Millennial Debate Standardized Testing Debate
A2: Special Needs Students
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A2: Teachers Lack Knowledge of Testing
A2: Special Needs StudentsHigh stakes testing accommodates students with special needs and has brought attention to these studentsGregory Cizek, professor of educational measurement and evaluation, 2005, Gregory J. Cizek teaches courses in applied psychometrics, statistics, program evaluation and research methods. Prior to joining the faculty, he managed national licensure and certification testing programs for American College Testing, served as a test development specialist for a statewide assessment program, and taught elementary school for five years in Michigan. Before coming to UNC, he was a professor of educational research and measurement at the University of Toledo and, from 1997-99, he was elected to and served as vice-president of a local board of education in Ohio, Defending Standardized Testing, Kindle edition, page number at end of card 2. Accommodation. Recent federal legislation enacted to guide the implementation of high-stakes testing has been a catalyst for increased attention to students with special needs. Describing the impact of legislation such as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), Thurlow and Ysseldyke (2001) observed that, "both Goals 2000 and the more forceful IASA indicated that high standards were to apply to all students. In very clear language, these laws defined 'all students' as including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency" (p. 389). The No Child Left Behind Act reinforces the notion that the era of exceptions for exceptional students has ended. Rather, to the greatest extent possible, all pupils will be tested to obtain information about their progress relative to a state's content standards in place for all students. In accordance with these mandates, states across the United States are scurrying to adapt those tests for all students, report disaggregated results for subgroups, and implement accommodations so that tests and accountability reporting more accurately reflect the learning of all students. The result has been a very positive diffusion of awareness. Increasingly at the classroom level, educators are becoming more sensitive to the needs and barriers special needs students face when they take tests—even ordinary classroom assessments. If not driven within the context of once-per-year, high-stakes tests, it is doubtful that such progress would have been witnessed in the daily experiences of many special needs learners. Much research in the area of high-stakes testing and students at risk has provided evidence of this positive consequence of mandated testing. One recent example comes from the Consortium on Chicago School Research, which has monitored effects of that large, urban school district's high stakes testing and accountability program. There researchers found that students (particularly those who had some history of failure) reported that the introduction of accountability testing had induced their teachers to begin focusing more attention on them (Roderick & Engel, 2001). Failure was no longer acceptable and there was a stake in helping all students succeed. In this case, necessity was the mother of intervention. (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Locations 1225-1226). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. A2: Teachers Lack Knowledge of TestingTeachers have developed knowledge of testingGregory Cizek, professor of educational measurement and evaluation, 2005, Gregory J. Cizek teaches courses in applied psychometrics, statistics, program evaluation and research methods. Prior to joining the faculty, he managed national licensure and certification testing programs for American College Testing, served as a test development specialist for a statewide assessment program, and taught elementary school for five years in Michigan. Before coming to UNC, he was a professor of educational research and measurement at the University of Toledo and, from 1997-99, he was elected to and served as vice-president of a local board of education in Ohio, Defending Standardized Testing, Kindle edition, page number at end of card 3. Knowledge about testing. For years, testing specialists have documented a lack of knowledge about assessment on the part of many educators. The title of one such article bluntly asserted educators' "Apathy toward Testing and Grading" (Hills, 1991). Other research has chronicled the chronic lack of training in assessment for teachers and principals and has offered plans for remediation (see, e.g., Impara & Plake, 1996; Stiggins, 1999). Unfortunately, for the most part, it has been difficult to require assessment training for preservice teachers or administrators, and even more difficult to wedge such training into graduate programs in education. Then along came high-stakes tests. What faculty committees could not enact has been accomplished circuitously. Granted, misperceptions about tests persist (e.g., in my home state of North Carolina there is a lingering myth that "the green test form is harder than the red one"), but I am discovering that, across the country, educators know more about testing than ever before. Because many tests now have stakes associated with them, it has become de rigeur for educators to inform themselves about their content, construction, and consequences. Increasingly, teachers can tell you the difference between a norm-referenced and a criterion-referenced test; they can recognize, use, or develop a high-quality rubric; they can tell you how their state's writing test is scored, and so on. Along with this knowledge has come the secondary benefit that knowledge of sound testing practices has had positive consequences at the classroom level—a trickle-down effect. For example, one recent study (Goldberg & Roswell, 1999/2000) investigated the effects on teachers who had participated in training and scoring of tasks for the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). Those teachers who were involved with the MSPAP overwhelmingly reported that their experience had made them more reflective, deliberate, and critical in terms of their own classroom instruction and assessment. (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Locations 1234-1242). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 1.17 Mb. Share with your friends:
|