I grew up hearing that the state I
lived in, New Jersey, had some of the best public schools in the country. According
to US News, Massachusetts is ranked as the top state for public schools and New
Jersey is ranked as the second best. What is that based on? The answer is test
scores. Almost every child in the United States public-school system has either
taken a standardized test or will have to in their time in public school. I
began taking standardized tests at the age of nine. New Jersey recently implemented
a new test called PARCC which stands for Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers. These tests start as early as second grade
and would require students to be tested each year through high school. Some
states have already adopted them and New Jersey has run its trial tests and is
starting to test students. The focus of the test is to prepare students for “colleges
and careers” after high school, but is it really doing this? The standardized
tests continue for students applying to four year universities. The SATs or
Acts are just about mandatory. There are some colleges that do not require test
scores from their applicants, but those universities are by no means the
majority. The website, FairTest, lists the colleges that have test optional
methods for applicants, but some of the top universities remain missing from
the list. What are the effects of standardized tests on students (some as young
as seven years old) and are they really a reliable measure for evaluating
students and teachers?
An article by
Valeria Strauss on the Washington Post argues that, “There is particular
concern about the disproportionate impact high-stakes-testing may be having on
our poorest students, most struggling students, English Language Learners, and
students of color” (Strauss). She outlines thirteen ways that these tests are
harming students and teachers. They include lost learning time, reduced content
knowledge, narrowed curriculum, students shut out of programs, diverted
resources, school closures, loss of curiosity and love of learning, blocked
access to facilities during testing, harmful stress, internalized failure,
grades, graduation requirements, and an altered school culture (Strauss). It
seems that these tests are doing more harm than good. According to FairTest, “A
nine-year study by the National Research Council (2011) concluded that the
emphasis on testing yielded little learning progress but caused significant
harm” (FairTest). Twenty-five states use high school graduation tests which again
penalize low-income students, minority students, and students who English is
not their first language. Are these tests effectively preparing students for
higher education and the working world?
This cartoon emphasizes the point that
Don Batt makes in his article entitled, “Standardized tests are killing our
students’ creativity, desire to learn” from the Denver Post. He stresses that, “There
are those who are so immersed in the sea of testing that they do not see the
figurative nature of language and naively think that the monster they have
created is helping children” (Batt). He is arguing, as an English teacher, that
these tests do not allow children to experience the expressive nature of
writing and instead require language and form that is mechanical and limiting. Not
only are students assessed on these tests, but so are teachers and according to
FairTest these tests are not a reliable way to measure a teacher’s effectiveness
in the classroom.
In conclusion, although standardized
tests are often argued to be the most efficient way data is gathered on a
school’s "success" there are other, less harmful methods for collecting this
data. Anya Kamenetz who wrote a book entitled, The Test, which deals with these issues outlines alternatives for assessing
students. In an article published on nprEd she argues that sampling, stealth
assessment, multiple measures, social and emotional, game-based assessments,
performance or portfolio-based assessments and inspections are a better
alternative to standardized testing (Kamenetz). In her first suggestion sampling, she
argues that it may not be necessary to rid schools of standardized tests
completely, but having fewer of them alongside other forms of assessment will
be beneficial for both students and teachers in the long run. Each student is different and requiring a standardized form of assessment fails to acknowledge these differences.
Works
Consulted and Cited
"Cartoons on Testing*." Larry Cuban on School
Reform and Classroom Practice. N.p., 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.
"How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated
July 2012)." How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated
July 2012) | FairTest. N.p., 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.
Kamenetz, Anya. "What Schools Could Use Instead of
Standardized Tests." NPR. NPR, 06 Jan. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.
Selbe, Nick. "The States Ranked by Test Scores."
Rate Limited. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.
Batt, Don "Standardized Tests Are Killing Our Students’
Creativity, Desire to Learn." The Denver Post. N.p., 30 Apr. 2016.
Web. 18 Apr. 2017.
Strauss, Valerie. "13 Ways High-stakes Standardized
Tests Hurt Students." The Washington Post. WP Company, 11 Mar. 2014.
Web. 18 Apr. 2017.
"These U.S. States Have the Best Childhood
Education." U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, n.d. Web. 18
Apr. 2017.
Interesting, I'm sure I'm not the only one who can relate to the "harmful stress, internalized failure" part of standardized testing. My mother is a grade school teacher and whenever the OAKS testing or the new Smarter Balanced testing sessions come around, I never get through the season without hearing a remark about how "corrupt" or "unnecessary" these tests can be. The students she teach all come from a wealthy area and their parents are all extremely concerned for the child's placements on these tests. Perhaps overly concerned. I hear stories about how her students are constantly stressed even though most of them are doing very well in their class overall. Many of their parents seem to think that these tests will determine how they get placed into middle school or high school classes, and later which college they may attend. However, these tests are not going to determine a student's future life, and the fact that there's a huge amount of stress and pain to these young 4th graders is absurd.
ReplyDeleteI did my research paper for E&D on Waldorf education which featured a holistic approach to child-development and well-being. Waldorf schools typically do not have tests, feature a low-technology environment, and all of their textbooks are made by the individual student. Waldorf education is based on the foundation and belief that human beings are fundamentally spiritual in nature. I agree with this perspective because human beings are inclined to practice differing forms of “worship.” Under capitalism this may be the worship of material items, money, and potentially beauty. In David Foster Wallace's speech “This is Water,” he says: “In the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping… The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship… is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive…If you worship money… then you will never… feel you have enough… Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly…Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings” (Wallace, D. F, 2009, p.121-123). This type of education can set a student on the path of the desire for life-long learning. I attended a Waldorf school for kindergarten, public school for most of my education, and finally a private holistic school (for the end of my highschool experience due to difficulties I faced in the public school system). In my experience both the Waldorf and the private holistic school allowed me to engage with aspects of my right brain that had been denied. I got to join a meditation club, take sign language and guitar classes, and work at a meditation society where I learned about an array of Buddhist teachings and practices.I was able to form deep and meaningful connections with new friends and supportive mentors.The environment also felt communally oriented which was necessary in cultivating happiness for myself and others that were a part of the schooling environment. A large critique of the Waldorf school system is that it is considered to be elitist and only accessible to people who are financially privileged. One would not expect to observe children from low-income or immigrant families within a Waldorf classroom. However, in some cases, Waldorf does offer scholarships for students; they can apply for need-based financial aid. However, students from low-income families must generally excel in areas that involve high achievement in academics, music, arts, leadership/community, and/or athletics in order to attain financial aid. Interestingly enough, while I was doing research I found a study that suggested that Waldorf students tend to do better on standardized tests. In Bonnie Chauncey’s (2006) article “The Waldorf Model and Public School Reform,” she shares Todd Oppenheimer's study that found that Waldorf graduates earn SAT scores well above the national average (although it is important to note that overall research is scarce).
ReplyDelete