content…
192). Therefore, the main caveat which Apple (2001) raises in his article and warns about relates to the possible future marketization of teacher education, when the teachers ' qualification and teaching aptitude will be evaluated according to the results of the students ' on international testings, as opposed to their professional experience and knowledge. Cochran-Smith (2008) in her article on teacher education in the US, uses the euphemism 'the outcomes trap ' (p. 276), implying that nowadays teachers ' quality is being measured through the testing scores of their students. These fallacious assumptions may lead the countries in trouble in the future, as Cochran-Smith (2008) warns, because teachers on their own cannot solve the problem of testing without the “investments in resources, capacity building, and teachers’ professional growth, not to mention changes in access to housing, health, and jobs” (Cochran-Smith, 2008, p. 276). This implies, that teachers should not be evaluated according to their students’ scores, neither should their professional development be constrained by the standardized testings, because apart from that they have own professional aspirations which are needed to be fulfilled. Ball (1998) also holds against the performance-based …show more content…
279) to penetrate in the teacher everyday discourse so deeply that no one even questions their meanings, but everyone tries to use them in their teaching as if they are the guarantee of a good practice. However, as Cochran-Smith (2008) insists, good teaching cannot be fully regulated by the “high stakes contexts” (p. 279) and testings, as “good teacher education focuses on an expansive rather than narrow notion of practice” (p. 279), including the ability of teacher to build a good emotional rapport with the students and parents, responding to the learners’ needs, ability to demonstrate good problem-solving skills and so on, rather than being constrained only to the test scores, once again concluding that teacher education is a rather elaborated and complex
In 2010, Charlotte Danielson wrote an article, “Evaluations That Help Teachers”, for the magazine The Effective Educator. The purpose of this article was to explain how a teacher evaluation system, such as her own Framework for Teaching, should and can actually foster teacher learning rather than just measure teacher competence, which is what most other teacher evaluation systems do. This topic is especially critical to decision-making school leaders. Many of the popular teacher evaluation systems fail to help schools link teacher performance with meaningful opportunities for the teachers to reflect on and learn from in order to grow professionally. With the increased attention on the need for more rigorous student standards, this then is an enormous opportunity missed. Students can only achieve such rigorous expectations if their teachers can effectively teach them, and research has shown that teachers who are evaluated by systems that hold them to accountability and provide them for continuous support and growth will actually teach more effectively.
middle of paper ... ... Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 25 (1), 45-51. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol25/iss1/5. Western Australian Department of Education. a.
Miltich, Matthew. "Standardized Testing and Assessment Do Not Improve Education." Education: Opposing Viewpoints. New York: Greenhaven, 2005. 151-54. Print.
The overall purpose of schooling is to advance one’s knowledge and skill base and through standardized testing the belief is that one’s knowledge and skill base can be assessed and analyzed, but what occurs many a times is a teacher's difficulty to expand upon the learning process due to the confinements that testing has on his/hers ability to teach. In a qualitative study performed by the Morehead State University it was determined that in a particular rural school standardized testing had implemented a limit on the amount of time that teachers were able to instruct, as well as limitations on the “instructional resources and the types of assessments teachers employed” (Thomas, 2005). Even if a teacher was content with teaching the state
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.
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.
Parents and advocates of education can all agree that they want their students to be in the best hands possible in regards to education. They want the best teachers, staffs, and schools to ensure their student’s success. By looking at the score results from standardized testing, teachers can evaluate effectively they are doing their job. On the other side, a proponent for eliminating standardized testing would argue that not all students care passionately about their education and will likely not perform to expectations on the test. However, receiving the numerical data back, teachers can construe the student’s performances and eliminate the outliers of the negligent kids. Teachers can then look at the individual scores and assign those outliers to get the help they need in school. This helps every student getting an equal chance at education. Overall, taking a practice standardized test can let a teacher look at individual questions and scores and interpret what they need to spend more time on teaching. A school also can reap the benefits from standard testing to ensure they are providing the best possible education they can. The school can look at the average scores from a group and hold the teacher accountable for the student’s results on the test. The school can then determine the best course of action to pursuit regarding the teacher’s career at the school. By offering teachers and schools the opportunity to grow and prosper, standardized testing is a benefit for the entire education
Furthermore, she insists that (educators) ignore the fact that children learning abilities are different as a reply to their saying “ every child can learn” (P.99). She goes on to maintain that test scores cannot be used to prove if students learn anything. According to Ravitch, social scientists report that families’ incomes affect students’ educational lives more than their teachers do. In her book, she supports her claim by mentioning that economists observe that 60% of the test score variation is responsible for family. On the other hand, 20-25% is accounted for school while 15% of test score variation is teachers’ responsibility. Moreover, Ravitch emphasizes the importance of evaluating teachers based on their way of instruction, not their students’ performance in tests. She finally concludes by wondering what reformers exactly mean by “great” teachers. She presents two types of teachers who can be described as “great”. The first one is teachers who motivate and inspire their students to learn and those can only be identified by students and supervisors. They cannot be recognized by test scores. The second type is teachers who are great, in the performers’ terms, for raising students’ test scores, but they are not relevant based on Ravitch’s information. According to her, no school has teachers in which everyone of them raises his or her
It is said that the No Child Left Behind Act has its strengths and weaknesses and it can be improved so the next act will do an even better job of improving Americas schools. An issue that needs to be dealt with is one of the main points of controversy is high-stakes testing. There is no evidence to prove that these tests are improving or damaging students learning. Tests mandated by No Child Left Behind have not been a success because they have failed to make standards and tests that are effective and that only national standards and tests can do the job. Although changing the standards and assessments brings up a problem they will provide a great opportunity to change teacher’s education as well. Since their teaching skills are varied and there are many programs that do not fully prepare teachers. If standards were already established every single teacher across the country would know what they must teach and know the subject that students must learn and effective teaching techniques of teaching the
Besharov, Douglas. "Teachers Performance: A Review ." Journal of Policy Analyis and Management (2006): 1-41.
Columnist, Guest. "Test Scores and Teacher Competency." The Oregonian. Oregonlive.com, 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 18 Jan. 2014.
The state’s new evaluation system was in response to administrators who produced, “superficial and capricious teacher evaluation systems that often don't even directly address the quality of instruction, much less measure students' learning” (Toch, 2008). Too often, the “good-ol-boy” attitude would insure mediocre educators would remain employed. Realizing this was often more the rule then the exception, the governor created educational mandates to focus, “on supporting and training effective teachers to drive student achievement” (Marzano Center, 2013). Initially, they expected the school districts and the teachers would have issues and experience growing pains, but in the end the goal was, “to improve teacher performance, year by year, with a corresponding rise in student achievement” (Marzano Center, 2013).
Everyone knows that when it comes to making a difference in a child’s academic and life achievements, their teachers play a large role. A teacher’s ability to relate to their students, and teach them to achieve both socially and academically contributes to how effective they are. What does it mean to be an effective teacher? Overall there seems to be an emphasis on teacher effectiveness related to how well their students are performing on standardized testing. As teachers we know there is more to being an effective teacher then just teaching our students based on tests. This paper will identify different definitions of an effective teacher along with how to assess teachers on being effective.