“Accommodate, Don’t Discriminate”

Standardized tests are aimed to be inclusive and non-discriminatory. They have a goal of making sure the content is equivalent for all students. If we use different tests for certain groups of people, such as minorities or people with disabilities, we are creating an unfairness.

As former Washington, DC public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee stated, “You can’t separate them [students with disabilities and students without disabilities], and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it.” With this, Rhee was arguing for an “accommodate, don’t discriminate” approach.

http://worklife.columbia.edu/files_worklife/public/Pros_and_Cons_of_Standardized_Testing_1.pdf

However, creating a separate test/standard of measure is not discriminating, but actually accommodating. For example, people with poor vision wear glasses, the blind use Braille, and the hard-of-hearing use cochlear implants. These are accommodations for people with special needs. If there was not a Braille system in place, we would be discriminating against those with special needs. Just how we accommodate for people in everyday life, we should accommodate for students in school and when testing.

Students with disabilities perform poorly on current standardized tests when compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Creating a different standard of measure for students with disabilities is accommodating their needs. Not doing so creates a bias by not recognizing their needs. Most of the time, students with disabilities are not being taught the same material as their non-disabled counterparts. With so much reliance on test scores and a lack of exposure to certain subject, students with disabilities face many barriers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/why-opt-out-standardized-tests_n_5078209.html

Another group standardized testing discriminates towards is English language learners. These students have to take a test, sometimes high-stakes, before they’ve even had the chance to master English. This can cause confusion and a lack of understanding during the test. An excelling student can be mislabeled as failing due to their test scores. If the test is high-stakes and the student does not perform well, they can face many consequences, including being moved to a remedial class, repeating a grade, or not graduating.

Though standardized tests are created to be equal, they fail to recognize that everyone is not equal. This “standard” cannot measure every person’s intellect.

New York defends standardized tests for students as movement against them builds

“[Standardized testing is] one of many tools that should be used to measure student growth and help inform instruction,” State Education Department spokesman, Dennis Tompkins.

Source: http://www.takepart.com

Given the amount of opposition New York has faced, it’s natural they would defend standardized testing. Dennis Tompkins believes standardized testing is key to the success of students but one has to ask, how can a standardized test accurately measure student growth if teachers are simply teaching to the test and not teaching to increase students’ knowledge? According to an Education.com article, teachers become pressured by the government to teach students with the goal to raise test scores. Another point to be made is how can a standardized test measure a student’s growth properly if a student isn’t a good test-taker? The pressures placed on testing not only affects the teachers, but also the students who take the test.

How can an education system expect a student to effectively take a test when they are aware of the importance that is placed on the exam. Last year, prior to implementing a tougher exam, New York Education Commissioner John King also emphasized the importance of standardized tests to classroom instruction.

Shot by: Susan Watts

“The reason we’re changing the assessments is so that they reflect what good instruction against the common core should look like,” King said. “The result probably will be a significant drop in student proficiency.” The last few words of this statement are cringeworthy, shouldn’t a drop in student proficiency be a red flag?

He goes on to say that these test grades do not reflect badly upon the schools, but rather it means that the bar is being set higher. After implementing the exams, the state’s passing rate went from 70 percent to 30 percent.That in itself indicates the bar is being set so high that failure is becoming the norm.

Students who opt out the New York State exams are not penalized and every student is only evaluated on his or her schoolwork. But, this raises another question, why implement a standardized test if you do not plan on using the results for anything? This is a waste of valuable teaching time. According to The Washington Post, students could spend anywhere from 60 to more than 110 hours annually preparing for standardized testing. That time could be used to teach students subjects that they can apply to their lives and not for a standardized examination.

The fact is, kids aren’t meant to be cooped up for hours studying for tests that have little significance on what they actually learn. If test grades are reflecting failure then that’s a sign something is wrong, change has to happen. If we want to measure a children’s growth, standardized testing is clearly not the way to go. To Tompkins and King, and all those that think like them, it’s time for a new measurement, perhaps one that treats kids like kids instead of scores.

Standardized Tests: Correct?

 

http://standardizedtests.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=4346

Michelle Rhee, founder and chief executive of StudentsFirst and chancellor of D.C. Public Schools from 2007 to 2010, is somewhat of an ironic woman given she works for an organization meant to put students first but she fails to do so.

In her article  Opting Out of Standardized Tests? Wrong Answer she highlights some of the reasons why she believes standardized testing is a good thing. She attempts to explain why giving parents the option to opt their children out of test would be detrimental rather than helpful. Her views are very much in tune with what is best for a society’s progression rather than what is best for the student and here is where her argument beings to fall apart.

Putting students first means meeting their needs above all else. From her perspective, standardized tests are a form of measurement that help “prepare” students to compete with other countries in various subjects like math. As she states, “the children sitting in classrooms today are going to grow up and compete for jobs with people in India and China and Europe, not just with people in the state next door.” Rhee then makes education about competition rather than learning. Students are taught to be the best out of everyone else rather than be the best that they can be. They want to outdo those around them rather than work with those around them, they’re made to think about failure and success on a scale  instead of actually learning the material they’re given and internalizing it.

http://holykaw.alltop.com/why-teachers-really-hate-standardized-testing

She also argues that in order to make sure students get good scores on standardized tests the teachers must be “excellent.” That is to say, if a child’s scores do not meet the requirement, it’s the fault of the teacher for not teaching them “correctly.” She states, “This conversation about standardized testing should focus on how we [can] make sure every student… [has] an excellent teacher….Instead, critics dumb down the discussion by focusing on the time spent filling in bubbles on test sheets.” How can we make sure every student, in every classroom has an “excellent” teacher? How exactly does Rhee define “excellence?” Is it by the students test scores, is it by the admiration and respect of that teacher’s students, is it by a teacher evaluation? What exactly makes this “excellent” teacher that is suppose to miraculously figure out the perfect formula for teaching students material on the test in the hopes that they will one day become competitors with other countries? Note, competitors, not allies; Rhee is essentially promoting division among cultures based on education. Education should not be used for competition, it should be used to  foster understanding between people. The United States education system’s intention is to give Americans the best education possible; they utilize standardized tests to do so, but is competition really the way to go? Better question, are standardized tests just a dressed up way of figuring out who’s leading in education, are they just yet another tool of competition and at our children’s expense?

Rhee later addresses the fact that these tests are stressful to students; she states, “life can be stressful; life can be challenging.” She does not address the fact that children have young, developing minds. She chalks up their stress to a part of life everyone must go through, she ignores the fact that children are not adults and handle stress very differently. Frankly, if she’s acknowledging the stress students go through, then everything else she tries to justify that stress falls flat. School is not meant to be a place of stress for young students, it is meant to be a safe environment for children to find their passions, to learn about the world, and to discover who they are as people.

(Word Count: 605)

Creating Leaders Instead of Manufacturing Students

Bell rings. Start working. Bell rings. Stop working.

Is this a scene from a factory or from a public school? The modern school system may have its roots in the Industrial Age school system but does not mean that the old-fashioned mentality of manufacturing lines has to continue into the 21^st century. However, some proponents of standardized testing want to do just that.

Norman Augustine wrote an article for the Washington Post that argues that the key to education reform is raising standards on standardized testing.  He believes that teaching to the test is the entire point of education. You cannot improve on something unless you know where you stand. However, what Augustine fails to grasp is that standardized testing is not a good indicator of what it takes to be successful in the modern age as proven by Sir Ken Robinson. Educators should encourage students to be innovative and look for more than one answer to a problem.  Robinson calls this approach to education “divergent thinking” and deems it essential for success in the 21^st century.

As a former CEO,  Augustine says he uses his business background to evaluate the success of America’s educational system and only sees the United States falling down on test scores as compared to other industrial nations. However, he needs to look beyond just the numbers. Robinson argues that teaching students to conform in a world that rewards distinction puts them at a disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world. A student’s future ability should not be measure by how many facts and strategies they can regurgitate on standardized tests. Therefore, it follows that the focus should not be on reforming these tests as Augustine suggests, but on restructuring America’s approach to education. Children are not like cars and at the end of the day you cannot run a series of test to see whether they are ready to step off the assembly line and function in the real world.

See Sir Ken Robinson’s full theory on changing education and follow his awesome graphics