Assessment is such a sticky situation, it sparks controversy and debate anywhere you go in the United States. In fact, a quick Goggle search will ignite a firestorm of response on your screen. Let's look at a few of the pro's and con's of standardized assessment in young children.
Pro's -
- Standardized tests are reliable and effective measures of a students achievement of specific measurable standards.
- "A Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, found that school systems in 20 countries 'that have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains' on national and international assessments, including Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea, had used "proficiency targets for each school" and 'frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress.' "
- "Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content and testing conditions are equivalent for all students."
- Competent teachers know not to teach "to the test".
- Standardized testing allows for an accurate collection of data.
- Stricter state standards and accountability have been created because of testing.
- Cheating is very rare and hard to do on standardized testing.
Con's -
- "Before age 8, standardized achievement measures are not sufficiently accurate to be used for high stakes decision-making about individual children and schools. Therefore, high-stakes assessments intended for accountability purposes should be delayed until the end of third grade (or preferably fourth grade)."
- "Norm-referenced tests were never intended to measure the quality of learning or teaching. The Stanford, Metropolitan, and California Achievement Tests (SAT, MAT, and CAT), as well as the Iowa and Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS and CTBS), are designed so that only about half the test-takers will respond correctly to most items. The main objective of these tests is to rank, not to rate; to spread out the scores, not to gauge the quality of a given student or school."
- "Virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion, on the results of a single test. The National Research Council takes this position, as do most other professional groups (such as the American Educational Research Association and the American Psychological Association), the generally pro-testing American Federation of Teachers, and even the companies that manufacture and sell the exams. Yet just such high-stakes testing is currently taking place, or scheduled to be introduced soon, in more than half the states."
- "The time, energy, and money that are being devoted to preparing students for standardized tests have to come from somewhere. "
- Standardized testing creates a socioeconomic division that is unparalleled.
- Standardized tests are unreliable forms of measurement due to uncontrollable variances in testing atmospheres and students lives.
- Tests narrow the curriculum leaving out important, valuable life information and skills.
Even within the Pro and Con lists above you can argue the facts and see the discrepancies. In the state of Florida standardized testing starts in kindergarten and is judged in third grade. Are students cognitively ready for such a test? How do we consider socioeconomic disadvantaged students? What about the student with the flu? Or the one that had to walk to school today because mom had no money for gas? Or the student that didn't have breakfast and was beaten that morning for asking about it? How about the student that has severe testing anxiety? There are far too many important factors that do not get attention from policy makers. In my humble opinion, as a teacher in a high poverty area (1/3 of my students are homeless) to put the future of a child on a one day standardized test is, to say the least, ridiculous.
Children should be tested using standardized tests. However, they should not control whether a student will pass or fail, and they should not control a teachers pay. Standardized tests are very helpful in detailing what standards students need help on. They create a guideline for lessons and direct units.
After doing some research on the Asian culture, and their take on standardized testing I found a very interesting article by the Denver Post:
"Teaching in Asia, I encountered a system that, while effective there, may not transfer here. For example, Taiwanese students are required to "test" into their middle schools, and many are eliminated from college opportunities by age 12. Additionally, most students attend "cram schools" in the evening to prepare for their tests. The South Korean government has at times shut down all airports nationwide while prospective high school students take the listening portion of their entrance exams.
Japanese schools literally lock their gates at the start of school, and any tardy student is out of luck. Additionally, nearly all these countries use standardized tests to separate students early in life, and most countries offer graduation at the age of 16.Read more: In education, U.S. isn't Singapore (but should we be?) - The Denver Post"
It would seem that we have a fairly relaxed standardized testing system compared to Asian cultures...who knew!?
Sources:
http://www.denverpost.com/voices/ci_14472758
http://www.caesl.org/briefs/Brief5.pdf
http://standardizedtests.procon.org/
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
