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.