7).
Although "one would expect higher quality assessment instruments that produce better information to make education decisions given NCLB-imposed penalties for districts associated with poor performance on the test...many states struggle with budget deficits and funding restrictions. They cannot allocate the funds necessary to improve the testing programs. States are forced to rely on large-scale assessments with too few questions and a narrow focus on skills and knowledge that are easily measured....representatives from the NJDOE [New Jersey Department of Education] have admitted publicly that finances, not technical integrity, drive the state's assessment program... [Their] current philosophy is 'do the best with what we have'" and is based upon the assumption that some testing, of whatever kind, is better than not testing at all (Tienken & Wilson, 2007, p.16)
The irony is palpable -- the high-stakes nature of testing requires teachers, operating under finite limitations of time and money, to focus on teaching a test of questionable value, to preserve funding -- so that the teachers can continue to teach students how to perform well on standardized assessments. One of the most common frustrations expressed by both students and educators is that the emphasis on high-stakes testing changes the dynamic of the classroom and stifles teacher creativity. Students come to devalue learning and schooling, and shift their emphasis to, "Is this going to be on the test?" (Marchant 2004, p.3). "Time that previously was devoted to learning skills and knowledge in an appropriate sequential fashion, gets lost in the process of cramming for the tests" and those areas subject to standardized assessment such as the natural sciences, social studies, health, and open-ended writing questions, "are neglected in favor of reading and arithmetic skills that appear on the tests. High stakes testing also seems to encourage the use of instructional approaches and materials that resembles testing" like multiple choice (Marchant 2004, p.4).
Yet NCLB, as it is currently constructed, offers little incentive for improvement. Rather than embark upon quality-improvement projects, because states can set their own standards, states can merely set a new standard or norm, rather than improve instruction. Instead of placing the bar high and working to reach that goal over a number of years, states "fearing...
Recognition of quality and lack there of should be a basic goal of the education system, as it strives to direct resources and change situations that are not meeting the demands of accountability, yet it is clear that High Stakes testing does a poor job identifying good schools and good teachers as it ignored, by default important information that is not available on the test scores. It has been clear
Thus, students faced with fear and stress, are overwhelmed, concentrating on the test rather than on the goals of learning. They cannot concentrate on school work, understanding the importance of learning and education, because of stress that forces some to focus only on the test and others to drop out. III. High stakes testing disadvantages those with learning disabilities. In addition to lowering the teaching capacity of some teachers and students'
"Schools will not be able to attract high-quality teachers to a system that stifles richness and creativity and emphasizes a narrow band of knowledge and a very restricted set of tests to measure it." Consequently, struggling schools will get worse as teachers move to more affluent public or private schools to teach. The students will suffer the consequences of inadequate instruction the most. In the end, High Stakes Testing does
Because of this, students who had disabilities, low language proficiency, and who come from various ethnic backgrounds are viewed as such during the grading process. In addition, these kinds of assessments allow professors to not only assess whether the students have learned the subject matter, but also whether or not they have the skills to proceed in the academic realm. According to the Ohio Department of Education (n.d.), there
articles on high-stakes testing. Specifically, it will review the three articles, and include how the articles changed my personal views on high-stakes testing. Clearly, testing is a necessity in the educational environment, and yet, many forms of testing seem to be more a form of control and labeling rather than a way to accurately measure the student's expected and actual learning outcomes. High-stakes testing may help reinforce the school
High stakes testing is a concept of using assessments to make major decisions about students and to hold schools accountable. In the U.S. high stakes testing is part of a standardization process that sees students being assessed to evaluate progress; the tests not only impact whether a student will advance but also whether the school will receive incentives from the government. Because incentives are tied to achievement and the high
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now