If they weren’t to have a standardized test, then what would be a fair way of testing students? I don’t like standardized tests because I know that some students aren’t very good at taking tests and it’s difficult to judge a student’s ability based on an exam. However, how would you be able to test a student’s ability fairly against another student from a different school/state without a standardized test?
The high-stakes test put a lot of pressure on students because many of the test scores are linked to possible grade promotion, graduation, and the scores can determine which colleges you’ll be accepted to. The tests hold teachers and school districts accountable for the students’ performance. The results are published and the scores will reflect the school’s performance and teaching abilities. Teachers can receive bonuses or pay raises if their students show increased performance on tests. This creates a problem in some instances because teachers begin to teach classes just to prepare the students for an exam. Furthermore, decisions about a teachers’ future employment can sometimes be based on a students’ standardized achievement test scores. A lot can depend on a standardized test for a school (such as funding, merit, etc.). If the school doesn’t have good test scores, it could be thought of as a failing school or a school that will not provide a good education for children.
A high-stakes test is a test that has a significant consequence for the students, teachers, administrators, or school. These tests can evaluate the level of student learning as a means to gather information about possible changes needed in the curriculum or the teaching methods. Perhaps the teaching methods can be changed to improve student learning. I believe that the tests are looking to assess a student’s achievement in various subjects to see whether they have mastered the material they are supposed to be learning. However, the test scores are not always an accurate reflection of a student’s ability.
I feel like if a student fails a test then it could be because of either the test or the student. Perhaps the student hasn’t learned the material because the school/teacher didn’t teach it to them. Or perhaps the student isn’t a very good test-taker. Some students get very nervous when taking exams and experience anxiety. Furthermore, there can also be instances of test fairness and test bias. Test fairness addresses the ethical use of tests, while test bias looks at a systematic error in test scores that could be caused by cultural variations. Research seems to think that cultural test bias does not exist in most standardized tests. Also, some students may be better at writing out material or taking an oral exam, as compared to taking a long, multiple-choice exam. Perhaps the student knows the information but cannot explain his/her knowledge based on the structure of the exam they are taking.
While I think standardized testing is the easiest way to fairly test students across all states, I definitely don't think it is the best. I think a fair way to test students would be to have options of the way to test. Perhaps some students who are good at test taking could take the standardized test while others could do some sort of project or write a paper. I think these would be more difficult to grade nationally, unlike the test but could provide a different avenue for students who have difficulty with tests. I think other methods would have to be tested and made fair among states before implemented, but it could be an option.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hate standardized testing because of issues like test anxiety. I agree that it is a very valid form of fair testing across an area (ISTEP for Indiana for example). Teachers could be more or less lenient than other teachers. We can't trust those grades to be fair. As much as I hate to say it, I think standardized testing is the most fair way to see how schools match up and to see that everyone follows the standards.
ReplyDelete