Standardized Assessments - Research Paper Example

? Standardized Assessments Standardized testing is a chief provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Standardized tests are often referred to as high stakes testing because the tests are utilized to gauge the proficiency of students against other students, teachers abilities are evaluated based on the outcomes of standardized tests, and schools are judged based on student’s scores from the tests. High stakes assessments are mandated by the NCLB and students complete these tests at different grade levels. High stakes testing is used to place students in selective course sections, rating schools against other schools, and influences merit pay for teachers. NCLB advocates believe that standardized testing is required to prepare students for the global economy, diminish inequalities in the school testing environment, and permit the execution of objective assessments. Introduction Standardized testing is a chief provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Standardized tests are often referred to as high stakes testing because the tests are utilized to gauge the proficiency of students against other students, teachers abilities are evaluated based on the outcomes of standardized tests, and schools are judged based on student’s scores from the tests. High stakes assessments are mandated by the NCLB and students complete these tests at different grade levels. Standardize tests lead to appraisal of educators, appraisal of pedagogies, curricula, and schools (Crump 54). Unfortunately the NCLB is worsening, not resolving, the difficulties that induce numerous students to be left behind. (Guisbond and Neill 12) High stakes testing is used to place students in selective course sections, rating schools against other schools, and influences merit pay for teachers. The merit pay aspect of testing has enticed instructors to form their content delivery based on the high stakes to prepare their students to surpass other students. The consequences of this mode of instruction are not beneficial to the students but it is advantageous for the teacher whose students do well on the test. If a student is less than proficient on the test then it reflects on the teachers instructional abilities. NCLB advocates believe that standardized testing is required to prepare students for the global economy, diminish inequalities in the school testing environment, and permit the execution of objective assessments. History of No Child Left Behind The NCLB is a component of educational modifications that emphasizes basic skills, prescribed assessments, and high-stakes testing (Crump 55). NCLB legislation requires that schools be held responsible for student development. High-stakes examinations and mandated testing has become the principal instrument for assessing student progression. The goal of the NCLB is to verify that students have a equitable chance to receive a high caliber education and attain proficiency on state academic achievement metrics and state academic testing (Crump 53). The NCLB legislation beginnings occurred when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was created. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that created Title I, was President Lyndon B. Johnson's efforts with the War on Poverty and Great Society programs and the goal was aimed to improve educational prospects for disadvantaged students (Crump 55). Federal financial support for education curricula decreased during President Ronald Reagan's presidency in the 1980s. The importance in education switched to tougher academic metrics, additional course obligations, an expanded school day, and modifications in the preparedness of teachers (Crump 56). Title I was modified in 1988 and necessitated states to confirm the academic accomplishment of disadvantaged students by standardized test scores (Crump 56). Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds were then allocated to schools and districts of disadvantaged students based on the student’s academic accomplishment. In 1989, the governors of the 50 states convened with President George H. W. Bush, and they formulated national educational targets that became the America 2000 Excellence in Education Act of 1991 (Crump 56). In 1994 the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was legislated and it emphasized a criteria based educational scheme that established standards for all students and student accomplishment levels functioned as indicators of the prosperity of reform attempts. It was mandated that states had to institute academic standards in each grade and to produce tests to be given to all economically distressed students at least once in Grades 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 through 12, to ascertain whether students achieved the academic standards (Crump 56). For the first time schools were reported if they did not make the adequate yearly progress and corrective measures had to be implemented to address the deficiencies. In 2000 Congress concluded that despite the billions of dollars spent in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act initiatives, there were still inequalities in achievement among the numerous groups of students (Crump 57). The federal legislators demanded increased accountability and results. President George W. Bush advocated that the NCLB be formulated based on the principles including enhanced responsibility for student achievement, increased spotlight on research based activities, allow parents with choice alternatives, and a lessening of bureaucracy and enhanced flexibility (Crump 57). The NCLB became law on January 8, 2002 and it altered the ESEA and produced substantial alterations to assessments, responsibility, and teacher character (Crump 57). Critics of Standardized Assessments State high stake tests omit some subjects, and the assessments are inclined to depend on questions that assess basic skills in lieu of higher order thinking questions (David 78). Because teachers and schools are evaluated on the standardized assessments, curriculum is established to teach to the test and not the higher order thinking skills that can help students to become productive citizens in society. When instruction was not associated with testing, the average total of time that United States teachers committed to the various subjects was constant. During the time period of 1987 to 2003, teachers in public elementary schools spent approximately two hours a day on English, one hour in Mathematics, and one-half hour each in social studies and science (David 78). Since the passage of NCLB, researchers found that 62 percent of school districts in the United States and 75 percent of districts with a minimum of one school recognized as needing improvement, intensified the quantity of time teaching Language Arts and Math in elementary schools (David 79). The schools in the study increased teaching by 47 percent in Language Arts and 37 percent in Math (David 79). Teaching focused mainly on test preparedness and counteracts attempts to provide students a high caliber education. The NCLB link between high stakes testing and penalties through the strict and improbable adequate yearly progress formula has changed the method of instruction (Guisbond and Neill 12). In the spring 2004, a survey of educators from the Fresno Unified School District in California and Richmond, Virginia Public Schools regarding their observation of the affect of NCLB on their teaching strategies and the curriculum. The majority of teachers resolved that the measures of NCLB and the adequate yearly progress obligations have induced them to disregard crucial characteristics of the curriculum that are not on the standardized tests and to consume more of the classroom sessions on material tested (Crump 62). David states that a study of a prominent urban district, from 2001 to 2005, discovered that as concerns about adequate yearly progress deepened, teachers corresponded the subject matter and delivery of instruction to the standardized test (79). David further indicated that the researchers reasoned that the substance of the standardize tests had in effect become the learning goals for teachers and students (79). In a study of California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania school districts detected that educators changed their program of study and teaching to focus on tested themes and also amplified their use of question styles and formats found on the test (David 79). Harvard Graduate School of Education Professor Richard Elmore informs that the adequate yearly progress formula is an altogether illogical mathematical function based on no knowledge or theory of school improvement and could turn out punishing and terminating schools that are in reality professionals in school improvement (Guisbond and Neill 13). Lisa Guisbond and Monty Neill indicated that the National Conference of State Legislatures projected that approximately 70 percent of schools nationwide will fail because of the adequate yearly progress standards (13). A study performed for the Connecticut Education Association anticipated that more than 90 percent of Connecticut elementary and middle schools will fail to meet adequate yearly progress goals within ten years (Guisbond and Neill 13). Proponents of Standardized Assessments NCLB has been effectively positioned because educational reform advocates have specified three primary principles for the reforms: they are essential in a progressively globalized economy, the reforms will decrease educational inequality and they will enhance testing objectivity (Hursh 605). Hursh writes that New York educational policy makers, including the past Chancellor, Carl Hayden rationalize the NCLB because high stakes testing are the best method to guarantee that all students, including disadvantage students, have an chance to learn (609). Advocates argued that the curriculum measures were objectively decided and that standardized tests offer a reasonable and dependable way of measuring student learning. The objective methods are needed because educators and administrators cannot be expected to appraise independently and precisely student learning (Hursh 609). It is suggested that educators have not imposed measures or correctly evaluated students and are concealing their own and their student’s lack of learning. Proponents also indicate that assessment scores will be practical to parents because parents can gauge the learning achievement of the students in the classroom and they can compare how their child compares to other students (Hursh 611). Proponents of standardized testing and responsibility in the Bush administration have applied similar principles. Bush’s Secretary of Education, Rodney Paige, connects enhancing education competence with growing the country’s global economic competitiveness and with diminishing educational inequality (Hursh 610). Hursh reported that Paige asserted that the criteria has been objectively specified and that high stake tests offer a sound and authentic way of evaluating student acquisition, and this proposition upgrades educator created assessments (611). NCLB proponents state that the legislation dependence on assessment scores to establish the development of students, educators, and schools manifests a desire for objective testing of educational goals. President Bush has said, "Without yearly testing, we don't know who is falling behind and who needs help. Without yearly testing, too often we don't find failure until it is too late to fix" (Guisbond and Neill 13). Standardized assessment scores provide nothing more than snapshots of student accomplishment at a particular point in time and when used to make crucial choices about students and schools, they can be misguiding and detrimental (Guisbond and Neill 13). The advocate’s passion with utilizing high stakes assessment scores to implement enhancements and restructuring extends back to 1988. Education researchers have analyzed data on standardized tests and the results indicate that the standardized assessments are not a reliable indicator of student learning. The data has revealed that assessment scores do not inevitably suggest student achievement when scores increase or student success falters when score decrease and yearly variations of the adequate yearly progress standards should not be used to honor or punish educators, administrators, or schools, teachers (Guisbond and Neill 13). The research has concluded that standardize tests that are used to evaluate the student’s, instructors and schools are norm-referenced, which means that there are expectations that a certain number of students should be unsuccessful (Guisbond and Neill 13). Mistakes in question organization, grading and reporting have always been a negative aspect of standardized testing. The inflexible NCLB annual yearly progress measures and its punishments magnify the high stake testing disadvantages that relate to cultural prejudices, their omission to evaluate higher order thinking, and the issues with measurement inaccuracies (Guisbond and Neill 13). An assessment with such broad inadequacies and unfair punishments encourage teaching to the test and, as a result, counteracts attempts to alter educational quality. Conclusion Standardized testing is a principal provision of the NCLB Act. Standardized tests are often referred to as high stakes testing because there are punitive measures involved if a certain percentage of students do not attain the status of proficiency. The tests are utilized to gauge the proficiency of students against other students, teachers abilities are evaluated based on the outcomes of standardized tests, and schools are judged based on student’s scores from the tests. High stakes assessments are mandated by the NCLB and students complete these tests at different grade levels. The history of NCLB dates back to the sixties with various alterations until the NCLB was legislated. NCLB advocates believe that standardized testing is required to prepare students for the global economy, diminish inequalities in the school testing environment, and permit the execution of objective assessments. References David, Jane L. "High-Stakes Testing Narrows the Curriculum." Educational Leadership 68.6 (2011): 78. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. Crump, Genae B. et al. "No Child Left Behind: Values and Research Issues in High-Stakes Assessments." Counseling and Values 53.1 (2008): 53. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. Guisbond, Lisa, and Neill, Monty. "Failing Our Children: No Child Left behind Undermines Quality and Equity in Education." Clearing House 78.1 (2004): 12. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. Hursh, David. "The Growth of High-Stakes Testing in the USA: Accountability, Markets and the Decline in Educational Equality." British Educational Research Journal 31.5 (2005): 605-622. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. Read More