Not in anyway giving anyone permission to plagiarize or copy this and also not verifying the authenticity of any of the information. Also note that there are probably no sources listed and I am not one myself, so don't quote me. This is just some of my homework; thought it might be interesting to someone:
Should we use state standards or not? Discuss the pros and cons. What are testing alternatives to standardized tests?
I think that state standards are a good idea, but only to a certain extent and in some areas. To me, the more important subjects that state standards can address are things like the availability of technology, the quality of teachers, and the funding available for programs and services. I can also understand how state standards for textbooks would make it easier for transferring students and would make the content of education across a state more uniform. There are some things that I believe should be national standards, like holding schools relatively accountable for their successes and mistakes, but not using the kind of system created under the No Child Left Behind law.
Some of the theoretical advantages to state standards are that underperforming schools and teachers can be held accountable, that teachers will be working collaboratively with each other and with administrators to meet the common goal of passing the standards, and that broader standards can unify schools in the information and diversity that they teach. I agree more with the advantages to state standards that are listed in the book than the disadvantages, but I am very unconvinced that these advantages represent how state or national tests will actually affect schools when they come from legislation like NCLB.
Disadvantages to state standards and tests include: the belief that standardized testing does not provide an accurate assessment of student abilities or knowledge; the time required to prepare for standardized tests takes time from studies and causes some schools to teach below their own standards; teachers are forced into a “survival of the fittest” scenario of competition and limited job security; and that this represents a further growth of the federal government and an infringement on the rights of communities or districts. I have mixed feelings about the disadvantages to state or national standards. While I feel that issues like test preparation time and the unreliability of standardized testing are probably valid concerns and valid costs, I think that issues like teacher competition or distrust for centralized government are less valid. I think that teachers should be held to standards that would increase a sense of competition for bad teachers, but not all teachers in general. In reality, I also think that teachers who are trained well and care about their job will probably be less pressured about job security because, with or without standardized tests, there are ways to tell that they are doing their job well, relative to their circumstances.
The alternatives to standardized testing are called “authentic assessments.” These types of tests aim to actually assess the student’s performance during the learning process through a series of tests that demonstrate their ability to use the knowledge and skills they learn in school. Some of the individual assessments included in these kinds of tests could be journals, experiments, presentations, and specified feedback on the student’s performance from both the student and their teachers. I believe that this type of testing is probably a better gauge of an individual student’s strengths and weaknesses and should have a larger part in our school system than standardized testing.
No comments:
Post a Comment