Stage Five
The practice of awarding federal funds to schools based on standardized test scores creates a culture of teaching that is not based on individual student growth, but rather on benchmarks that tell little about actual transfer of knowledge.
Since states control the content of the assessments, there is no way to stop test creators from decreasing the difficulty in an attempt to indicate perceived proficiency, resulting in comparative yearly scores that are next to meaningless. This is especially apparent when the tests are altogether restructured; what does a score on the 2010 TAKS test mean in relation to a score on the 2017 STAAR?
Additionally, the pressure to perform frequently leads teachers to structure their curricula around the test, limiting the depth of conversation in the haste to cover all units. Often, the most comprehensive and engaging unit is the final, after the burden of testing has been lifted and teachers can explore topics that they feel passionate about. A student's passions might be discouraged along with the teachers', as pushes to increase objective performance in testable subjects can come at the expense of fine arts and technical electives.
Pinning all of the schools' prospects on one assessment taking place on a single day does not take into account the individual variations in student life, in particular the underperformance that can accompany stress. One conceivable source of stress might be knowing that your academic future is dependent on a test created by people who do not know you or the way you learn.
The system of consequences that follows testing is also detrimental to students. By rewarding already proficient schools, lower-scoring institutions become increasingly underfunded and more likely to continue to fall below standards. This deterioration is compounded by the flight of teachers looking for higher-paying and more reputable positions, and the transfer of students who are able to enroll in charter and private schools.
Overall, the system of standardized testing attempts to mold individuals into bureaucratic expectations, commodifying students while devaluing individualism and creativity.
Since states control the content of the assessments, there is no way to stop test creators from decreasing the difficulty in an attempt to indicate perceived proficiency, resulting in comparative yearly scores that are next to meaningless. This is especially apparent when the tests are altogether restructured; what does a score on the 2010 TAKS test mean in relation to a score on the 2017 STAAR?
Additionally, the pressure to perform frequently leads teachers to structure their curricula around the test, limiting the depth of conversation in the haste to cover all units. Often, the most comprehensive and engaging unit is the final, after the burden of testing has been lifted and teachers can explore topics that they feel passionate about. A student's passions might be discouraged along with the teachers', as pushes to increase objective performance in testable subjects can come at the expense of fine arts and technical electives.
Pinning all of the schools' prospects on one assessment taking place on a single day does not take into account the individual variations in student life, in particular the underperformance that can accompany stress. One conceivable source of stress might be knowing that your academic future is dependent on a test created by people who do not know you or the way you learn.
The system of consequences that follows testing is also detrimental to students. By rewarding already proficient schools, lower-scoring institutions become increasingly underfunded and more likely to continue to fall below standards. This deterioration is compounded by the flight of teachers looking for higher-paying and more reputable positions, and the transfer of students who are able to enroll in charter and private schools.
Overall, the system of standardized testing attempts to mold individuals into bureaucratic expectations, commodifying students while devaluing individualism and creativity.
In the Normalcy Not Nostrums blog, the author argued that standardized testing was detrimental to students’ education. I agree that having teachers cram students so that they pass a test contradicts the value of learning. Having schools’ budgets determined by the test scores also creates a rather negative learning environment. I find that the STAAR test and other state standardizing tests encourage students to pick the right answer and write a correctly organized essay; such tests encourage students to think inside the box instead of promoting creativity. After all, the point of education is for students to grow up into intelligent, creative adults, not detail oriented robots.
ReplyDeleteThe author, however, could have utilized statistics or polls to demonstrate the consequences of standardized testing. Data comparing students who received an education geared toward standardized testing versus students who are simply taught by their teacher at their own pace could provide concrete evidence of the unproductive nature of standardized testing. Because numbers are objective, they would be the most effective way to build a rock bottom foundation to the argument. Likewise, quotes from experts in education about the harmful effect of standardized testing could bolster the author’s claim. Overall, the article is well written and sheds light on a major part of the public school system.
Although I agree with the author of the blog Normalcy Not Nostrums in their fifth blog post about how the current funds reward system to schools are based on standardize test scores is a bad system that ultimately widens the gap between “good” and “bad” schools, I do not share the same opinion of standardize testing themselves as I think they serve as a good benchmark for gauging the readiness of students. For example, most of these standardize tests include a reading comprehension, essay, and math problem section, which are used to estimate a student’s preparedness in them pursue in higher academia.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what career or occupation people decide to choose to pursue, any job requires a base line capability of being able to take in data and information and understand those appropriate subjects. This is what the reading comprehension part of the section in indirectly tests. This capability is a necessity especially if a student is planning to attend college where courses require you to be able to absorb large amounts of boring long texts to be able to relate to more complex ideas.
Math problems happen to be a very sufficient may of testing problem solving skills as you are given a limited amount of information and must try to work out a solution with pertain prior knowledge. This skill is essential in almost everything we do, problems occur not only in the professional and academic life but can arise anywhere and anytime and being able to deal with such problems with a limited amount of resource is a prerequisite to being an adult.
The essay portion allows colleges and the state to know how articulate their students are as they need to show they can get across an idea or argument under stressful and timed conditions. This is quite useful in real world such as writing emails, presenting to an audience, or just general writing communication.
I think these tests are needed so schools know what to work on with students to better prepare them for, however it should not be a determinate to how the federal funds their school as they will give the least money to the schools that need the most help.