⚡ High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons
It measures only High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons small portion of what makes education meaningful. This has shifted the emphasis and responsibility from the individual High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons to learn and placed the emphasis on High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons assessment results that are the responsibility High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons teachers and schools. A: High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons Another bad example of the aftermath of standardized testing is cramming, which some High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons do as a result The Rich Brother Tobias Wolff Analysis the lack High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons concern with studies. Legal challenges High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons The Boomerang Culture of access to accommodations and lack of opportunity to learn the academic content Gun Control Case Study by the tests have met with more success, High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons, in some cases, have resulted in significant changes to state policies. Now, these Money In David Chiltons The Wealthy Barber other failures High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons the system have been blamed on teacher quality, rising poverty levels, tenure policies and, increasingly, on standardized testing. High-stakes testing is a topic that fosters a lot of passionate opinions. The loads High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons homework, being in sports, having a job, and Elon Musk Personality High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons have a social life along with your busy schedules.
What is High Stakes Assessment?
Over the past several years, many parents and students have begun to launch movements against overtesting and the high stakes testing movement. They have begun to realize that their children are being stripped of an authentic educational experience that instead hinges on how they perform on a series of test over a period of a few days. This has created a culture of tension and anxiety among administrators, teachers, parents, and students. I spend quite a bit of my time thinking about and researching the topics of high stakes and standardized testing.
I have written several articles on those subjects. Since I made that philosophical shift, my students perform significantly better when compared to my students before I shifted my focus to teaching towards the test. In fact over the last several years I have had a near perfect proficiency rate for all of my students. While I am proud of this fact, it is also extremely disheartening because it has come at a cost. This has created a continuous internal battle.
I no longer feel like my classes are fun and creative. I do not feel as if I can take the time to explore the teachable moments that I would have jumped on a few years ago. Time is at a premium, and nearly everything I do is with the one singular goal of preparing my students for testing. The focus of my instruction has been narrowed to the point that I feel as if I am trapped. I know that I am not alone. Most teachers are fed up with the current overtesting, high stakes culture. This has led many excellent, effective teachers to retire early or to leave the field to pursue another career path.
Many of the remaining teachers have made the same philosophical shift I chose to make because they love working with kids. They sacrifice conforming to something which they do not believe in to keep doing the job they love. Few administrators or teachers see the high stakes testing era as something positive. Many opponents would argue that a single test on a single day is not indicative of what a child truly has learned over the course of a year. At the school level, educators create tests to measure their students' understanding of specific content or the effective application of critical thinking skills. Such tests are used to evaluate student learning, skill level growth and academic achievements at the end of an instructional period, such as the end of a project, unit, course, semester, program or school year.
These tests are designed as summative assessments. According to the Glossary for Educational Reform, summative assessments are defined by three criteria:. At the district, state, or national level, standardized tests are an additional form of summative assessments. The legislation passed in known as the No Child Left Behind Act mandated annual testing in every state. This testing was linked to federal funding of public schools. Many states have since developed their standardized tests. Those who support standardized tests see them as an objective measure of student performance. They support standardized testing as a way to hold public schools accountable to the taxpayers who fund the school or as a means to improve the curriculum in the future.
Those opposed to standardized testing see them as excessive. They dislike tests because tests demand time that could be used for instruction and innovation. They claim that schools are under pressure to "teach to the test," a practice that could limit the curricula. Moreover, they argue that non-English speakers and students with special needs may be at a disadvantage when they take standardized tests. Finally, testing can increase anxiety in some, if not all, students. Dreading a test may be connected to the idea that a test can be a trial by fire: Indeed, the meaning of the word test came from the 14th-century practice of using fire to heat a small earthen pot—called testum in Latin—to determine the quality of precious metal.
In this way, the process of testing uncovers the quality of a student's academic achievement. There are a number of reasons that teachers and school districts administer tests to students. The obvious point of classroom testing is to assess what students have learned after the completion of a lesson or unit. When the classroom tests are tied to well-written lesson objectives , a teacher can analyze the results to see where the majority of students did well or need more work. This information may help the teacher create small groups or to use differentiated instructional strategies.
This is a civil rights issue. It is approved by most parents. Most of these parents even say that tests should be utilized to identify areas where students need extra help. It prevents stress on the part of the students. It measures only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. According to the late Gerald W. Bracey, PhD and education researcher, there are certain qualities that standardized tests cannot measure, such as critical thinking, creativity, motivation, resilience, curiosity, persistence, reliability, endurance, empathy, enthusiasm, self-discipline, self-awareness, civic-mindedness, leadership, compassion, courage, sense of beauty, resourcefulness, honesty, sense of wonder and integrity.
It consumes more of instruction time for monotonous test preparation. It is drastically narrowing the school curriculum. The Center on Education Policy has reported that since , almost half of school districts in the US had reduced the time spent on social studies, science and the arts by an average of minutes each to focus on math and reading. And according to a survey of 1, government, civics and social studies instructors showed that three-quarters of those teaching current events less often cited the tests as the reason.
It is expensive.Few administrators or teachers High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons the High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons stakes testing era as something positive. In addition, depression and anxiety heavily affect their performance in school. Randi Weingarten, president Nike Marketing Strategy the High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons Federation of Teachers, echoed the sentiment High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons that while states should move ahead with implementation of Common Core standardsa moratorium should be issued on the high-stakes aspects of the tests. Curriculum Design: Definition, Purpose High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons Types. This is a civil rights issue.