Sunday, December 13, 2015

God Bless America- Annie Deitz Final Speech


Annie Deitz

Mr. Logsdon

12/13/14 (AKA TAYLOR SWIFT’S BIRTHDAY)

One Size Fits All

Ah. Second Grade. The year I was first labelled “intellectually gifted.” The year I was first put into the gifted and talented program at my elementary school. QUEST, I believe was the name. No one could ever possibly understand the pride I had when I brought home that letter to my mother, the one describing how academically advanced and special I was. Had I known the reasoning behind my admittance at the time, I might not have been so excited (or perhaps I would have, like most young children I was more interested recess than anything else). I was asked to join the special class solely because of my scores on state standardized testing- one of the most nonsensical and discriminatory innovations of the 21st century educational world, one that needs to be completely changed.

Standardized Testing can be defined as exams given under controlled conditions that specify all aspects of the testing environment- location, time, duration, questions, grading, and interpretation of scores (Doe 1). All across the world, standardized testing has become a norm in evaluating the intelligence of students. The lives of most American students depend on how well they do on these tests, specifically the ACT and SAT. These tests and others decide whether or not we’ll be admitted into universities, and whether we attend Harvard or BCTC (no offense to any who aspire to graduate from there).

More useless and harmful than the ACT and SAT are standardized tests given by the federal government, specifically under the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind act, authorized by President Bush in 2002, may be more appropriately titled the “Oh You Tried to Make Everyone Equal So I Guess You Get Points For That But You Ultimately Failed Horribly Act,” or the OYTMEESIGYGPFTBYUFH Act for short. This act was designed in order to encourage equity and growth of younger students in specific academic areas, most notably in English and math. Possibly the largest and most problematic aspect of the NCLB was the issue of standardized testing. Students in grades 3-8 were federally mandated to take a set of standardized tests, created by / based on the “Common Core,” which would rank them on a scale from novice to distinguished. All of you are familiar with these tests, we took them as children. But you may not be as familiar with the school repercussions of results on the test. If schools failed to receive the appropriate scores on the standardized testing, they may have been subject to governmental interference, among other punitive outcomes..

An overly stressed importance was placed on math and English curriculum. Because of this, schools began to reduce or eliminate other programs- art, music, sciences, and history- in attempt to push courses covered to extreme levels, leaving schools inept in those creative areas. Schools had to stop encouraging inventive and abstract learning in favor of reading, math, and grammar. Teachers were forced to teach directly towards the test, and in order to keep their jobs they had to instruct in a boring, methodical, state-directed manner. Even school therapists, speech pathologists, and counselors were supposed to work math, English, and science (at higher levels) into their sessions in order to make up missed time in the classroom. A direct impact can still be seen on high school students who haven’t taken the test in years, but are still expected to be more concerned with their English and math classes.  

Although this act was supposed to create the possibility for academic equality in all students (specifically targeting lower income families, disabled children, and minorities), it did little to actually stabilize all children’s educational growth. Economic assistance was only provided within the school, so while poorer children might have been exposed to excessive educational stimulation during the day, they had no opportunities to continue this learning at home, while wealthier students might have. Also, the “one size fits all” nature of the preparation/taking of state tests simply doesn’t work for all people. All children learn differently. In forcing teachers to teach towards the tests in a specific, unalterable manner, many children found difficulties in actually learning the information. Teachers were subject to careful, unnecessary evaluation to ensure that they were up to national standards. Not only was it a large waste of time, but it also pressured teachers to ignore interesting ways of teaching and worry only about the test (Garrett 1).

Like many competitive environments, divisions evolve in classrooms between those who do well on standardized testing and those who do poorly. The higher scorers have been placed into more difficult courses, leading them to take harder classes in high school, as well as preparing them more fully for the academic demands of higher level schooling. Those who score poorly have been placed into “general” classes. While some people belong in the general classes because they need extra assistance, others may need the more rigorous course load in order to remain interested. Some children may be bad at test-taking, but otherwise brilliant. Standardized tests test not your intelligence, but how good you are at taking standardized tests.

As some of you may know, last Thursday, the tenth of December, President Barack Obama repealed the No Child Left Behind Act. Its alternative is the Every Child Succeeds Act, which aims to keep the goals of the NCLB act (encouraging equity in academics) while fixing the negative effects of the NCLB (the lack of creativity allowed in school, specific stress placed upon the importance of certain subjects, economic complications, and little actual help for those in lower economic classes).

This act changes standardized testing by allowing states to dispense tests whenever, not just at the end of the year. Tests can even be split into multiple, smaller tests administered over the course of the year. The law in provides far more specific descriptions of schools that need federal intervention- only those with scoring in the lowest 5% (Connolly 1). It allows for more individuality, and tries to lessen the “one size fits all” nature of federally mandated standardized tests. Teachers are now given more opportunity to teach in creative and new manners. States are now granted the option of accepting the Common Core curriculum, rather than forced to use it. The ECSA recognizes and highlights the differences in states, allowing them to create their own region specific curriculum. They can decide what to do with testing results, they can decide how or whether they want to evaluate teachers, and select their own schedules (Connolly 1).

Despite improvements made under the ECSA, there is still one major problem being ignored: some students cannot take standardized tests, for multiple reasons.

1.)  Students may have mental, physical, or learning disabilities that prevent them from concentrating or succeeding on the test. Although many children who may have this issue are given assistance, whether that be extra time or stress relievers. But there is no way for those children to perform as well as those who have no disability. They may have trouble reading, understanding, writing, or concentrating on the test at hand, and although certain aids are given to them, it will never be enough to put them on the level of able students. But, despite the fact that they are federally mandated to take the exams along with their classmates, they may be offered more relief from the state; easier testing, more suitable tests/ testing conditions, etc. According to the Institute of Educational Sciences, 13% of all public school children receive special education services, and more than 50% of these students suffer from specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, or speech/language impairments (1). This means almost seven percent of our student population has difficulties learning, comprehending, and/or responding to these tests.

2.)  Students from lower income families may not have received as much stimulation and test preparedness as those from higher income families. Parents or guardians in better economic conditions are able to spend more money invested in their child’s education and test preparedness. Poorer students are not likely to have tutors and prep books helping them to succeed on the tests. And while higher-poverty districts do receive twice as much federal funding as lower ones, money given by the national only accounts for 10% of the annual expenditure. Local governments account for almost 45%, and give lower-poverty districts three times as much funding as they do higher-poverty districts (Roekel 2). The ESCA does not remedy this, and schools will continue to be divided by socioeconomic divisions. Schools in lower socioeconomic areas will receive less funding and won’t be able to offer superior educational facilities to children.

3.)  Students who have no interest in subjects tested, or who struggle in the subjects tested, naturally are not going to perform as highly as those who are interested and gifted in those areas. This major issue deals with the idea of anything being “standardized.” Nothing can be completely successful and helpful for every single person in the world. Standardization does not work because everyone has different personalities, backgrounds, experiences, lifestyles, strengths, and weaknesses. What works for some person will not work for at least one other person. The idea of standardized testing completely disregards that fact.

The resolution for the standardization problem still plaguing our nation may be found at a small public high school in New York, comprised mostly of lower income and at-risk children, called Urban Academy. This school tests student’s achievements and intellect by requiring them to do some sort of project or experiment as a final exam (Garrett 1) The students are allowed to pick a topic that they’re interested in and delve deeper, sort of like our mentoring project, but not with a mentor or as extensive. For example, a student who may be interested in botany can conduct an experiment in which they try to decide under which conditions a plant grows best.

          It could be argued that there are several problems with this idea. The open ended nature of the projects restricts the government’s ability to ensure that all students are being adequately tested. Children may pick easier projects rather than things that they have interest in trying to receive a higher score. Such vague prompts will be difficult to score. All of these will be an issue, but if Congress or the state governments could create a list of criterion necessary from every project, including how to judge the difficulty/success of a project, this type of performance based testing could provide a completely equal testing zone.

          Back to second grade me (presumptuous, I know). Getting into that class was the highlight of my year. My classmates and I strutted confidently out of social studies or art or whatever class we would skip that day to participate in whatever fun project we were working on that day. Never at the time did I wonder why my friends, who were at least as smart as me, if not smarter, were stuck inside the dull, monotonous classroom taking practice CATS tests. The American school system separates children in an unfair, inequitable manner. Despite the NCLB act’s efforts, the introduction of yearly standardized testing has made that separation worse. And even though Obama’s new ECSA attempts to rectify those issues, the nature of standardized testing doesn’t allow some individuals to showcase their intelligence. The only way to completely fix the situation is by replacing it with a new, performance based system that allows children showcase their individual strengths and intelligence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garrett, Rose. “Is Standardized Testing Failing Our Kids?” Education.com. N.p., 14 May 2014. Web. 2015

“In The Classroom.” Interview by John Merrow. Frontline. PBS. n.d. Web. 6 June 2015. http://www/pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/testing/.

Listen: The Film. Dir. Ankur Singh. Perf. Aubrey Bishop and Levi Bishop and Louise Schmitz. Listen, 2013. Online

Sacks, Peter. Standardized Minds: The High Price of America’s Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1999. Print.

Tyre, Peg. “America’s Testing Culture: How Did We Get Here?” Takepart. N.p., n.d. Web. 2015

Cannolly, Amy. "Obama Signs Every Student Succeeds Act, Replaces No

           Child Left Behind." UPI. 10 Dec. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

Doe. "Time Out From Testing." Time Out From Testing. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

"The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Elementary/Secondary                                                                               bbbbb Enrollment - Children and Youth with Disabilities - Indicator May (2015)." bbbbb The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - bbbbb bbbbb bbbbb Elementary/Secondary Enrollment - Children and Youth with Disabilities - bbbbb Indicator May (2015). 1 May 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 201

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.