Causal Argument- lmj20

Failing the Education System

Many parents, students, and taxpayers falsely believe that standardized testing is just a short chunk of time, usually a week or several days, where students take a state-mandated test and then go back to normal curriculum. While the actual pencil-to-paper testing may only take a week, the test itself effects a student’s learning throughout the entire school year. From narrowing curriculum to devoting a great deal of classroom time to test preparation, teachers feel forced to devalue education in order to allow their class to achieve high test scores.

Due to standardized tests increased emphasis on reading and math, studies have shown that teachers often exclude or limit topics that are not tested, particularly in elementary school. In the Center of Education Policy’s “Narrowing the Curriculum” study they found that many districts are cutting instructional time in areas like social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. A nationally representative study has found that 27% of districts cut a portion of social studies instruction time to increase reading and math instruction, 22% cut science, 20% cut music, and 18% cut other subjects. On top of this, 71% of districts admitted that students at risk of failing standardized tests had other subjects cut for them particularly in order to make more time reading and math. For example, students at risk of failing the standardized tests would go to extra small group reading and math instruction while the other students went to music class or gym class. This means spending a majority of time on reading and math while spending the bare minimum time on other valuable subjects. Although some may believe that emphasis on reading and math does not sound so bad, it is simply unfair to deprive students of valuable topics that help make them well-rounded citizens. Subjects like history and science are just as important in helping children discover their passions while obtaining knowledge.

Another way that standardized tests devalue education is through a process called “teaching to the test.” According to the Center for Public Education’s “High Stake Testing and Effects on Instruction,” teaching to the test is made up of a wide variety of teaching practices such as scrapping classroom learning time for test preparation, narrowing curriculum to better fit test questions, and teaching memorization over high order skills. Teaching to the test is not just ensuring test readiness by making an effort to cover areas that are being tested. Teaching to the test is a deliberate attempt to base curriculum on the sole priority of achieving passing scores. With increased stakes for students and higher pressures from administrators who crave more school funding, teachers find themselves more and more in the position of teaching to the test. A study by Rand Corporation called “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators” analyzed standardized testing in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Results found that an average of 99% of principals in those three states implemented a strategy of “matching curriculum and instruction with assessments” to improve scores. That means that in those three states, and likely across the country, teachers are being instructed by their bosses to teach to the test.

It may be hard to believe that teachers, who spend their career trying to provide knowledge to students, would be okay with devaluing education because of standardized tests. However, when the high-stakes nature of tests are considered it is not so unrealistic. In the same Rand Corporation study, “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators,” results found that an average of 54% of schools in the states of CA, GA, and PA use tests to assess teacher performance and 53% use them to decide student promotion and retention. Teachers want their students to succeed and in a educational system where passing a standardized test equates to success, there are not many options for struggling educators.

Works Cited

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Mitchell, Ruth. “High-Stakes Testing and Effects on Instruction.” Center for Public Education. Center for Public Education, 6 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

“NCLB: Narrowing the Curriculum?” NCLB Policy Brief. Center on Education Policy, 1 July 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

One thought on “Causal Argument- lmj20”

  1. I’m in no position to agree with or dispute your conclusions here, LMJ, but I don’t follow your cause/effect logic in most of these paragraphs. We should look at them individually.

    To take one example, you argue in one place that minority students are not being well prepared to take achievement tests, but in another you complain that they’re being taught specifically (to their detriment, you suggest) to perform well on tests. Maybe I’m missing something.

    Like

Leave a comment