HB passed the House today.
In Defense of Standardized Testing According to a Gallup poll last fall, one in eight teachers thinks that the worst thing about the Common Core is testing. We know states are changing their tests to align to the new standards, and those changes have inevitably bred uncertaintyanxietyand even hostilityespecially when results could carry high stakes someday.
Rather, they were upset that the tests exist.
Specifically, 12 percent of U. Regardless of political or ideological bent, most will admit that NCLB got one thing right: Where did that data come from? It gave policymakers, administrators, and educators a common language to talk about student achievement and progress, and evaluate what was working based on evidence, not perception.
Sure, standardized testing needed to be refined over the last decade to enhance quality and reduce unintended consequences —and could still use upgrades and be open to further innovation. But the value of standardized testing in terms of better understanding and improving a public education system as vast and fragmented as ours is undeniable, right?
And today, growing segments of the education sector—not just teachers, but also their unionslawmakersparentsand prominent researchers and advocacy groups —seem to be forgetting or willfully ignoring the value of statewide standardized testing. Go beyond the boisterous press releases or slick websitesthough, and these plans are feeding on a far more negative undercurrent: And that undercurrent has grown stronger in recent weeks as reports have surfaced that the new chairman of the Senate education committee, Lamar Alexander R-TNseems ready to introduce a bill to reauthorize NCLB that would eliminate the annual testing requirement in grades And with teachers, parents, advocates, and policymakers on both sides of the aisle losing faith in statewide annual standardized testing—refusing to see these measurements of teaching and student learning as anything but unreliable, worthless, or biased—education reform is coming to a crossroads.
One path is dominated by these non-believers. Not because Democrats are cannibalizing one another, or because the Tea Party is holding the Republican party hostage. A path that may not blindingly believe in statewide standardized testing, but at least recognizes its value in measuring school, educator, and student learning in ways that inform individual, collective, and comparative judgments about performance and progress.
It may not be popular or politically expedient, but annual, statewide standardized testing, and yes—even accountability and consequences based on that data—at least deserve a defense. John Kline R-MNthe incoming leaders of the Senate and House education committees, both say they are open to an ESEA rewrite that kills the requirement for states to test students annually.
Or as I called it, the peel off the party wings approach to reauthorization.
An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, College of Education, Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Arizona State University. Apr 29, · The Unintended Consequences of the FCAT From kaja-net.com's editorial board A backlash against high-stakes standardized tests in public schools is spreading across the nation as critics petition for an overhaul that bases student evaluations on a broader range of learning. Unintended Consequences Part of the issue is unintended consequences from standardized testing. Consider a teacher who is anticipating the year-end tests. She and her principal are under pressure to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. So, they have regular drill and review sessions -- test preparation to make sure the students are ready.
This bipartisan coalition bonds over their hatred of statewide annual testing, but not much else. And I hope they come to their senses and reveal a more centrist reauthorization proposal—with annual statewide testing, and data reporting, and school accountability requirements with teeth.
Because getting rid of annual testing is a dumb idea.Oct 07, · The problem is that for many educators this over-emphasis on testing has a number of unintended consequences above and beyond the ever increasing costs and . spread use of standardized tests for high-stakes decisions regarding stu- dents and educators has magnified the impact of the unintended con- sequences and created other unforeseen consequences.
Six unintended consequences that could result from the District 15 middle school admissions plan. Some parents who are antsy about standardized testing likely made their children sit for tests anyway, thinking their results could help them get into middle school (though many local middle schools accepted students without scores).
Stuart S. Yeh, “Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing” ( KB), Education Policy Analysis Archives, Oct. 28, This entry was posted in . Sure, standardized testing needed to be refined over the last decade to enhance quality and reduce unintended consequences—and could still use upgrades and be open to further innovation.
But the value of standardized testing in terms of better understanding and improving a public education system as vast and fragmented as ours is undeniable.
The No Child Left Behind law, which mandated annual testing in grades 3–8, was riddled with unintended consequences. The major one allowed what were essentially low-quality, off-the-shelf commercial tests to drive instruction in U.S. public schools.