The purpose of tests is to benefit the students
Dr. Herbert Walberg is a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute and chairman of its Board of Directors. He is also a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of the Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, and a professor emeritus and University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His research focuses on educational productivity and human accomplishments, August 1, 2011, Stop the War Against Standardize Tests, http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-submission/2011/08/01/stop-war-against-standardized-tests DOA: 10-25-15
Finally, some critics of testing complain that tests cause malaise among educators. But good schools focus on student learning, not on the satisfaction of the professional staff. If the data shows that testing benefits students, it should be pursued even if there isn’t unanimous teacher support.
Good student performance on tests should be a source of satisfaction among successful educators. The appropriate tests can reveal strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum and instruction. Our nation’s poor achievement progress shows that substantial improvements in teaching and learning are needed—and progress on those two fronts can and should be measured by standardized tests.
Common Core tests require higher order thinking skills
Lelac Almagor, September 2, 2014, Boston Review, The Good in Standardized Testing, http://bostonreview.net/us/lelac-almagor-finding-good-in-standardized-testing DOA: 10-25-15
Lately, when we talk about testing, we whisper with apocalyptic trepidation about the coming shift to the Common Core and new national assessments that align to it. These exams are less repetitive and grueling than the DC CAS, but so much harder. They require even young students to synthesize multiple sources, write analytical essays, perform a “research simulation,” and solve multi-part problems that feel more like logic puzzles.
It is less practical to “prep” kids for this kind of test. They have to actually be prepared—to be confident reading and writing at or above grade level—before they can begin to tackle the task itself. Compared with state tests such as the DC CAS, early versions of these Common Core–aligned tests have often revealed bigger gaps in achievement between disadvantaged kids and their peers. But the measurement is not the problem.
Standardized tests can be developed in a way that makes students think
Dr. Herbert Walberg is a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute and chairman of its Board of Directors. He is also a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of the Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, and a professor emeritus and University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His research focuses on educational productivity and human accomplishments, August 1, 2011, Stop the War Against Standardize Tests, http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-submission/2011/08/01/stop-war-against-standardized-tests DOA: 10-25-15
Those who oppose standardized tests also argue that the tests can only measure simple facts students can memorize. But tests assessing advanced understanding and judgment do exist. They may, for instance, require respondents to select the best idea from a group of different and compelling positions. They may require respondents to identify the best reason for action, the best interpretation of a set of ideas, or the best application of important principles.
Standardized tests now ask high order, complex questions
Gregory 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
Solid research evidence is also available to refute some of the most commonly encountered criticisms of high-stakes tests (see, for example, Bishop, 1998, 2000). With changes in content standards and test construction practices, few state-mandated tests can be said to be "lower order" or consist solely of recall-type questions. In fact, recent experience in states such as Washington, Arizona, and Massachusetts signals that concerns about low-level tests are being replaced by a concern that complex content is being pushed too early in students' school years, that performance expectations may be too high, and that test content is sometimes too challenging (see, e.g., Bowman, 2000; Orlich, 2000; Shaw, 1999). (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Location 1046). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
A2: Bad to Punish a Student for One Test Score
A single test score is only part of the assessment
Dean Goodman & Ronald Hambleton, University of Massachusetts @ Amherst, 2005, Defending Standardized Testing, page number at end of card
Another misconception of state assessments is that states are placing too much emphasis on a single test score. In their condemnation of state assessments, critics are eager to detail the plight of students who cannot graduate or move on to the next grade based on the results of a single test. Critics rarely point out, testing program. But after that time, the best way to show achievement gain is for teachers to help students master the content standards because there are only so many points achievable (and hopefully few) from capitalizing on those test-taking skills that inflate scores due to shortcomings in the test construction process. The likely long-term payoff in achievement gain is much greater from teaching the content standards than making all students "test-wise."
Moreover, critics often fail to acknowledge that students are given multiple opportunities to pass these tests. In Massachusetts, for example, students have five opportunities to pass the state graduation test, and students who do not obtain passing scores by the end of their senior year may demonstrate the requisite skills and knowledge in other ways (e.g., in 2002, 7 of the 19 states with graduation contingent on performance on statewide exams also provided alternative routes for students who failed the exams; Education Week, 2003b). In Massachusetts, too, there is an appeals process for students who are close to the passing score on the mathematics and English language arts tests, have high attendance at school, and have taken the state graduation test at least twice. The appeals are accepted if the students' school grades in core subjects are comparable or better than the grades of students who were just above the passing score on the state test. This system appears to be working well. Surprisingly, the public does not seem to be aware of the appeals process because rarely is this feature mentioned in public discourse about the state graduation requirement. (2005-03-23). Defending Standardized Testing (Kindle Locations 2793-2797). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Share with your friends: |