High Stakes Testing: Use But Do Not Abuse

High Stakes Testing: Use But Do Not Abuse
By:
Maryann Chaudhry

We are presently living in an age of increased accountability on the part of schools for student learning outcomes. Educators have a set of Core Content Curriculum Standards that must be followed in the teaching/learning process. These are a means by which policy makers want to ensure that students are learning and schools are doing their jobs. The manner by which the state has enforced that we accomplish this is by administering the NJ ASK, GEPA, and HSPA to measure achievement based on specific criteria. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with having a measure to gage student learning, but as with all testing, it needs to be done responsibly. Preferably, multiple measures need to be employed to establish a complete and balanced measure of student learning.
Standardized testing that is conducted appropriately should improve teaching processes and enhance student outcomes. A number of professional development opportunities would manifest themselves for schools that require assistance for helping student’s meet the established state averages on tests. As long as educators are open to these, I see this as advantageous. As a proponent of inclusive practices for students with special needs, I would offer that holding educators accountable would be a positive thing if teachers feel called to the mission of helping students become the most productive that they can be.
There are certainly drawbacks to highs takes testing. When interpreting results, educators and policy-makers should consider student exposure to curriculum. We know that curriculum differ between districts. We cannot allow students to be kept out of enriched educational experiences or even be retained because they happen to live in an area that has a different curricular focus. Unless high stakes results are used as one of several measures by which we gauge success, we may never close the achievement gap that exists between classes, races, etc.
Test developers need to redefine their understanding of special education. As it is right now, students with special needs are entitled to certain modifications for the state tests that ensure fairness and sensitivity to the needs associated with their disabilities. Certain students may need different modifications than the ones deemed acceptable by the state. If a testing scenario does not closely resemble the student’s learning experiences and day to day activities, how could it be perceived as a truly authentic measure of progress? Also, all students learn at different rates, and in different styles. A “one size fits all” approach as the sole measure for making high stakes decisions, is unethical and immoral. Unless we apply practices for measuring student outcomes that are aligned with the core democratic values and understandings that we are espousing to believe as citizens and policy-makers, our intentions are skewed. Without a balanced approach to testing, testing practices and administrative competencies are seriously flawed.

Global Competition

Global Competition

The United States has been faced with war, economic downturn, and explosive advances in technology. We are forced to compete in the world market. Global competition is a reality facing our country today. How many of us are truly prepared for the influx of new challenges and opportunities that face our citizens?
In his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Friedman (2009) states that America has fallen behind in terms of its ability to prepare itself for global demands. In light of the events of 9/11, Americans are less than welcome outside of the United States. Our media resounds a message of fear that is perpetuated with the war on terror. In many cases, the events of 9/11 threaten to supersede July 4th celebrations. Other political factors including the collapse of Communism have flattened the competitive landscape and America has become lazy. America has coasted on its status as a superpower. As a result, our government has not worked to solve real problems or maximize innovation.
Friedman (2009) also states that energy and natural resources will continue to undergo greater supply and demand. The middle class which has expounded in numbers will cause the world to gradually become crowded. If much of the world-wide population lives like Americans, we risk depleting our energy resources. Energy poverty is a reality. Other countries such as China have addressed this problem, but America has not. America has to assume the responsibility for accessing the world knowledge in order to invent and stay ahead.
Energy technology is a pivotal focus within the realm of global competition, and needs to become a priority in the US. The middle class is growing. New groups of people are immigrating into our country. These groups are redefining the middle class. It has been projected that the world population will significantly increase, and will more then triple in our lifetime. Are we truly prepared to meet the needs of so many people in order to sustain life of earth?
Teachers have a unique and important role in the ever-changing world. According to Vivian Stewart (2006), teachers need to change the way instruction is delivered to students. Instead of only teaching information, teachers need to broaden students’ knowledge of the world, increase foreign language competency, and infuse values. Rather than memorize facts, students should be trained to seek answers, work collaboratively, think globally, and construct learning according to the demands of the global market. They should be prepared for the real possibility of working for international companies and/or managing employees from abroad. Competition for jobs will become increasingly greater.
I feel it is important to view the ever-changing landscape of global competition from an opportunistic perspective. Issues may be viewed as opportunities. We are in the midst of a new industrial revolution that Friedman terms the “Green Revolution”. In order for this to fully take affect, government needs to enforce new policies. Educators and policy makers need to delegate the restructuring of schools to meet the impending global demands. Policy goals for redesigning schools may include: adding graduation requirements that encompass global knowledge, expanding teacher training programs, hiring teachers with a strong foreign language background, and providing technology resources that connect our educators with those of other countries. We will look toward policy makers and educators to facilitate the needed changes. As soon as these tools are in place, America will have the potential to regain its footing in the global marketplace.