Author: giannanigro

Research Position Paper- lmj20

Time for a New Standard

 

Standardized achievement tests are wolves in sheep’s clothing that are detrimental to the health of 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 affects 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 to allow their class to achieve high test scores. Not only that, but the flaws in the tests themselves are staggering and continue to put countless children at a disadvantage every year. Scores are used to make immense decisions and one score can be used to decide whether a child is knowledgeable enough to move to the next grade or get into college. Achievement and intelligence are very complex concepts and presently they are being reduced to a score or percentile. This implies that the knowledge of a student is only as important as the score they achieve on a standardized test. In this way, standardized tests devalue the American education system.

Standardized tests, according to James W. Popham’s “Using Standards and Assessments,” are “any examinations administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner.” The ultimate goal of these achievement tests is to understand the knowledge of any given student in a tested subject and to use this knowledge to make generalizations about schools and/or communities. In addition, the scores are often used to assess schools, track student progress over time, and provide feedback for teachers.

Understanding the way in which standardized tests are created makes it easier to uncover their flaws. First, the companies that create and sell achievement tests are large for-profit corporations. They, as most business people do, want to sell their product as much as possible to make as much money as they can. For that reason, they try to make a test that fits every region, because if they made a test too specific and accommodating then it would only sell to a few school districts. This is problematic because curriculum is substantially different in every region so there are tons of mismatches between what is being taught and what is being put on tests. Second, the way that test developers choose test items creates concern. Developers want testing questions that spread out scores, meaning they do not want 75% of test takers to get a particular question right or 75% of test takers to get a question wrong. They strive to get questions that are answered correctly by around 50% of students. That being said, developers often cut questions that a majority of students would likely get right. Students would likely get these questions right because that is what they were taught in school yet they are cut because that would allow students to perform too well. As James W. Popham in “Using Standards and Assessments” puts it, “the better the job that teachers do in teaching important knowledge, the less likely it is that there will be items on a standardized test mueasuring such knowledge.” This means if a lot of teachers stress, for example, long division, then it would not likely appear on a test since most students would then be able to answer long division questions correctly. Test developers will do whatever possible to make sure that scores are spread out because that is what is needed to create norm-referenced generalizations. This goal leads more test items to be devoted to outside knowledge. In other words, on every standardized test that are a handful of questions that are based on knowledge that is acquired outside of school. They do this because they know that some students will know the answer from their experiences and others will not and that will create the variance that they seek.

The effects of standardized tests reach far beyond the test itself and moves into the classroom. Standardized tests naturally change the way that many teachers choose to teach. With the burden of a high-stakes test looming, teachers feel pressure to change their methods to better fit the standardized test that their students will be given. One of the ways that traditional education is changing is by narrowing curriculum. 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. The Center’s nationally representative study 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 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 most 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 alter traditional teaching 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 characterized by a variety of teaching practices but most commonly “narrowing the curriculum by excluding subject matter not tested, excluding topics not likely to appear on the test even within tested subjects, reducing learning to the memorization of facts easily recalled for multiple-choice testing, and devoting too much classroom time to test preparation.” Teaching to the test is not simply ensuring test readiness by covering tested subjects. The practice is a more deliberate attempt to base curriculum and class time on the sole priority of achieving better 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 90% 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.

This leads many to question why teachers would willingly devalue education by narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the test. Teachers devote their lives to a career that’s goal is to provide children with knowledge, so understandably it is hard to consider that they have a hand in devaluing student’s instruction. In some cases, they simply do not have a choice. As stated above, many teachers are being instructed by the principals of the school at which they teach to alter their teaching to better fit standardized tests. The principals that deliver that message are often instructed to do so by superintendents and so forth up the hierarchy. As much as the passions of some teachers may conflict with the orders that they receive from their superiors, it is still their job to listen to their bosses. If their bosses are saying that higher test scores must be achieved and teaching to the test is the only way to do it, they are more likely to teach to the test in their classroom. Another reason that teachers may willingly devalue education is the high-stakes nature of tests. 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 an educational system where passing a standardized test equates to success, there are not many options for struggling educators.

As for the tests themselves, they too are flawed. Standardized testing allows administrators to compare students to a general standard. Therefore, in order to make a fair comparison, it is imperative that all test takers receive the same opportunity to achieve a high score. For example, imagine there are two people competing in a 100m race. Lane one has five hurdles but lane two does not have any hurdles. No matter who won or what the times were, it would be unfair to say that one runner is faster than the other based on this race because the races were not equitable. This applies to standardized testing. If some students face hurdles and disadvantages in testing that others do not, it is unjust to compare the two groups of scores. Students should take a test that matches their culture and lifestyle. Robert Green’s “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students” demonstrates how test inequity has always harmed minority students. Green argues that the method of giving every single student the same standardized test with little to no exceptions is not equitable. A minority student who speaks English as his or her second language is held to the same standard as a white child who has been exposed to only English since birth. A poor student is expected to have the same common knowledge as a wealthy student despite a clear difference in life experiences. James W. Popham’s “Using Standards and Assessments” gives a good example of common knowledge placing low income children at a disadvantage. The sixth grade test item reads “A plant’s fruit always contains seeds. Which of the items below is not a fruit?” The choices are orange, pumpkin, apple, and celery. The test item provides enough information to let the students know that they need to identify which of the choices does not have seeds. If a child has been exposed to all of these foods, then their outside knowledge would lead them to the answer easily. However, if a student for whatever reason, economic or just by chance, had never encountered one or more of the fruits, then they would be unable to answer that question. That is not their fault or their teacher’s fault yet they are being penalized for it.

Green’s article “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students” mentioned above was written almost thirty years ago but all his points above still apply to standardized tests today and show how little progress has been made in tearing down the hurdles of standardized testing. This slow and almost nonexistent progress is shown in the statistics of scores by race. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics’ “Achievement Gaps,” from 1984 to 2004 the gap between white and black standardized test scores only decreased four points in math and three points in reading. For Hispanic Americans, from 1984 to 2004 the gap between white and Hispanic scores only decreased by three points and the reading gap has increased by two points.

Some will argue that the achievement gap between minorities and whites is essential for the cause of educational justice. In Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Testing is Good for Students, Families, and Communities,” she claims that despite receiving lower scores, minority students and schools benefit from standardized tests. Since the public is now aware of the achievement gap, she argues that there will be more of a call to action to fix the problems in lower performing schools. However, achievement gaps have been documented for decades, as shown in the aforementioned NCES achievement gap statistics and progress is still slow. The public has known about achievement gaps for a while but again progress has been at a crawl. To this day, there is not a proven method in place to eliminate the achievement gap. Some have proposed solutions but they have not been implemented into mainstream testing and are not proven to work. Gandy and other supporters of this argument fail to consider the high-stakes nature of testing. If standardized tests had low stakes, then using them as a tool for educational justice would be satisfactory. In reality, the implications of these tests grow more and more over time and could follow the students for months even years after the final answer in circled on the paper. Low performing schools lose funding, low performing students risk being held back academically, and communities with low performing students are more susceptible to crime. Two studies, the Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development and the Pittsburgh Youth Study, found strong links between low performance and adolescent delinquency. One test can ruin a student’s future and lessen already scarce resources for some public schools. So, to say that the achievement gap is benefitting minority communities is insulting to the students who every year face the uphill battle of these tests and continue to be frustrated by the result. There may be more awareness of the problem now but that is no consolation to the students who are currently failing and the schools that are struggling. Saying that the achievement gap is in any way beneficial is to truly undermine the effects that standardized testing can have.

To go more in depth about the dangers of high-stakes nature of testing, Kenneth H. Wodtke’s study “How Standardized is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten” demonstrates how increased pressure influences test scores. The study observed ten kindergarten classrooms, classes 1-5 were from upper-middle class communities and classes 6-10 were from lower income communities who were also participating in a district-sponsored program to raise test scores. Teachers in low income communities that were participating in the program were seven times more likely to commit significant procedural variations, ten times more likely to allow unauthorized item repetitions, and thirty-nine times more likely to cue correct answers than their wealthier counterparts. This study shows that teachers who are pressured, especially by a funded program with the sole purpose of raising scores, are more likely to cheat which clearly devalues not only the test but the value of education as a whole. Wodtke, after observing what he had, deemed that the scores of these ten tests were incomparable to each other since there was mismanagement in one way or another which would ruin test vailidity in eight of the ten classes. Yet, some of the districts in this study used the scores from these very tests to place children into first grade classrooms. The mismanagement of test administration may now have horrible consequences for those students who may have been placed in the wrong classroom. This was just one study of ten classes who were aware that they were being observed. Imagine what happens in other classes around the country that are not being observed.

In addition to the flaws that tests have, there are also aspects that the tests lack altogether. Standardized tests fail to assess important characteristics of students such as but not limited to: creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, curiosity, self-awareness, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and integrity. These characteristics are vital for success in almost any field or endeavor that students will face once they are out of school. Yet, they are judged so intensely based off a score that does not even assess these characteristics. The fact that standardized test scores are so valued and influential but do not assess any of the previously stated characteristics implies that those characteristics are not important which is simply not true. The lack of accountability for factors like critical thinking and resourcefulness have promoted shallow thinking. In Phillip Harris’s “Standardized Tests Do Not Effectively Measure Student Achievement,” he argues that there is “a statistical association between students with high scores on standardized tests and relatively shallow thinking.” Higher scores on tests were associated with copying down answers, guessing, and skipping difficult areas in school coursework. Low scores were more often associated with taking the time to go back over difficult areas, asking questions, and making connections. This is likely because standardized tests require quick answers with little time to think or reason. Therefore, students who perform that way on a day to day basis in class are more likely to do well on standardized tests. Standardized tests have unintentionally promoted shallow thinking by rewarding shallow thinkers with higher scores. This also creates a problem for teachers and parents. They see a passing test score and often assume that that means their child is intellectually developing in the ideal way. This could be true, but in some cases parents and teachers overlook a lacking in other important characteristics due to a high-test score. This could cause academic issues for the child in the future which could have been prevented had they been assessed.

All in all, high-stake standardized testing, which has become the norm in American public schools, is devaluing education by reducing success in school to a number. That alone is an issue but on top of that not every student has the same opportunity to receive a high score. Education suffers at the hand of standardized tests.  As a society, we want well-rounded knowledgeable students that will contribute to the next generation yet we create simple standard tests to measure their capability. We accept that a first grader from a low-income area in Detroit can be nationally compared to a first grader from an affluent area in Washington D.C. It is simply not justifiable and it is time for a change. It is time to create accommodating and specific tests that promote high-level thinking and allow every student the right and ability to achieve a high score. It is time to stop using a test score to define education. Tests should be used as educational tools for teachers that help them understand what topics students are struggling with and which they excel in. Tests should not be used to measure teacher quality, determine funding for schools, or to solely determine whether a child passes or fails a grade. Education is worth more than that and one high stakes test should never be used to measure the vast and brilliant knowledge that any given student possesses.

Work Cited

Gandy, Latasha. “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good for Children, Families and Schools.” Education Post. Education Post, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Green, Robert L., and Robert J. Griffore. “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 49, no. 3, 1980, pp. 238–252.

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.

Harris, Phillip, Joan Harris, and Bruce M. Smith. “Standardized Tests Do Not Effectively Measure Student Achievement.” Standardized Testing. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012.Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

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

“NAEP – Achievement Gaps.” NAEP – Achievement Gaps. National Center for Educational Statistics, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

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

Popham, James W. Using Standards and Assessments. 6th ed. Vol. 56. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999. 8-15. Print.

Wodtke, Kenneth H. et al. “How Standardized Is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 11, no. 3, 1989, pp. 223–235.

Reflective–lmj20

Core Value I. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.

In this course I learned that writing is more than creating one draft and being done with it, as I am used to. In this course, I found myself constantly revising my work to the point where the original was almost completely different than the final draft. The piece that most displays this value is my Causal Argument. I originally wrote my causal argument about standardized tests causing minority students to be at a disadvantage. However, Professor Hodges left feedback that brought up points that I had not originally considered. One of the points that I had not considered was where I initially contradicted myself. I had stated that minority students were not prepared fully for standardized tests but then later stated that teachers in minority schools teach to much to the test. Even though when I posted it I thought my essay was good, having someone else read it allowed me to rethink my logic. I reworked the entire argument to make a stronger and more clear piece and by the end almost every aspect of it had changed.

Core Value II. My work demonstrates that I placed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities. 

While preparing for my research paper, it was important to read many different texts from a range of sources in order to get a full grasp on my topic. While analyzing different sources it was clear to see that, although some were more similar than others, all the sources in one way or another contained similar ideas and worked off of each other. Therefore, in my work it was important to show all of the ideas that I had learned  and highlight the differences between different sources. The work that most shows Core Value II is my Definition Argument. In that piece, where I attempt to define “test equity,” I cited three sources to make my case. All three pieces shared similar ideas about the fundamentals of standardized testing but all came to unique conclusions. Therefore, I used the conclusions that each of the sources used in order to create a conversation about test equity.

Core Value III. My work demonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.

Throughout this course, I have learned that every work has a purpose and intended audience. In my Visual Rewrite, I displayed this core value by analyzing the purpose of the 30 second ad “How Much Would You Like to Lose?” The purpose of the assignment was to show that every aspect of the ad was placed there for a particular purpose. In this ad, even the man and woman’s clothes were placed for a purpose. First, the man and women were dressed elegantly which indicate that they were on a date. Later, the man’s clothing began to change into raggedy garments. Then, the couple’s body language change where the woman began to shift away from the man as if she was no longer interested in him and the man begun to display looks of shame.  For this ad, the intended audience was those who drink and it showed the audience the dangers of buzzed driving. Without thoroughly analyzing the piece, I would not have been able to fully understand the purpose of the ad. I was able to incorporate this concept into my other pieces during the semester.

Core Value IV: My work demonstrates that I have met the expectations of academic writing by locating, evaluating, and incorporating illustrations and evidence to support my own ideas and interpretations.

In my work, it has been important to evaluate many pieces from a variety of different sources. The assignment that most reflects Core Value IV is my Bibliography where I cited the twelve sources I used in my Research Paper. I clearly did not have enough research or experience to write an entire research paper on standardized testing so I had to find sources to support my ideas to persuade my audience. Some of my sources were research studies, such as Kenneth Wodtke’s “Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten,” which allowed me to use real-life observations to relate to my general thesis. Other sources were surveys or statistics, such as NAEP’s data on the achievement gap, which I was able to incorporate to further persuade my readers. I naturally incorporated all of the sources from my bibliography to create solid evidence to support my argument about standardized testing.

Core Value V. My work demonstrates that I respect my ethical responsibility to represent complex ideas fairly and to the sources of my information with appropriate citation. 

In my research paper, I expressed the complex and controversial debate that surrounds standardized testing in American public schools. As with anything controversial, it was important to express my ideas as fairly as possible. It was also important to acknowledge opinions that differ from mine and refute them respectfully and fairly. In my Rebuttal Rewrite, I was able to accomplish that. The source that I chose to refute, Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype, Standardized Testing is Good for Children, Families, and Schools,” the author conveyed a set of beliefs that were completely different than the ones that I was conveying in my research paper. She believed that standardized testing was the most important tool in fighting educational justice in America. Although I did not agree with her argument, it was still important to acknowledge her points and clearly state the basis of her argument. By showing my readers this point, I was able to respectfully refute her argument by using the sources I had gathered in order to support my own points.

Bibliography–lmj20

1.Neill, D. Monty, and Noe J. Medina. “Standardized Testing: Harmful to Educational Health.” The Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 70, no. 9, 1989, pp. 688–697.

Background: This article, instead of merely stating that standardized testing is harmful, breaks down each specific reason that standardized testing is not as standard as believed. The beginning of the article cites specific research studies that show flaws in the standardized testing system such as test validity and testing bias. The end of the article researches how standardized testing impacts schools and students.

How I used it: This article points out the specific flaws that make testing a bad indicator of student achievement. This source does not delve deeply into each flaw, but allowed me to gain enough information about the origins of research done on testing validity and bias. This article also provides great research about the harm that high-stake testing does to schools.

2.Wodtke, Kenneth H. et al. “How Standardized Is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 11, no. 3, 1989, pp. 223–235.

Background: The entire article is dedicated to one study where 10 kindergartens were observed while administering the “same” standardized test. The conditions and behaviors in each individual classroom allowed the researchers to conclude that the tests, although meant to be standardized, were actually incomparable.

How I used it: This article provided a credible study that displays that standardized testing is not always standard. I  used  this as evidence to support the concept that standardized tests cannot be used to indicate success when they can be so easily influenced and thus incomparable.

3.Green, Robert L., and Robert J. Griffore. “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 49, no. 3, 1980, pp. 238–252.

Background: The article researches three types of bias in standardized testing: bias due to content factors, bias due to norms, and bias in testing conditions. The purpose of the article is to highlight the unfairness of standardized testing on minority students and how it will affect them throughout their life. The bulk of the article is spent citing specific research and adding more detail to support the claims made in the beginning.

How I used it: It is important to understand the history of standardized testing in order to analyze the current standing and possible future of testing. Although the article is old, it provided insight into what the problems were with standardized testing back then. From there, I was able to do research to find out whether the problems that existed in this article still exist today. Some of the issues brought up in the article are still a problem today and show that standardized tests often put minority students at a disadvantage.

4.Popham, James W. Using Standards and Assessments. 6th ed. Vol. 56. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999. 8-15. Print.

Background: The article is devoted to backing up the central claim that using standardized tests to measure school quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon.  The article uses real questions from past standardized tests to emphasize the flaws and biases within the system.

How I Used it:  This article shows the rise in the importance in standardized testing and analyzes how that has affected schools. I used this article to show that schools have been harmed by the high-stakes nature of tests. Also, this article helped me prove, using actual standardized test questions, that questions often require “common knowledge” that puts low income students at a disadvantage.

5.Harris, Phillip, Joan Harris, and Bruce M. Smith. “Standardized Tests Do Not Effectively Measure Student Achievement.” Standardized Testing. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012.Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Background: This article examines the idea of “student achievement.” Many would define student achievement as a student’s success on state tests, however the author urges that tests fail to reward students for many important characteristics. The article also argues that standardized testing promotes shallow thinking students. Students are urged to seek out the quickest and most obvious answer when taking these tests and therefore deep thinking and problem solving is not measured either.

How I used it: This article allowed me to not only focus on flaws within the current tests and testing conditions, but also on what the tests lack. Creativity, critical thinking, resourcefulness, motivation, and resilience are all important characteristics that the tests lack. This article proved that the word achievement is very complex, especially when it comes to schools and students. Standardized tests, on the other hand, are not very complex. It is hard to measure something complex using something standard.

6. Gandy, Latasha. “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good for Children, Families and Schools.” Education Post. Education Post, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Background: In this article, Minnesota Education Program Director Latasha Gandy, argues that standardized tests are presently good for children and communities. She states that the most important reason that they benefit communities and students is that they are the strongest tool in the fight for educational justice.

How I Used it: This is the strongest argument against my thesis that I refute. Standardized test achievement gaps have only decreased by a small margin in the past 30 years so standardized tests have not been a strong tool in fighting injustice.

7.“NAEP – Achievement Gaps.” NAEP – Achievement Gaps. National Center for Educational Statistics, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Background: This is an official report by the National Center for Educational Statistics. The report records the achievement gap for Hispanics and African Americans going back decades ago to the present.

How I used it: This report is used in my refutation of source #6. Achievement gaps in the last thirty years have only decreased by slim margins, usually around 4 points. In some cases, the achievement gap has actually widened in the past thirty years.

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

Background: This source presents the Center of Education Policy’s nationally representative survey questioning whether schools have narrowed their curriculum due to standardized testing. This article is a presentation of their findings.

How I Used it: I used this trustworthy survey to prove that schools are narrowing their curriculum due to standardized testing. Schools are putting more emphasis on reading and math since these are heavily tested subjects instead of art, history, and science. This proves that standardized testing may be creating a less diverse and well-rounded education for students.

9.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.

Background: This source is an extensive study done by the Rand Corporation. Researchers analyzed teachers and administrators in three states: California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. They analyzed how standard-based accountability has affected teachers and their teaching styles.

How I used it: This article showed that a majority of teachers have begun “teaching to the test” since the stakes of standardized testing have gone up. Once I prove that standardized testing increases the prevalence of teaching to the test, I can show that teaching to the test harms students.

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

Background: This is an article posted by Ruth Mitchell, a Center for Public Education researcher. The article pulls together the findings of several studies in order to create conclusions based on the research.

How I used it: This source provided a lot of clarification on definitions of ambiguous phrases. For example, this article provided a practical definition of “teaching to the test” which I used throughout my paper. This article also provides the findings of surveys that question teacher, student, and public attitudes towards standardized testing.

11. Macguire, Angus, and IISC. “Illustrating Equality VS Equity.” Interaction Institute for Social Change. IISC, 01 June 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Background: The International Institute for Social Change collaborated with artist Angus Macguire to create an image that displays the difference between equity and equality.

How I Used it: I used Macguire’s image to create a metaphor between testing and watching a baseball game as depicted in the picture. It is possible for standardized tests to achieve test equality but not test equity.

12.Aycock,  James. “Teacher Voice: In Defense of Standardized Testing.” SCORE. N.p., 20 May 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Background: In this article, James Aycock speaks in defense of standardized tests. He argues that most standardized tests are good and they should continue as they are being implemented today.

How I Used it: This is another argument that I refuted. Ayock displays that tests are equal in that every student is given the same test. However, he fails to make mention of test equity. I used this source along with source #11 to show that test equity is more important than test equality since equality could put some at a disadvantage while equity creates an equal playing field for all.

Rebuttal Rewrite–lmj20

The Benefits of Failure

The public’s attitude toward standardized testing plays a large role in its implementation and development. Over the past few years, state education departments have faced increased scrutiny due to worries about high-stakes tests and their effect on education. Most recently, the achievement gap between lower class minority students and high class white students has been brought to the public eye and fought against.  However, there are still many that argue that standardized tests are actually beneficial to students, teachers, and education as a whole. In Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good For Children, Families, and Schools,” she claims that standardized tests actually help minority or low income students by displaying the inequality of schooling. She argues that these tests are one of the most effective and convincing tools to use to fight for educational justice. Since she public is now aware of the achievement gap between minority and white students, schools will now be forced to answer to the inequality and eventually fight to fix it.

To begin, standardized tests are more than just one test taken and eventually forgotten about. The implications of these tests grow more and more over time and could follow the students for months even years after the final answer is circled on the paper. So yes, while standardized tests may be a tool to show the inequity of schooling for minority and low income students, that realization is not directly benefitting these schools, students, and communities. In fact, it is likely harming them. Low performing schools lose funding, low performing students are held back academically, and communities with low performing students are more susceptible to crime. Two studies, The Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development and the Pittsburgh Youth Study, both found links between low academic performance and adolescent delinquency. Although these tests are showing the score gap for the public to see, the students still have to suffer the consequences of the gap. The inequity that is shown in the test results ruin futures and lessens already scarce resources for schools. It is hard to find benefit in those student’s lower performance.

The constant failures and lower scores of minority and lower class students would be to overlook if they were not in vain. However, the “achievement gap” still exists and has existed since the beginning of standardized testing. According to the NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Caucasian American and African American gap in mathematics for 17 year olds was 32 points in 1982 while in 2004 it was 28 points.  In reading achievement tests, the gap for 17 years olds in 1984 was 32 points and in 2004 it was 29. For hispanic Americans, the gap in mathematics was 27 points in 1982 for mathematics and 24 in 2004. In reading, the Hispanic gap 27 points in 1984 and then increased to 29 points in 2004. Therefore, to say that these tests are benefitting these students because it helps communities recognize the gap so that they can close it is just not true. That would be an excellent concept, if it were actually happening. In reality though, the gap still exists. Although it is narrowing in some cases, progress is slow. It took twenty years for the gap to narrow by three points. In that time, hundreds of thousands of students suffered the consequences of lower performance of standardized tests.

All in all, to say that standardized tests are benefitting minority students is insulting to the students who every year face the uphill battle of these tests and continued to be frustrated by the results. In theory, the concept of standardized tests being used as the tool to identify and abolish the achievement gap is amazing. However, in reality, that goal is just not being achieved. The achievement gap still exists today despite its existence being discovered over thirty years ago. There is now a lot more awareness for the problem but that is no consolation to the students who are failing and the schools that are getting less funding. To say that a racial achievement gap is beneficial is to undermine the effect it has on minority students.

Works Cited

“Education and Delinquency: Summary of a Workshop.” Linking School Performance and Delinquency. The National Academy of the Sciences, 2000. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Gandy, Latasha. “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good for Children, Families and Schools.” Education Post. Education Post, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

“NAEP – Achievement Gaps.” NAEP – Achievement Gaps. National Center for Educational Statistics, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Causal Rewrite–lmj20

Failing the Education System

Standardized achievement tests are wolves in sheep’s clothing that are detrimental to the health of 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. Achievement and intelligence are very complex concepts and presently they are being reduced to a score or percentile. This implies that the knowledge of a student is only as important as the score they achieve on a standardized test. In this way, standardized tests devalue the American education system.

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 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 90% 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.

In addition, the high-stakes nature of tests devalues education by increasing the prevalence of cheating. Kenneth H. Wodtke’s study “How Standardized is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten” demonstrates how increased pressure influences test scores. The study observed ten kindergarten classrooms, classes 1-5 were from upper-middle class communities and classes 6-10 were from lower income communities who were also participating in a district-sponsored program to raise test scores. Teachers in low income communities that were participating in the program were seven times more likely to commit significant procedural variations, ten times more likely to allow unauthorized item repetitions, and thirty-nine times more likely to cue correct answers than their wealthier counterparts. This study shows that teachers who are pressured, especially by a funded program that demands higher test scores, are more likely to cheat which clearly devalues not only the test but the value of education as a whole. Wodtke, after observing what he had, deemed that the scores of these ten tests were incomparable to each other since there was mismanagement in one way or another which would ruin test validity in eight of the ten classes. Yet, some of the districts in this study used the scores from these very tests to place children into first grade classrooms. The mismanagement of test administration may now have horrible consequences for those students who may have been placed in the wrong classroom.

The realization that teachers have a hand in the degradation of education leads many to question why teachers would willingly take part in such practices. Teachers devote their lives to a career thats goal is to provide children with knowledge, so understandably it is hard to consider that they would contribute to  devaluing student’s instruction. The most influential reason that teachers would voluntarily narrow curriculum, teach to the test, or cheat is the high-stakes nature of tests. In the 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 an educational system where passing a standardized test equates to success, there are not many options for struggling educators.

All in all, high-stake standardized testing, which has become the norm in American public schools, is devaluing education by reducing success in school to a number. As a society, we want well-rounded knowledgeable students that will contribute to the next generation yet we create simple standard tests to measure their capability.  It is time to create accommodating and specific tests that promote high-level thinking and allow every student the right and ability to achieve a high score. It is time to stop using a test score to define education. Tests should be used as educational tools for teachers that help them understand what topics students are struggling with and which they excel in. Tests should not be used to measure teacher quality, determine funding for schools, or to solely determine whether a child passes or fails a grade. Education is worth more than that and one high stakes test should never be used to measure the vast and brilliant knowledge that any given student possesses.

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.

 

Definition Rewrite- lmj20

Equality and Equity

Debate over whether standardized testing is an adequate measure of student success is centered around the idea of test equity. Standardized testing has one main purpose and that is to compare and assess students based on one standard. If every student does not receive the same opportunity to receive a high score, then the test is not equitable. Therefore, if test equity is not achieved then the test scores are not valid for comparison and cannot be used to measure student achievement.

If some students face hurdles and disadvantages in testing that others do not, it is unjust to compare the two groups of scores. Students should take a test that matches their culture and lifestyle so that they have the ability to perform at their best. Robert Green’s “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students” demonstrates how test inequity has always harmed minority students. Green argues that the method of giving every single student the same standardized test with little to no exceptions is not fair. The method is equal but equitable. A minority student who speaks English as his or her second language is held to the same standard as a white child who has been exposed to only English since birth. A poor student is expected to have the same common knowledge as a wealthy student despite a clear difference in life experiences. James W. Popham’s “Using Standards and Assessments” gives a good example of common knowledge placing low income children at a disadvantage. The sixth grade test item reads “A plant’s fruit always contains seeds. Which of the items below is not a fruit?” The choices are orange, pumpkin, apple, and celery. The test item provides enough information to let the students know that they need to identify which of the choices does not have seeds. If a child has been exposed to all of these foods, then their outside knowledge would lead them to the answer easily. However, if a student for whatever reason, economic or just by chance, had never encountered one or more of the fruits, then they would be unable to answer that question. That is not their fault or their teacher’s fault yet they are being penalized for it. The questions on the page are equal  but the opportunity for every student to get the right answer is not.

Others, who claim that giving the same test to every student makes the tests equitable, often mistake test equity for test equality. James Aycock illustrates this misunderstanding in his article, “Teacher Voice: In Defense of Standardized Testing.” Aycock argues that every test and testing method has to be identical. This is because standardized tests are vital in determining what students know. The scores from tests give teachers the insight they need to determine what skills their students have mastered and which still need work. Since all students received the same test, teachers are able to make generalizations about the student body based on the scores.  According to this mindset, it is okay that minority students or lower class schools may produce lower scores than their wealthy  majority counterparts. He argues that the tests are equitable because they are identical but the education leading up to the tests is not. However, by Aycock’s own definition, the tests are not equitable. It is nearly impossible to give hundreds of thousands of students an identical test where no child has advantages or disadvantages due to factors such as class or race. The tests that Aycock describes as vital do achieve test equality but do not achieve test equity.

To further demonstrate the important different between equity and equality, take the Interaction Institute for Social Change’s “Equality vs. Equity Scenario.”  There are two people standing in front of a fence trying to watch a baseball game. They are both given one crate to stand on which makes one of them able to see over the fence while the other is still too short. This is equality since they are being given equal treatment. In the second image, the taller man keeps his one crate while the shorter man receives two crates. Now, both men are at the same height and able to view the game. This is equity because both men are receiving the same opportunity to watch the game. The treatment is fair and impartial. In the context of standardized testing, these definitions are upheld. Giving all students the same exact test, despite language, class, and other barriers that may help or hinder their scores, is test equality not test equity. Test equity is achieved when all students are given the same opportunity to receive a high score with their differences taken into account.

All in all, test equity and test equality are two completely different things and the importance and value of each will be important in determining the future of standardized testing. Having true test equity would mean ensuring that every student has the chance to receive a passing score with hard work. The test itself should not determine whether a student passes, the knowledge of the student should make that determination. Test equity also helps to lower the devastating effects of high stake testing. As of today, where test equality is achieved but not test equity, thousands of lower class and minority communities are suffering. Lower scores are more prevalent in those communities which means less funding and less academic progression for the students. Every community receives the same test, so the higher class communities prevail while the lower class minority communities suffer. With true test equity, tests would be more accommodating to the culture and dialect differences between groups. Therefore, all students would be capable of receiving the same score and only their knowledge would dictate the final grade.

Works Cited

Aycock, By James. “Teacher Voice: In Defense of Standardized Testing.” SCORE. N.p., 20 May 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Green, Robert L., and Robert J. Griffore. “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 49, no. 3, 1980, pp. 238–252.

Macguire, Angus, and IISC. “Illustrating Equality VS Equity.” Interaction Institute for Social Change. IISC, 01 June 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Popham, James W. Using Standards and Assessments. 6th ed. Vol. 56. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999. 8-15. Print.

Enough About You- lmj20

Money plays such a big role in our society that not much can get done without it. Money is valuable even in ways that are not seen physically. It is tough to know exactly how banks operate or how they take care of every individual’s money. On the surface, the concept of money seems simple, the rich have it and the poor do not.  However, after being introduced to other forms of currency such as the Brazilian cruzeiros, the Yap Fei, US gold, and French francs, the debit accounts we use today seem very similar. Getting paid now means receiving numbers directly transferred to a bank account without actually seeing the money being given. In order to prevent distrusting people from hiding money under mattresses, faith in the government and the banking system must exist.

Robust Verbs- lmj20

In Vancouver, the crime rate is large because heroin addicts are committing crimes to support their habits. These addicts are having a hard time completing daily activities such as maintaining jobs, interactions, and relationships. The users often have no limits when it comes to getting their hands on heroin which has led a lot of theft. The “Free Heroin for Addicts” program is attempting to lower the crime rate of the city by providing heroin easily so that addicts do not have to commit crimes to get the drug. The program will also keep heroin users out of the hospital by reducing the use of laced drugs and unsanitary needles. The downfall to the program is that it will not help addicts move towards recovery.

Rebuttal Argument- lmj20

The Benefits of Failure

The public’s attitude toward standardized testing plays a large role in its implementation and development. Over the past few years, state education departments have faced increased scrutiny due to worries about high-stakes tests and their effect on education. Most recently, the achievement gap between lower class minority students and high class white students has been brought to the public eye and fought against.  However, there are still many that argue that standardized tests are actually beneficial to students, teachers, and education as a whole. In Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good For Children, Families, and Schools,” she claims that standardized tests actually help minority or low income students by displaying the inequality of schooling. She argues that these tests are one of the most effective and convincing tools to use to fight for educational justice. Since she public is now aware of the achievement gap between minority and white students, schools will now be forced to answer to the inequality and eventually fight to fix it.

To begin, standardized tests are more than just one test taken and eventually forgotten about. The implications of these tests grow more and more over time and could follow the students for months even years after the final answer is circled on the paper. So yes, while standardized tests may be a tool to show the inequity of schooling for minority and low income students, that realization is not directly benefitting these schools, students, and communities. In fact, it is likely harming them. Low performing schools lose funding, low performing students are held back academically, and communities with low performing students are more susceptible to crime. Two studies, The Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development and the Pittsburgh Youth Study, both found links between low academic performance and adolescent delinquency. Although these tests are showing the score gap for the public to see, the students still have to suffer the consequences of the gap. The inequity that is shown in the test results ruin futures and lessens already scarce resources for schools. It is hard to find benefit in those student’s lower performance.

The constant failures and lower scores of minority and lower class students would be to overlook if they were not in vain. However, the “achievement gap” still exists and has existed since the beginning of standardized testing. According to the NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Caucasian American and African American gap in mathematics for 17 year olds was 32 points in 1982 while in 2004 it was 28 points.  In reading achievement tests, the gap for 17 years olds in 1984 was 32 points and in 2004 it was 29. For hispanic Americans, the gap in mathematics was 27 points in 1982 for mathematics and 24 in 2004. In reading, the Hispanic gap 27 points in 1984 and then increased to 29 points in 2004. Therefore, to say that these tests are benefitting these students because it helps communities recognize the gap so that they can close it is just not true. That would be an excellent concept, if it were actually happening. In reality though, the gap still exists. Although it is narrowing in some cases, progress is slow. It took twenty years for the gap to narrow by three points. In that time, hundreds of thousands of students suffered the consequences of lower performance of standardized tests.

All in all, to say that standardized tests are benefitting minority students is insulting to the students who every year face the uphill battle of these tests and continued to be frustrated by the results. In theory, the concept of standardized tests being used as the tool to identify and abolish the achievement gap is amazing. However, in reality, that goal is just not being achieved. The achievement gap still exists today despite its existence being discovered over thirty years ago. There is now a lot more awareness for the problem but that is no consolation to the students who are failing and the schools that are getting less funding. To say that a racial achievement gap is beneficial is to undermine the effect it has on minority students.

Works Cited

“Education and Delinquency: Summary of a Workshop.” Linking School Performance and Delinquency. The National Academy of the Sciences, 2000. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Gandy, Latasha. “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good for Children, Families and Schools.” Education Post. Education Post, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

“NAEP – Achievement Gaps.” NAEP – Achievement Gaps. National Center for Educational Statistics, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

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.