Public Schools, You Are Not just a Victim and Critic of Standardized ...

in Heinz Voices ? December 13, 2012

?

By Huiwen Li

Huiwen Li is an instructor of Chinese language at Carnegie Mellon University and doctoral student in the ProDEL program at Duquesne University.

?

Like a knife, standardized testing itself remains neutral and innocent until it is used it for different purposes. Originally, standardized testing was designed to monitor and direct instruction and learning. So when did it become the target of public criticism? Everything from books, publications, media and even public demonstrations have attempted to answer this question. As a graduate policy student, I theorize standardized testing has been so misused to the point that it is jeopardizing and victimizing the main stakeholders.

So I posit this question: is standardized testing being used to monitor student learning? I would argue it is not. Standardized testing fails to provide analytic feedback to students; providing students with no way to better understand individual strengths and weaknesses. The only thing given to students is an impersonal score which provides little insight for improvement or learning. Under such circumstances students are treated like suspects who are either set free or sent to jail without any evidence and reasoning.

Due to standardized testing, students focus on test taking skills and spend time aimlessly learning subject content. Consequently, skillful test-takers tend to be ?good? students, or winners, and those more likely to be accepted into colleges. In a Chinese Language class taught at Carnegie Mellon University, several first-year students were unable to perform as well on non-standardized test, as their high school achievement records suggested. Most likely a direct result of training which over-focuses on standardize testing.

In comparison, those students without labeled losers or ?bad? students, fail school because of test taking skills not actual knowledge of a subject. Further compounding this phenomenon, there is evidence which suggest students from low-income families comprise a large portion of the population performing poorly on standardized test.

To fully assess the impact of standardized testing, one has to question if teachers endorse this style of teaching. Superficially yes. The tests are ready to use, take no time to grade, and free teachers from classroom responsibility. However, there is one fatal risk for teachers, which is serious enough to wipe-out any potential benefits. If a class fails to ?perform? to a certain standard, the teacher is vulnerable to firing regardless of the actual work or performance of his or her teaching. This leads to a culture in education that teachers will ?teach to the test? to save their job. Growing evidence indicates that, in order to survive standardized testing, teachers have to narrow curriculum, restrict access to electives, and focus instructional time disproportionately on test preparation (Au, 2007; Hamilton, Stetcher, Marsh, McCombs, Robyn, Russell, Naftel, & Barney, 2007; McMurrer, 2007). Many teachers hate teaching to the test but are unable or unwilling to risk their jobs or hold students back.

Public schools are also put in jeopardy by standardized testing. In reality, few factors other than the standardized test result will be considered when schools are shut down by the state education departments. Like teachers, principals have to focus the school work on testing. Good testing score means funding and survival. Unsatisfactory score can lead to less funds, poor work conditions, and further failure.

In this an uphill battle, despite a large number of losers, there is only one clear winner: the test writing organizations. No matter how many schools survive or die, the test agencies like ETS and other statewide testing contractors involved in PSSA development, for instance, always find work. It is not their concern if the student succeeds or fails.

Even students label as ?winners? buy standardized tests do not come out on top. These students have lost the knowledge and skill they are supposed to have, not to mention the losers who have been deprived of the opportunities to learn for learning sake.

Schools should take immediate actions to reduce the detrimental stakes of solely teaching to the test. The voices of students deserve to be heard. Schools should stand up for their students and teachers. In addition, schools should make every effort to reduce the negative impact of testing and boost the positive influence of rigorous curriculum. Otherwise, studetns will be the biggest losers before they can reap the benefits of a thorough education.

?

References

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523

Hamilton, L. S., Stetcher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Standards-Based Accountability Under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators in Three States. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, MG-589-NSF.

McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.

?

?

?

?

?

Source: http://journal.heinz.cmu.edu/2012/12/public-schools-you-are-not-just-a-victim-and-critic-of-standardized-testing/

pau gasol trade michael madsen spring forward day light savings day light savings daylight saving time 2012 grapes of wrath