nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web view12/11/2014 · nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com

TESTING! PRO SPEECH 12/10

My partner and I stand resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.

We do not argue standardized tests should be the only tool to gain quality education, but they are an essential tool to bring benefits of 1) high quality ACHIEVEMENT and the benefit of 2) EQUALITY in EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. These are the two most essential benefits of any education. These two benefits of ACHIEVEMENT and EQUALITY bring 3)an IMPACT of economic growth.

OBSERVATION: The most important BENEFITS of education are high quality achievement and equal opportunity :

Professor Gregory Fritzberg said that Creating substantively equal life chances for all children coheres with the truest elements of America's liberal tradition. Amy Gutmann put it nicely when she states that all children deserve to be capable to live skillfully independently with, what she calls, “liberal autonomy."

(Prof., Education, Seattle Pacific niversity.), A CONCEPTION OF EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, 2003. RNov. 9, 2015fromhttp://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/multicultural-ed

POINT 1: HIGH ACHIEVEMENT comes when we monitor and measure STANDARDS of EXCELLENCE

Plants grow to the sunlight. People also grow to the goals we set. Standardized tests set clear goals and keeps schools accountable to reach them. Expert William Bushaw said in 2014, “To address higher achievement and greater equity, the U.S. needs standards of excellence, and there is wide agreement that the Common Core State Standards offer these standards…. We can't return to an American system of public education based on 50 sets of education standards. “ William J. "Communicate or modify." Phi Delta Kappan 96.1 (2014): 14. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

According to a peer-reviewed, 100-year analysis of testing research completed in 2011 by testing scholar Richard P. Phelps, “93% of studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, found a "positive effect" on student achievement.”

(R. Phelps, "The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910 -2010, ” Nopartisan Education Review,Apr. 2011)

POINT 2: EQUALITY: Standardized Testing promotes EQUAL education.

The only way to make sure all students are getting a quality education is to find out which schools are not reaching standardized test goals, and then help them. This is the only way to narrow the achievement gaps. Professor Gregory Cizek said that

“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. Failure was no longer acceptable and there was a stake in helping all students succeed. (Prof., Education, University . of North Carolina), DEFENDING STANDARDIZED TESTING, 2005, 37.

(PRO) POINT 3: Standardized Testing IMPROVES SCHOOLS to keep U.S COMPETITIVE GLOBALLY

Because standardized testing gives information on what to teach better and what and whom schools need to focus upon to be successful, they logically improve education by focusing attention on the right areas for growth. International Standardized Test Comparisons help the U.S. keep up and compete globally.According to a USA.I.D. report,

“… policymakers are increasingly looking to assessment results like the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) to measure system performance. “

"Examining the Role of International Achievement Tests in Education Policy Reform: National Education Reform and Student Learning in Five Countries." USAID, (U.S. Agency for International Development) Web. 6 Nov 2015<http://www.epdc.org/sites/default/files/documents/Examiningthe%20Role% 20of%20 International AchievementTests..

This improvement benefits U.S. education AND U.S. economy as we have a smarter, strong labor force that can compete globally.

Joel Klein puts it well when he says, “The failure of U.S. K-12 schools to prepare young Americans with essential skills and knowledge puts this nation’s economic growth and competitiveness, physical security, information security, and national character at risk. “Companies are left struggling to find talent within the United States and are forced to search outside this country’s borders, the military is left without trained technicians, the State Department is left without diplomats fluent in essential languages, and persistent achievement gaps are placing the American Dream out of reach for millions of Americans.

(Chair, Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Education), U.S. EDUCATION REFORM AND NATIONAL SECURITY, 2012, 44.

According studies by global economists, the education level of a country’s labor force boosts the economy –but not just by the number of years of education attained, but by the actual cognitive skills, as defined by standardized testing. In their words, “The level of cognitive skills of a nation’s students …Yet it is not enough simply to spend more time in school; something has to be learned there.”"Eric A. Hanushek, Dean T. Jamison, Eliot A. Jamison and Ludger Woessmann Education and Economic Growth - Education Next." RSS. N.p., 29 Feb. 2008. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

For all of these reasons: bringing significant benefits to 1) a rise in achievement, 2)school improvement, 3) equal education opportunity, show that even if there are some stress and harms, standardized testing in K-12 U.S. education clearly benefits us in essential ways.

http://educationnext.org/author/lwoessmann/

http://educationnext.org/author/ejamison/

http://educationnext.org/author/djamison/

http://educationnext.org/author/ehanushek/

PRO ANSWERS to CON’s CROSS FIRES!

Our evidence shows teaching to the test makes teaching worse, how can you say ST improves teaching and schools? ST makes schools and teachers more accountable to raise the reading and math levels of all students which leads to their success in later education. As Marcus Winters reminds us, “…test-score analysis can’t tell us everything we want to know about a teacher’s performance. Using it in isolation to evaluate teachers creates bad incentives and can miss a great deal of what makes a teacher effective. But research shows that evaluations of a teacher’s contribution to her student’s rise in test scores this year is a far better predictor of how much her future students will learn than are the factors prioritized by the current system: years of experience and possession of advanced degrees..

[7/2012] Standardized Tests Are Costly, But Worth It. The New York Times. M. Winters is senior fellow at Manhattan Institute, did several studies on education testing and school report cards.]

20 school systems that "have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains" on national and international assessments used "proficiency targets for each school" and "frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress," according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm

Mona Mourshed, Chinezi Chijioke, and Michael Barber, "How the World's Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better” (4.4 MB) , ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com, Nov. 2010

How can you say achievement is improved when we have evidence that true knowledge is diminished as arts courses are cut, history courses are cut, and more and more time in classrooms is teaching to the test, not teaching authentic problem solving, or creativity? Research from the last fifteen years offers evidence about NCLB and the ways its consequences might be reconfigured to be more impactful. Hanushek and Raymond (2005) showed that having consequences improved test scores. Dee and Jacob (2010) compared NAEP scores in states that changed their accountability schemes to meet the requirements of NCLB—which in practice meant making consequences stricter—and showed that test scores rose more in these states than in states that did not have to change their consequences.

Our evidence shows the income gap in achievement is growing, and the black/white gap is barely closing. How can you say that standardized tests are bringing equal opportunity when we see them as punishing these students with a self-fullfilling prophecy of failure?

Jennifer Braceras, (Prof., Law, Harvard Law School), VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW, May 2002, 1132.Although African-American and Hispanic students in Texas still lag behind their white peers, they are beginning to close the achievement gap. In the eight administrations of the exit-level TAAS between 1994 and 2001, the pass rate for black students rose by 40%; during the same time period, the pass rate for Latinos rose by 36%. The black-white gap on the test shrunk from 36 percentage points on a single administration of the test in 1994 to 21 percentage points on a single test administration in 2001; the gap between Hispanic students and white students also shrunk from 36 percentage points in 1994 to 19 percentage points in 2001. Thus, while those black and Latino students who are unable (after seven attempts) to pass the test and obtain a diploma are burdened by the Texas accountability regime, other black and Latino students are clearly aided by the system and the resulting increase in levels of academic success.

Standardized testing is seen as an essential tool to keep equal rights and Civil Rights. Quinton, Sophie. [2015] "Is Standardized Testing a Civil-Rights Issue?" Nationaljournal.com 23 Jan. 2015. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Last week, after leaders of the new Republican-led Senate made it clear that rewriting No Child Left Behind is a top priority, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., stood on the Senate floor and called standardized testing a civil-rights issue. "We know

http://standardizedtests.procon.org/sourcefiles/how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better.pdf

PRO ANSWERS to CON’s CROSS FIRES! P. 2

that if we don't have ways to measure students' progress, and if we don't hold our states accountable, the victims will invariably be the kids from poor neighborhoods, children of color, and students with disabilities," she said.

Quinton continues: Nineteen groups (http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press-room/news/more-than-20-civil-rights-groups-and-education-advocates- release-principles-for-e), including the NAACP and the Children's Defense Fund, recently released a statement backing the law's core testing requirement

Show us how these standards are qualitatively better than the creative ones they replace and drown out?

The very reason the standardized testing movement began with No Child Left Behind and Common Core is because students were NOT successful in learning, and were dropping out in college. Students who took Advanced Placement level science in HS could not read their college Chemistry books.

--The National Student Clearinghouse reports that 55 percent of first-time undergraduates who matriculated in the fall of 2008 finished a degree within six years, versus 56.1 percent of those who began in fall 2007.

Since 2002, 46% of those who enter a U.S. college fail to graduate within six years— only 37% of African Americans graduate within 6 years— only 42% of Hispanic students graduate within 6 years (The report is from, American Dream 2.0)

Some schools have already started to make improvements to eliminate the achievement gap based on results from standardized tests.

“The results, made public on Sept. 9, from California’s Common Core based standardized test show that only about a third of West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) students were proficient for their grade level in English and language arts. Only about a quarter of the students met the new standard in mathematics. District officials said they anticipated this kind of result, explaining that the new standards are more rigorous than those formerly used by state education officials with the intention of holding districts accountable. The new method also requires a different teaching method, local educators said, which will take a few years to put in place. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson issued a news release saying the divide is a concern across the state. “Clearly, we must continue working to eliminate these gaps,” Torlakson said. “Much work needs to be done, but we are moving in the right direction.” Torlakson said the state is providing “extra resources and services for students and schools with the greatest needs.””

Zaveri, Paayal. "Tougher Standardized Testing in Schools Highlights Poor Results in District." Richmond Confidential. N.p., Nov. 2015. tp://richmondconfidential.orgtougher-standardized-testing-in-

http://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SignatureReport8.pdf

CON SPEECH ST 12/10

My partner and I reject the proposition that: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.

FRAMEWORK: Judge, in the interest of a fair and educational debate, the debate must focus on the status quo: the current high-stakes standardized testing happening in this moment in time in the U.S. We cannot let the PRO resolution win or we ignore the overwhelming disadvantages of the current status quo of winner-take-all rewards and punishment, which is the main, official standardized testing policy in the U.S. right now. Affirming the resolution would not only legitimize this status quo, but also condone or approve of this harmful testing policy, where the U.S. will needlessly suffer from 1) a weakened concept of quality ACHIEVEMENT, 2) INEQUALITY and 3)a sped up downturn of our GLOBAL ECONOMY

POINT 1: ACHIEVEMENT: CURRRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING DILUTES the meaning of high quality, ACHIEVEMENT in LEARNING

Famous researcher and educator Mike Rose observed, “high-stakes tests led many administrators and teachers to increase math and reading test preparation and reduce time spent on science, history, and geography. The arts were, in some cases, drastically reduced or eliminated. Aspects of math and reading that didn't directly relate to the tests were also eliminated, even though they could have led to broader understanding and appreciation of these subjects.” [2015] "School Reform Fails the Test: How Can Our Schools Get Better When We've Made Our Teachers the Problem,Not the Solution?" The American Scholar 84.1 PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Journalists have also documented this loss of a truly rounded, probing education. Peter Sacks reported, “Traditional tests reinforce passive, rote learning of facts and formulas, quite contrary to the active, critical thinking skills many educators now believe schools should be encouraging. Many suspect that the speeded, multiple-choice tests are themselves powerful incentives for compartmentalized and superficial learning.

(Journalist), STANDARDIZED MINDS: THE HIGH PRICE OF AMERICA’S TESTING CULTURE, 2001, 9.

POINT 2: EQUALITY: CURRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING INCREASES INEQUALITYAccording to Mike Rose,

… high-stakes pressure is especially pertinent for those less affluent students at the center of reform. A troubling pattern in American schooling increases: poor kids get a lower-tier education focused on skills and routine while students in more affluent districts get a robust and engaging school experience.

. [2015] "School Reform Fails the Test: How Can Our Schools Get Better When We've Made Our Teachers the Problem and Not the Solution?" The American Scholar 84.1 (2015): 18+. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Professor Sean F. Reardon, agrees when his research made him state, “Even after the No Child Left Behind high-stakes testing laws focused more targeted interventions for different groups of students by race, ethnicity and disabilities, the U.S. still has not

closed most achievement gaps to an appreciable degree a decade of the law passed.a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a 2011 study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, According to a 2011 report he authored by the National Center on Educational Statistics, as reported in Education Week,

(Con) POINT 3: ECONOMY: CURRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING BLOCKS CREATIVITY and true Problem Solving DEVELOPMENT, speeding up the U.S. decline in global economic competitiveness

Numerous studies like those done by Auter and Price 2013, track the already growing rate of U.S. unemployment compared to stronger economies in other 1st world countries. They clearly show that the area of economic and job growth goes to inventions, new ideas, new solutions, industries that require thinking, problem-solving and creativity, not rote cognitive skills that standardized testing reinforces. Respected author Daniel Pink sounds the alarm most clearly. He explains, “Fewer and fewer employment opportunities exist in America for both routine cognitive work and manual labor, and the gap is widening over the decades. Manual labor jobs are outsourced to cheaper locations overseas. Routine cognitive jobs are increasingly being replaced by cheaper workers overseas and by software algorithms. “What kind of schoolwork do most American students do most of the time?” he continues, “Routine cognitive work. What kind of work is emphasized in nearly all of our national and state assessment schemes? Routine cognitive work. For what kind of work do traditionalist parents and politicians continue to advocate? Routine cognitive work. This has been and will continue to lead to our economic decline, (J.D. Yale Law School & Former Assistant to Vice President Al Gore), A WHOLE NEW MIND: WHY RIGHT-BRAINERS WILL RULE THE FUTURE, 2006, 26.

According to highly respected Stanford University researcher Linda Darling-Hammond, the current culture of over-assessment and high-stakes testing shows

“ …the growing distance between what our education system emphasizes and what leading countries are accomplishing educationally, the U.S. currently ranks 28th of 40 countries in the world in math achievement -- right above Latvia -- and 19th of 40 in reading achievement on the international PISA tests that measure higher-order thinking skills. And while the top-scoring nations -- including previously low-achievers like Finland and South Korea -- now graduate more than 95% of their students from high school, the U.S. is graduating about 75%, a figure that has been stagnant for a quarter century and, according to a recent ETS study, is now declining. The U.S. has also dropped from 1st in the world in higher education participation to 13th, as other countries invest more resources in their children’s futures.”

(Prof.,Education, Stanford U.), BOOSTING QUALITY IN THE TEACHING PROFESSION, Hrg. Mar. 11, 2007, 77.

Finland topped the international education (PISA) rankings from 2001-2008, yet has "no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools," according to Stanford University researchers Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura McCloskey. [Success has been achieved using "assessments that encourage students to be active learners who can find, analyze, and use information to solve problems in novel situations."

http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible-explanations

http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible-explanations

Therefore, reject that status quo of high-stakes, winner-take-all standardized testing which greatly harms 1)Achievement 2) Equality and 3) the U.S. chance to revive the economy

Con uses to block PRO’S CROSS FIRE

Why can’t we just have creativity and standardized testing? You said yourself some schools do it?Doesn’t this point out the need to use other tools, not just standardized testing, but to keep the tests?What’s the point of having creativity if kids can’t read and do math?

You show why the culture of testing has poisoned us all! There are many entry points and interest points in learning, and to block and crush the creativity and performance of music and arts and history and science cuts out what is motivating about school for many students, and makes it worth improving at reading and math and being successful academically. For evidence, look at the waiting list and popularity for NYC”s specialized high schools for the performing arts.

The pro side shows how standardized testing makes comparing possible for school reform, improvement, teacher accountability and teacher improvement. How can you say that is not valuable for schools and should be scrapped? 1)Participating States each have their own tests for the Common Core, so we can’t truly compare kids across states.

2)Tests harmfully alter the teaching process. The high-stakes status quo are given such weight in the teaching process they distort what students learn.

“Every day children are asked which answer is right, although the smarter children realize that sometimes there are parts of several answers that could be right. And they sit. And they answer: Not to express their understanding of the world. Or to even form their own opinions about ideas they’ve read. Instead, they must dance the steps that they have been told are important:

Batt, Don. "Standardized Tests Are Killing Our Students' Creativity, Desire to Learn." - The DenverPost. Denver Post, 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2015. <http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22742832/monster-spring>.

Tests may hold teachers accountable, but the accountability is to a standard teachers neither benefit from nor desire. Show us how these standards are qualitatively better than the creative ones they replace and drown out?

Our evidence show the college dropout rate is increasing and kids are failing. Don’t you think we need standardized tests to get at the heart of the problem before it is too late?

Correlation is not Causation. Just because things are happening doesn’t prove the ROOT CAUSE.

Kids drop out because college has become too expensive, according to SLATE 2014 who analyzed those very statistics. Certain groups are more stressed out with jobs, families and college.

How can you limit the debate to the current Common Core testing system when the resolution says standardized testing in the U.S. without limiting it to now.It would be unfair and not educational to include every kind of standardized testing strategy use. What matters is the

policy in place now and how it benefits or harms. Con argues that forcing one kind of high-stakes testing policy is not the most beneficial policy. Corporations are setting our standards as much as the states. We lose our edge as a country where having different viewpoints crushes innovation and dynamic improvements for assessment.

STANDARDIZED TESTS CANNOT MEASURE TEACHER QUALITY

Rose, Mike. [2015] "School Reform Fails the Test: How Can Our Schools Get Better When We've Made Our Teachers the Problem and Not the Solution?" The American Scholar 84.1 (2015): 18+. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

When the standardized test score is the measure of a teacher's effectiveness, other indicators of competence are discounted. One factor is seniority--which reformers believe, not without reason, overly constrains an administrator's hiring decisions. Another is post-baccalaureate degrees and certifications in education, a field many reformers hold in contempt. Several studies do report low correlation between experience (defined as years in the profession) and students' test scores. Other studies find a similarly low correlation between students' scores and teachers' post- baccalaureate degrees and certifications. These studies lead to an absolute claim that neither experience nor schooling beyond the bachelor's degree makes any difference.


What a remarkable assertion. Can you think of any other kind of work--from hair styling to neurosurgery--where we don't value experience and training? If reformers had a better understanding of teaching, they might wonder whether something was amiss with the studies, which tend to deal in simple averages and define experience or training in crude ways.Experience, for example, is typically defined as years on the j ob, yet years in service, considered alone, don't mean that much. A dictionary definition of experience--"activity that includes training, observation of practice, and personal participation and knowledge gained from this"-- indicates the connection to competence. The teachers in Possible Lives had attended workshops and conferences, participated in professional networks, or taken classes. They experimented with their curricula and searched out ideas and materials to incorporate into their work. What people do with their time on the job becomes the foundation of expertise.

PRO EVIDENCE

U.S. EDUCATION NEEDS STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE

Bushaw, [2014] William J. "Communicate or modify." Phi Delta Kappan 96.1 (2014): 14.PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

To address higher achievement and greater equity, the United States needs standards of excellence, and there is wide agreement that the Common Core State Standards offer these standards. In this case, modifying policy is not a solution. We can't return to an American system of public education based on 50 sets of education standards. Working together, education professionals through their associations, along with business and political leaders can work together to mount a nonpartisan communications campaign explaining to Americans why the Common Core State Standards are essential to the nation's future and to the success of all children. Public support for the standards is declining--we need to fight for these standards since we are losing in the court of public opinion.


If we want higher levels of achievement and greater levels of equity, then the American public education system must be sincere in its effort to provide a high-quality education for every child that ensures his or her future success. But evaluating how educators and systems achieve that goal can take many forms. Standardized testing can be one of the tools but it cannot be the only form of evaluation. Americans want assurance that every child has the opportunity for success and that educators and systems will be evaluated on whether we are achieving that goal. This is a much more complicated approach to accountability but it is clear that this is the only one that Americans will accept.

Let's fight for rigorous standards for all children and for a system of accountability recognizing that every child is unique, and that it is our responsibility to prepare them for success in their careers and in their lives.

STANDARDIZED TESTS HELPS EVALUATE STUDENT PLACEMENT


Just over half (54%) of Americans said standardized tests aren't helpful to teachers, and parents feel even more strongly about this. This belief is held uniformly regardless of political affiliation.

While most Americans (68%) are skeptical that standardized tests help teachers, they support using them to evaluate student achievement or to guide decisions about student placement, particularly to award college credit such as through Advanced Placement exams.

COMMON CORE IS NECESSARY


Common Core: If we want equitable outcomes, if we want to help students reach their potentials, the Common Core is a very fair way to do it. There are many well-intended educators, but the reality is that where you go to school, your geographic location, your economic situation, and your race determines the quality of education that you receive. We have teachers teaching in the same grade in the same school but teaching in totally different ways.

There is so much resistance to this from teachers because they don't want someone telling them how to teach or how to practice their profession. I just don't think it's realistic that teachers have those expectations when most other professionals have standards that they're expected to reach if they're going to be considered good quality.

MUST HAVE A MEANS TO EQUALIZE QUALITY EDUCATION


The reason that the United States does poorly (on international comparisons) is because of our racial achievement gap. If students of color were doing as well as white students or had the same opportunities as white students, our nation would be ranked higher. Because we allow this disparity to exist, we allow our country to rank lower.

There should be a partnership between all three levels of government --federal, state, and local-- plus community-based organizations. Those organizations need a place at the table because education doesn't just happen in the classroom. Acting as if it does sets up a false pretense.Schools belong to a community and the people who live in that community need to have a say in what happens in their schools.

THE PROBLEM IS OVERTESTING

Mitchell, Corey. [2015] "Testing Burden on ELLs Needs Easing, Federal Officials Say." Education Week 4 Feb. 2015: 17. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015

Libia Gil, the head of the U.S. Department of Education's office of English-language acquisition, says she's working with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to ease the burden of testing for English-learners and their teachers.

"We do believe in annual testing, but we also believe there's overtesting. It's coming from all over. You have state assessments, you have local assessments, you have classroom assessments-- some for different purposes, not all for accountability," said Ms. Gil, a veteran bilingual anddual-language educator who came to OELA in September 2013.

"Too much testing that's not meaningful and not helpful, we don't support that," Ms. Gil said last month in an interview with Education Week. "What we do support is very clear, precise measures. That challenge is to [determine] what are the most reliable and credible assessments."

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS SHOULD TAKE STANDARDIZEDTESTS IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE


Since his time as the CEO of Chicago's public schools before he became education secretary in 2009, Mr. Duncan has argued that ELLs should be allowed to demonstrate their content knowledge on tests in their native languages. New York and some other states already provide some tests in native languages.

When students with low English proficiency take math exams, they may not understand the test directions--one example of a language barrier that keeps them from demonstrating their skills. By definition, ELLs are "not yet actually ready to access math and English-language content," said Conor P. Williams, a senior researcher for the Washington-based New America Foundation.

But agreement on a national framework to test ELLs' content knowledge has yet to emerge.

Efforts to make the new common-standards tests developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium more accessible to ELLs were field-tested last spring.


A 2013 AFT study found that in two medium-size districts, the time students spent taking tests ranged from 20 to 50 hours per year in heavily tested grades. In addition, students could spend 60 to 110 hours a year focused on test preparation. That's precious time lost for ELLs, said Ms. Lundy-Ponce.

"Rather than being diagnostic, [standardized testing] punishes the teacher," Ms. Lundy-Ponce said. "For the students, grade-level content won't be picked up by being drilled for a test."

STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE

Quinton, Sophie. [2015] "Is Standardized Testing a Civil-Rights Issue?" Nationaljournal.com23 Jan. 2015. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Last week, after leaders of the new Republican-led Senate made it clear that rewriting No Child Left Behind is a top priority, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., stood on the Senate floor and called standardized testing a civil-rights issue. "We know that if we don't have ways to measure students' progress, and if we don't hold our states accountable, the victims will invariably be the kids from poor neighborhoods, children of color, and students with disabilities," she said.


Nineteen groups (http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press-room/news/more-than-20-civil-rights-groups- and-education-advocates-release-principles-for-e), including the NAACP and the Children's Defense Fund, recently released a statement backing the law's core testing requirement. "ESEA must continue to require high-quality, annual statewide assessments for students in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school," Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

Tests should track students' progress toward state standards, said Henderson, and those standards have to align with what students need to know to succeed in college or in the workforce. Without data to show that students are on track, it could be all too easy for disadvantaged children to receive a substandard education.

SAT AND ACT DO A GOOD JOB OF MEASURING COLLEGE READINESS

Hiss, William C., and Wayne Camara. [2014] "Should colleges stop requiring the SAT/ACT? The admissions exams are now optional at many four-year colleges." New York Times Upfront 21 Apr. 2014: 23. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Decades of research show that the combination of grades and standardized test scores is a better predictor of a student's success than grades or scores alone. Optional-testing policies do not increase fairness but actually allow some students to "game" the admissions process by determining what information to share.

There are more than 35,000 public and private high schools in the U.S. There are huge variations among them, and it's impossible for college admissions offices to be familiar with all of them.The standards for an A at one school might be completely different than at another. That's why standardized national tests like the ACT are crucial for comparing the academic skills of students from different high schools.


Similarly, some schools do not offer advanced placement or honors classes, which give students a chance to impress colleges. For students without these options, standardized test scores can be another way to prove themselves.

No one should be measured by only one number. But because everyone deserves a level playing field, colleges should continue using standardized test scores as one of the factors they consider. Requiring more information, not less, increases every student's chances for success.

STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A USEFUL METHOD OF EVALUATION

PHELPS, Richard P. [June 3, 2008]. The Role and Importance of Standardized Testing in the World of Teaching and Training. Paper presented at the 15th Congress of the World Association for Educational Research Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco. Nonpartisan Education Review / Essays: Volume 4, Number 3

Standardized testing has been called the greatest single social contribution of modern psychology, and it may be the most useful evaluation method available for human resource- intensive endeavors. For most of their history, however, standardized tests have been developed and administered on a large scale and large, typically politically-sensitive organizations have controlled their use.


In the United States, standardized tests’ political exposure has sometimes compromised their use despite the intrepid efforts of psychometricians to maintain their integrity. Some of you may recall the infamous “Lake Wobegon” scandal of the 1980s when a medical doctor, John J. Cannell, discovered that every U.S. state claimed an average student score on nationally-normed tests that was above the national average (Phelps, 2005b). Less well known, perhaps, are the persistent efforts of many powerful groups of professional educators to either eliminate the use of standardized tests or limit their use to the most unreliable types (Phelps, 2003).

STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A USEFUL METHOD OF EVALUATION


With powerful forces opposed to the use (or to the proper use) of a beneficial technology that is typically provided by large, politically-sensitive organizations, perhaps it is time to consider alternative methods of providing that beneficial technology.

TEACHER EVALUATION IS NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE TEACHER POOL


Standardized tests are not perfect evaluation tools. Used validly and reliably, however, standardized tests provide decision-makers useful information that no other evaluation method can provide.

Many research studies on educational testing dating back to the early part of the 19th century have compared different teachers’ evaluations of identical student work or compared the consistency of teachers’ marks to those of standardized test results over time. Not surprisingly, researchers found wide variance from teacher to teacher in grading identical student work or over time with the same teacher.

In the 1910s, for example, researchers Starch and Elliott (1912) made copies of two actual English examination papers and sent them to teachers to grade and return. The marks ranged from 50 to 98 percent. One paper, graded by 142 teachers, received fourteen marks below 80 percent and fourteen above 94 percent. “That is, a paper which was considered too poor for a passing grade by some teachers was rated as excellent by others.”


Starch and Elliot repeated the procedure with duplicate Geometry tests (1913). Teachers’ marks on the 116 returned papers ranged from 28 to 92 percent, with twenty grades below 60 percent and nine of 85 percent and above. According to Lincoln and Workman (1936, 7):This type of experiment has been repeated many times by investigators and always with similar results. Therefore there is abundant evidence that teachers’ marks are a very unreliable means of measurement.

TEACHER EVALUATION IS NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE TEACHER POOL


Without standardized tests (or standardized grading protocols) in education, we would increase our reliance on individual teacher grading and testing. Are teacher evaluations free of standardized testing’s alleged failings? No. Individual teachers can narrow the curriculum to that which they prefer. Grades are susceptible to inflation with ordinary teachers, as students get to know a teacher better and learn his idiosyncrasies. A teacher’s (or school’s) grades and test scores are far less likely to be generalizable than any standardized tests’

TEACHER SCORING INVOLVES EMOTION


According to the research on the topic, many U.S teachers consider “nearly everything” when assigning marks, including student class participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment, according to one researcher. Actual achievement vis-à-vis the subject matter is just one factor. One study of teacher grading practices discovered that 66 percent of teachers felt that their perception of a student’s ability should be taken into consideration in awarding the final grade (Frary, Cross, & Weber 1993).


When individual teachers, or individual employers for that matter, are given the responsibility to make judgments unanchored by common standards or rules, those judgments tend to float freely in the currents of time, fitting first one context, then another, and then another. Being idiosyncratic to each particular, temporary context, each free-floating evaluation result is not generalizable to any permanent context. It is a judgment that makes sense only to a particular teacher or employer at a particular point in time and space.

STANDARDIZED TESTS UNFAIRLY ATTACKED


When I was young, standardized tests were often called “objective tests,” which implied that teacher-made tests were “subjective.” Standardized tests’ clear separation from the influence of local decision-makers, be they classroom teachers or personnel managers responsible for hiring new employees, remains one of their most beneficial features. The adoption of standardized university admission testing in the United States in the mid-twentieth century, for example, helped to pave the way for minorities who lacked the familial connections and social pedigree of wealthy WASPs (i.e., White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants).


According to Professor Stephen G. Sireci (2005, 113), the bad reputation of standardized tests portrayed by some critics “is an undeserved one.” He continues

People accuse standardized tests of being unfair, biased and discriminatory. Believe it or not, standardized tests are actually designed to promote test fairness. Standardized simply means that the test content is equivalent across administrations and that the conditions under which the test is administered are the same for all test takers. …Standardized tests are used to provide objective information. For example, employment tests are used to avoid unethical hiring practices (e.g., nepotism, ethnic discrimination, etc.). If an assessment system uses tests that are not standardized, the system is likely to be unfair to many candidates.

TRUE OBJECTIVITY REQUIRES TOO MUCH TIME TO BE PRACTICAL IN MAKING EVERYDAY DECISIONS


There is more to subjectivity in decision-making than ethnic, racial, gender, or class bias, however. The fact is that true objectivity requires too much time to be practical in making everyday decisions. Double-blind controlled experiments or program evaluations with random assignment require time, money, and trained professional observation to monitor their progress. In our daily lives, we make judgments and decisions continuously. We cannot set up a controlled experiment, and wait for the results, every time we must choose which laundry detergent to purchase, where to go on vacation or, for that matter, whom to hire for a job or whom to admit to the last available place at university.


The time-saving decision-making technique we typically use to get on with our lives, apparently, is Bayesian reasoning, named for the early 18th-century statistician Thomas Bayes. In Bayesian reasoning, we employ what relevant prior knowledge we have to each decision. We calculate the “subjective probabilities,” which are not, in the strictest meaning of the term really “subjective.” More accurately, they are incomplete probabilities that incorporate the information we have accumulated that is relevant to the matter at hand. That information may be reliable or not, verified or not, true or not. Nonetheless, until we discover a Fountain of Youth to provide us everlasting life, we must rely on Bayesian reasoning as a time-saving heuristic to negotiate our lives in the short time allotted to each of us (“Bayes Rules,” 2006).

TRUE OBJECTIVITY REQUIRES TOO MUCH TIME TO BE PRACTICAL IN MAKING EVERYDAY DECISIONS


Thus, a standardized test is more than an antidote to biased judgment. We need standardized tests because each of us is a prisoner of our own limited experiences and observations. Standardized tests provide an opportunity to make decisions about individuals that are free of subjectivity, be that subjectivity due to bias or Bayesian shortcuts. In developing standardized tests, trained professionals collect empirical data, apply statistical benchmarks, and make detached, objective evaluations.

STANDARDIZED TEST ARE OFTEN MISUSED


It would seem that testing technology has improved over time exponentially. Test developers have increased the complexity and technical sophistication of their product in response to market and regulatory demands. Today’s standardized tests are better in most every way than their progenitors. They provide more information for the price, and they are more reliable, fair, and valid (when used as they are designed to be used).


Some of today’s standardized tests might seem to the average citizen or policymaker as different in character from their 100-year-old ancestors as today’s airplanes or automobiles do from their 100-year-old antecedents. Any of you who have tried in plain language to explain to policy makers the concepts of item response theory, differential item functioning, computer-adaptive testing, or point-biserial correlation will know what I mean.

The combination of technical complexity and the widespread use of testing for public purposes should elicit a clear, measured, and open public discussion on testing policy. And, I hope that it does where you live. In the United States, unfortunately, the public and policymakers are generally showered with obfuscation, misinformation, and disinformation.

TESTING OPPONENTS AVOID CLOSE SCRUTINY


In the United States, society’s understanding of standardized testing may be shrinking. The technical psychometric research literature would seem to be safe. But, the research literature related to testing policy (i.e., its administration, program structure, use, extent, effects, cost, benefits, public opinion, research dissemination) is diminishing. There are simply too few who cite the research literature in any substantial depth or breadth, and too many willing to declare it barren.


The most common debating tactic of testing opponents is to avoid debate (Phelps, 2007a). Whereas scientists seek the scrutiny of their peers in order to confirm (or deny) the value of their work, advocates tend to avoid scrutiny, especially when selling falsehoods. Scientists do not circumvent the research literature, but engage it. They respond to rival hypotheses with counterevidence. They confront conflicting scientific results. Advocates, however, simply ignore them. The easiest way to win a debate is by not inviting an opponent. Testing critics rightly fear an open, fair scientific contest.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND COMMON CORE DID NOT USE STANDARDIZED TESTS CORRECTLY


Indeed, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002, could have been informed by a cornucopia of research and experience. Instead, it was informed by virtually none. Prior research and experience would have told policymakers that most of the motivational benefits of standardized tests required consequences for the students and not just for the schools. Those stakes needn’t be very high to be effective, but there must be some. As NCLB imposes stakes on schools, but not on students, who knows if the students even try to perform well.


Prior research and experience would have informed policymakers that educators are intelligent people who respond to incentives, and who will game a system if they are given an opportunity to do so (see, for example, Cannell, 1987, 1989). The NCLB Act left many aspects of the test administration process that profoundly affect scores (e.g., incentives and motivation, cut scores, degree of curricular alignment) up for grabs and open to manipulation by local and state officials.



Prior research and experience would have informed policymakers that different tests get different results and one should not expect average scores from different tests to rise and fall in unison over time (as some interpreters of the NCLB Act seem to expect with the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP] benchmark) (Phelps, 2005b).



Prior research and experience would have informed policymakers that the public was not in favor of punishing poorly-performing schools (as NCLB does), but was in favor of applying consequences to poorly-performing students and teachers (which NCLB does not) (see, for example, Phelps 2005a, chapter 1).


What are the effects of test-based accountability? Table 3 in chapter 3 of the forthcoming Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (Phelps, 2008) lists just a small sample of useful, insightful, relevant studies that effectively answered this question, could have informed the design of NCLB, and have been declared by prominent educators to not exist.


Had the policymakers and planners involved in designing the NCLB Act simply read the freely- available research literature instead of funding expensive new studies and waiting for their few results, they would have received more value for their money, gotten more and better information, and gotten it earlier when they actually needed it.



With the single exception of the federal mandate, there was no aspect of the NCLB accountability initiative that had not been tried and studied before. Every one of the NCLB Act’s failings was perfectly predictable, based on decades of prior experience and research. Moreover, there were better alternatives for every characteristic of the program that had also been tried and studied thoroughly by researchers in psychology, education, and program evaluation. Yet, policymakers were made aware of none of then.

The resulting scantily-informed public policy includes a national testing program that would hardly be recognizable anywhere outside of North America. The standardized testing component of NCLB includes no consequences for the students. This sends the subliminal message to the students that they need not work very hard and the testing’s largest potential benefit— motivation—is not even accrued.

STANDARDIZED TESTS PROVIDE INSITE INTO TEACHER PERFORMANCE

Winters, Marcus [July 23, 2012] Standardized Tests Are Costly, But Worth It. The New York Times. [Marcus Winters is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where he has done several studies on education testing and school report cards.]

How do we square such low rates of teacher failure with the fact that, despite real improvements to the system, students in New York City's public schools perform poorly in large numbers?Simple. The current evaluation system depends very little on answering the one question we care about most: Are students learning in a teacher’s classroom? Incorporating analysis of student test scores helps focus evaluations on answering that essential question.


Test scores are important because they’re objective measures of the schooling outcome. It’s appropriate to emphasize student achievement on math and reading tests because these are the building blocks for success, and far too few students attending public schools today adequately possess these basic skills. Developing new tests and the right methods for analyzing them can be costly. But their potential contribution to improving teacher quality — the single most important school-based factor for fostering student learning — far outweighs the upfront cost.

STANDARDIZED TESTS PROVIDE INSITE INTO TEACHER PERFORMANCE


Of course, test-score analysis can’t tell us everything we want to know about a teacher’s performance. Using it in isolation to evaluate teachers creates bad incentives and can miss a great deal of what makes a teacher effective. But research shows that evaluations of a teacher’s contribution to her student’s test scores this year is a far better predictor of how much her future students will learn than are the factors prioritized by the current system: years of experience and possession of advanced degrees. Failing to utilize such important and accessible information about a teacher’s effectiveness is scandalous.

STANDARDIZED TESTS PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO TEACHER PERFORMANCE


Standardized tests are imperfect measures of student achievement, and the statistical analyses that utilize such tests are imperfect tools for evaluating teachers. But despite their limitations, standardized tests provide important information about teacher quality that we should use to improve our terribly flawed system for evaluating teachers. New York City’s movement toward increased use of test scores to evaluate teachers is a step in the right direction.

CON SPEECH

This speech contends that there are so many detriments to current use of standardized

tests that they are not net beneficial. Con will argue that even if the judge buys Pro arguments

that there is some benefits to standardized tests, the number of negative attributes is enough to

prove the resolution false that says standardized tests or good “on balance”. Remind the judge

that on balance means that the total net good must be larger than the net harm. This is not the

case in standardized testing as they are currently used. The speech demonstrates the various

ways that these tests harm the American educational system.

The arguments in the speech demonstrate a variety of harms whereas Pro will only argue

that the tests help improve teaching. This will be said in various ways such as will identify

student weakness, will weed out bad teachers, or will provide parents with the ability to be

proactive in their student’s life. All these arguments are the same argument. That the tests

improve education. Con provides evidence that the tests demoralize students and teachers,

encourages authoritarianism which is in direct opposition to a democratic nation, and fails to

correct the real problems facing education such as poverty, racial discrimination, low salaries

for teachers, and lack of focus on the student. Currently focus is on the teacher and attacking

the teachers NOT allowing teachers to use tests to improve the student. Student progress has

become a sign of what a teacher can do. Even colleges are recognizing this and more and more

colleges are no longer requiring the SAT or ACT in admitting students. (This evidence is in the

brief).

CON SPEECH

My partner and I reject the proposition that: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.

FRAMEWORK: Judge, in the interest of a fair and educative debate, we are debating the current STATUS QUO of high-stakes standardized testing that occurs in this moment in time in the U.S. We cannot let the PRO resolution win or it would ignore the overwhelming disadvantages that our current winner-take-all approach that is now the official standardized testing policy in the U.S. Affirming the resolution would not only legitimize but also condone this harmful testing ethic where our country will continue to suffer in terms of TRUE ACHIEVEMENT, CREATIVITY and EQUALITY. only continue to inevitably suffer.

POINT 1: ACHIEVEMENT: CURRRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING DILUTES REAL ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNING


Studies of what went on in classrooms are equally troubling and predictable. The high-stakes tests led many administrators and teachers to increase math and reading test preparation and reduce time spent on science, history, and geography. The arts were, in some cases, drastically reduced or eliminated. Aspects of math and reading that didn't directly relate to the tests were also eliminated, even though they could have led to broader understanding and appreciation of these subjects.

POINT 2: CREATIVITY: CURRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING BLOCKS CREATIVITY DEVELOPMENT

POINT 3: EQUALITY: CURRENT STANDARDIZED TESTING INCREASES INEQUALITY


The nature of a school's response to high-stakes pressure is especially pertinent for those less affluent students at the center of reform. When teachers in schools like Priscilla's concentrate on standardized tests, students might improve their scores but receive an inadequate education. A troubling pattern in American schooling thereby continues: poor kids get a lower-tier education focused on skills and routine while students in more affluent districts get a robust and engaging school experience.



When the standardized test score is the measure of a teacher's effectiveness, other indicators of competence are discounted. One factor is seniority--which reformers believe, not without reason, overly constrains an administrator's hiring decisions. Another is post-baccalaureate degrees and certifications in education, a field many reformers hold in contempt. Several studies do report low correlation between experience (defined as years in the profession) and students' test scores. Other studies find a similarly low correlation between students' scores and teachers' post- baccalaureate degrees and certifications. These studies lead to an absolute claim that neither experience nor schooling beyond the bachelor's degree makes any difference.


What a remarkable assertion. Can you think of any other kind of work--from hair styling to neurosurgery--where we don't value experience and training? If reformers had a better understanding of teaching, they might wonder whether something was amiss with the studies, which tend to deal in simple averages and define experience or training in crude ways.Experience, for example, is typically defined as years on the j ob, yet years in service, considered alone, don't mean that much. A dictionary definition of experience--"activity that includes training, observation of practice, and personal participation and knowledge gained from this"-- indicates the connection to competence. The teachers in Possible Lives had attended workshops and conferences, participated in professional networks, or taken classes. They experimented with

their curricula and searched out ideas and materials to incorporate into their work. What people do with their time on the job becomes the foundation of expertise.



More generally, the qualities of good work--study and experimentation, the accumulation of knowledge, and refinement of skill--are thinly represented in descriptions of teacher quality, overshadowed by the simplified language of testing. In a similar vein, the long history of Western thought on education--from Plato to Septima Clark--is rarely if ever mentioned in the reform literature. History as well as experience and inquiry are replaced with a metric.



These attitudes toward experience are rooted in the technocratic-managerial ideology that drives many kinds of policy, from health care to urban planning to agriculture: the devaluing of local, craft, and experiential knowledge and the elevating of systems thinking, of finding the large economic, social, or organizational levers to pull in order to initiate change. A professor of management tells a University of California class of aspiring principals that the more they know about the particulars of instruction, the less effective they'll be, for that nitty-gritty knowledge will blur their perception of the problem and the application of universal principles of management--as fitting for a hospital or a manufacturing plant as a school.


This dismissal of classroom knowledge fits with the trendy discourse of innovation and creative disruption, a discourse that runs throughout education reform, asserting that it will take entrepreneurial outsiders to change the system. I understand the impulse here, because getting something fresh through large school bureaucracies can be maddening. But creative disruption is predicated on the belief that anything new must be better, and it relies on a reductive model of organizational and technological change. One of the celebrated technologies in the disrupters' armory is the computer, which clearly allows wonderful things to happen in education. But online charter schools have a troubled record, and higher education's much ballyhooed massive open online courses, or MOOCs, are proving to be much more limited in their usefulness or success than predicted. The computer's potential is realized only when people who are wise about teaching and learning program it, and when it is integrated into a strong curriculum taught by someone who is savvy about its use.

STANDARDIZED TESTING DISCOURAGES IMAGINATION IN FAVOR OF TECHNIQUE


IF YOU PARE DOWN YOUR CONCEPT OF TEACHING far enough, you are left with sequences of behaviors and routines--with techniques. Technique becomes central to the reformers' redefinition of teaching, and the focus on technique is at the heart of many of the alternative teacher credentialing programs that have emerged over the past decade. Effective techniques are an important part of the complex activity that is teaching, and good mentorship includes analyzing a teacher's work and providing corrective feedback. Teachers of teachers have been doing this for a long time. What is new is the nearly exclusive focus on techniques, the increased role of digital technology to study them, and the attempt to define "effective" by seeking positive correlations between specific techniques and, you guessed it, students' standardized test scores. What is also new is the magnitude of the effort, punched up considerably by a $45 million project funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to measure effective teaching.



Because teaching involves a good deal of craft, Fm all for implementing useful techniques, from guidance on giving directions to ways to pose a math problem. But given the technocratic orientation of contemporary school reform, I worry that other aspects of teaching less easily observed and circumscribed--bearing, beliefs about learning, a sensibility about students' lives-- will get short shrift.



Techniques don't work in isolation. The sequencing of questions, for example, is a crucial skill, but it depends on the teacher's knowledge of the material being taught, children's typical responses to this material, the kinds of misconceptions and errors they make, and the alternative explanations and illustrations that might help them. A teacher can't ask meaningful questions for long without this kind of knowledge. In equal measure, the effectiveness of techniques, particularly for classroom management, is influenced by students' sense of a teacher's concern for them and understanding of them.


When I was visiting schools in Chicago, I spent time in Michelle Smith's high school math classroom. One morning, she was calling her class to order and saw that a boy who plays the class clown was sitting way in the back. She called him by name, then said, "My young gentleman, I'd like you to sit up here where I can see you." The student groaned, uncurled himself from his desk, and walked to the front, sauntering for the benefit of his peers. "C'mon darlin'," Smith added, head tilted, hand on hip, "humor me." She watched; he sat down. "Thank you, sir. I feel better." With a mix of humor and direction, she had deftly changed the seating to ensure order in the room--an effective technique for classroom management.

Imagine, however, the unpleasant ways this situation could have played out: the student refusing to move, insulting or threatening her, or stirring up his comrades sitting nearby. But Smith's action occurred in the context of a relationship with the class and with that boy, a legacy of her care and of the learning that goes on in her classroom. ("Miss Smith," the boy later told me, "she's teaching us how to do things we couldn't do before.") Smith knows local culture, understands the rituals of masculinity and the huge importance of allowing that student a little space to save face. She has developed a classroom persona that blends sass and seriousness, and she uses it strategically. Technique works in context and within the flow of other events.

STANDARDIZED TESTING HAS BEEN DETRIMENTAL

KNOWING SOMETHING AND KNOWING HOW TO DO SOMETHING ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

Moye, Johnny J., William E. Dugger, Jr., and Kendall N. Starkweather. [2014] "Is 'learning by doing' important? A study of doing-based learning: this is the second in a series of articles discussing the Doing-Based Learning study." Technology and Engineering Teacher Nov. 2014: 22+. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

Knowing something and knowing how to do something are very different things. In past years the world has recognized the U.S. as a leader in education and a nation of doers and innovators.U.S. schools produced these innovators who kept our economy strong and our country secure. However, the ability of U.S. schools to produce citizens with those abilities seems to have ebbed, and our innovative prominence has eroded.


It appears that over the past several decades the approach to education has been to prepare students for standardized (high-stakes) tests versus teaching them how to apply knowledge (Archbald & Newmann, 1988; Martinez & Stager, 2013). Possessing knowledge is very important. However, being able to draw upon and apply that knowledge is necessary to adequately function in life and the reason why learning is so important. In a study identifying a means to improve students' statistical thinking, Sedlmeier (2000) found that, "learning by doing has a large and lasting effect on how well people can solve conjunctive probability tasks" (p.227). In support of the Activity Based Learning approach, in 2011 Robert Yager (Professor of Science, University of Iowa) posed the question: "Why is there not more attention to all students (and teachers) actually "doing" science in every K-16 science classroom"? (p. 62).



Ongoing international studies and other standardized measures have provided performance data on the quality of education for students in participating countries. These studies include data collection on cognitive knowledge but do not have a strong emphasis on measures related to doing. Measuring cognitive knowledge and not the ability to apply that knowledge comes with controversy. To a great extent, the emphasis is on high-stakes standardized testing, while there is very little focus on measuring the ability for students to use that knowledge.



During the time that the U.S. has increased focus on standardized testing, "there has been a marked increase in the share of jobs that require creative problem-solving skills." (PISA, n.d. para. 1). Discussing their performance on the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Problem Solving Assessment, the "students in the United States perform slightly above the average (500 points) of the 28 OECD countries that took part in the assessment." (PISA, n.d. para. 2). Further, the PISA report identified that only 18.2% of U.S. students reached "the baseline level of proficiency in problem solving--meaning that, at best, they are only able to solve very simple problems that do not require thinking ahead" (PISA, n.d., para. 5).


Ongoing international studies and other standardized measures have provided performance data on the quality of education for students in participating countries. These studies include data collection on cognitive knowledge but do not have a strong emphasis on measures related to doing. Measuring cognitive knowledge and not the ability to apply that knowledge comes with controversy. To a great extent, the emphasis is on high-stakes standardized testing, while there is very little focus on measuring the ability for students to use that knowledge.



During the time that the U.S. has increased focus on standardized testing, "there has been a marked increase in the share of jobs that require creative problem-solving skills." (PISA, n.d. para. 1). Discussing their performance on the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Problem Solving Assessment, the "students in the United States perform slightly above the average (500 points) of the 28 OECD countries that took part in the assessment." (PISA, n.d. para. 2). Further, the PISA report identified that only 18.2% of U.S. students reached "the baseline level of proficiency in problem solving--meaning that, at best, they are only able to solve very simple problems that do not require thinking ahead" (PISA, n.d., para. 5).

STANDARDIZED TESTING HAS ENCOURAGED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Technology & Learning Nov. 2014 "Pros and cons of assessment." : 42+. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

In 2009, Dr. Beverly Hall, former superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools, was named America's National Superintendent of the Year for "representing the 'best of the best' in public school leadership." Hall was hosted in the White House by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. In 2010, the American Educational Research Association honored her with its Distinguished Community Service Award, which "recognizes exceptional contributions to advancing the use of education research and statistics." Also in 2010, President Obama appointed Hall to the elite National Board for Education Sciences.


In 2013, Hall was indicted by a grand jury in Georgia for "violation of Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, false statements and writings, false swearing, and theft by taking." The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act is a law typically used against Mafia leaders. If she is convicted, Hall faces 45 years in prison.

STANDARDIZED TESTS ENCOURAGE CHEATING


The villain behind these cheating scandals is the accountability system itself, which is based on high-stakes testing. Ushered in by President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 and reinforced by President Barack Obama's Race to the Top initiative in 2009, test-based accountability that directly links student performance to educators' livelihoods has become the yardstick of American education. By attaching lavish rewards and harsh punishment to student test scores, the system provides powerful incentives for cheating. Educators have far less control over student performance--and far less impact on its quality--than policy makers presume. And that's especially true for teachers working in impoverished communities.


When it comes to the harm done by high-stakes testing, rampant cheating is just the tip of the iceberg. As Sharon Nichols and David Berliner point out in their book, Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools, this "cooking of the books" is but one of many damages done by testing reported by parents, teachers, and researchers. Education historian Diane Ravitch warns in her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, that high-stakes testing is one of the many symptoms of a virus threatening America's future.

STANDARDIZED TESTING FUELS AUTHORITARIANISM


That virus is the rising tide of authoritarianism in the United States. In exchange for the comfort of knowing how their children are doing academically and that their schools are being held accountable, Americans welcomed high-stakes testing into public education. Without the benefit of historical experience with these kinds of high-stakes tests, however, Americans failed to recognize those benign-looking tests as a Trojan horse--with a dangerous ghost inside. That ghost, authoritarianism, sees education as a way to instill in all students the same knowledge and skills deemed valuable by the authority.


The tale told by Chinese education illustrates the full range of tragic events that can happen under authoritarian rule. As one of the perfect incarnations of authoritarian education, China has produced superior test takers who have maintained a great civilization for millennia--but failed to cultivate talents to defend against Western aggressions backed by modern technology and sciences in the 1800s. Since then, China has struggled to retreat from its tradition of authoritarian education. Although China has already benefited from a gradual withdrawal from central dictation, as evidenced by its recent miraculous economic growth, authoritarianism still rules.

STANDARDIZED TESTING FUELS AUTHORITARIANISM


High-stakes testing is America's Faustian bargain, made with the devil of authoritarianism. Under the rule of authoritarianism, which gave birth to high-stakes testing in the first place, disrespect of teachers as professional colleagues and intrusion into their professional autonomy are praised as characteristics of no-nonsense, tough leadership with high expectations. Beverly Hall became national Superintendent of the Year for having "demonstrated a commitment to setting high standards for students and school personnel." That commitment turned out to be authoritarian rule, as a 2012 New York Times report points out: "For years, Beverly L. Hall, the former school superintendent here [in the Atlanta schools], ruled by fear. Principals were told that if state test scores did not go up enough, they would be fired--and 90% of them were removed in the decade of Dr. Hall's reign."

MOST AMERICANS ARE AGAINST STANDARDIZED TESTING

Bushaw, William J., and Valerie J. Calderon. [2014] "Try it again, Uncle Sam: the 46th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 96.1 (2014): 9. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

A careful reading of the results of the 46th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools confirms what the data suggested last year: A majority o' Americans do not support public education initiatives that they believe were created by or promoted by federal policy makers

FOR EXAMPLE:

Over half of Americans (56%) say local school boards should have the greatest influence in deciding what is taught in the public schools.

Most Americans (60%) oppose the Common Core State Standards, fearing that the standards will limit the flexibility of the teachers in their communities to teach what they think is best.

Seven of 10 Americans support public charter schools, particularly when they're described as schools that can operate independently and free of regulations.

Most Americans (54%) don't believe standardized tests help teachers know what to teach.

Americans continue to assign higher grades to their local schools but far lower grades to the nation's schools in general.

Americans gave the President significantly lower grades on his performance in support of public schools.

MOST AMERICANS ARE AGAINST STANDARDIZED TESTING


Most Americans believe the local school board should have the greatest influence in deciding what's taught in the public schools, an increase from the last time we asked this question in 2007.

This is alongside a decline in the percentage of Americans who support the federal government's influence.

By far, lack of financial support continues to be the No. 1 challenge facing public schools in America.

Other challenges most often mentioned were concerns about curriculum standards, student discipline, and getting and keeping good teachers.

TESTING DOES NOT CORRECT THE REAL PROBLEMS


Biggest problem: Funding. There is never enough money. This imparts our families, students, and teachers. Every year, the supply lists have more added to them. The most shocking item on the list is Kleenex. Families just don't have the money for this.

Influence: The federal government should have the greatest influence. They have access to more information than a school board or even a state. They know what's needed across the country.They look at the big picture. The local school board is just in tune with the community they're servicing.


Standardized tests: Teachers should pay attention to test scores because we're making students take the tests. I hope, at some point, that they're using the information to tailor what they are teaching, but I don't think teachers pay very much attention to them because they already have their lessons planned.


But I also don't think test results are as reliable as we would hope they would be. A lot of kids just freeze up during testing. They panic because it's a "test" so you don't really know what they know. And I don't think teachers should be evaluated based on test results. There's more to being a teacher than just one test or one day. It would be really sad for a teacher to be fired over test scores.

TEACHERS ARE DISCOURAGING OTHERS FROM ENTERING TEACHING

"Award-Winning Educator Decries Current Teaching Climate; Awardee criticizes common core, tests." Education Week 1 Apr. 2015: 8. PowerSearch. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

An influential language arts educator who recently won a high-profile international prize for teaching had some surprising advice for young people interested in becoming public school teachers today: Don't do it.

The profession has been severely "constrained" by the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and schools' emphasis on standardized testing, Nancie Atwell, who won the first$1 million Global Teacher Prize on March 15, said in an interview on CNN.

The award, given by the Varkey Foundation in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, was created to improve the public image of the teaching profession by bringing recognition to the work of outstanding teachers. Boasting an illustrious panel of judges from across the education and business communities, the program has been lauded by the likes of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former President Bill Clinton, who is the honorary chair of the Varkey Foundation.

STANDARDIZED TESTING DOESN’T MEASURE LEARNING WELL


But many educators say that the current tests used to measure student progress--and hold schools and teachers accountable--don't measure learning well. "Standardized tests measure the wrong things," Stephen Lazar, a teacher at Harvest Collegiate High School, told the packed hearing room. They measure mindless repetition of facts, he said.

Pressure to raise student test scores can turn classes into cramming sessions. Lazar said he spends the entire month of May training his students to pass the Regents, New York state exams. "The learning and opportunity gap widens" when students with low scores spend so much time on test prep, while students with high scores can take on more complex assignments, he said.

Better assessments could, in theory, create better data. But it's hard for the federal government to address that problem. The United States doesn't have a national curriculum. Any federal attempt to create better tests would involve influencing their content and would be politically controversial

SAT AND ACT DO NOT PREDICT COLLEGE SUCCESS


Thirty years ago, Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, stopped requiring standardized tests like the SAT or ACT for admission. Since then, 850 colleges and universities have followed and made the tests optional.

A colleague and I recently completed a national study of 123,000 students at 33 public and private colleges and universities to evaluate the effectiveness of optional-testing policies. Our basic question was simple: Do students admitted without SAT or ACT scores succeed in college?

In a nutshell, yes. About 30 percent of the students in our study were admitted without SAT or ACT scores. Our study found no significant differences-in either college GPA or graduation rates-between students who submitted standardized test scores and those who did not.


High school grades, not test scores, are the best predictor of college success. Regardless of their income level or race, students with strong high school grades in tough courses generally perform well in college, even if they had average or even poor SAT or ACT scores. In other words, research shows that hard work and good grades in high school are what matter most. It's more important to show what you can do over four years, not in four hours on one Saturday morning.

America must find paths to higher education for students who have proven themselves to everyone except testing agencies. Making standardized tests optional improves the chances of success for more students.

STUDENTS IN TOP FOREIGN NATIONS ARE TESTED VERY FEW TIMES

Linda Darling-Hammond [May 30, 2011] Execessive Testing Is a DangerouS Obsession. The New York Times. [Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommon Professor of Education at Stanford University, where she is co-director of the Stanford Center on Opportunity Policy in Education. She was founding director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, and she led President Obama’s education policy transition team.]

However, nations like Finland and Korea -- top scorers on the Programme for International Student Assessment -- formally test students only in the 12th grade, to inform college admissions, having eliminated the crowded testing schedules used decades ago when these nations were much lower-achieving. Other high-achievers typically test students but once in elementary and/or middle school to see how they are progressing. Those that add essay examinations in high school, like Hong Kong, Singapore and the U.K., increasingly include school-based assessments of project-based activities like science investigations and research papers. None of these nations use the kind of multiple-choice tests common in the United States.

MORE TESTING OF STUDENTS DOES NOT MAKE TEACHERS BETTER

Linda Darling-Hammond [May 30, 2011] Execessive Testing Is a DangerouS Obsession. The New York Times. [Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommon Professor of Education at Stanford University, where she is co-director of the Stanford Center on Opportunity Policy in Education. She was founding director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, and she led President Obama’s education policy transition team.]

Meanwhile American students, who now spend weeks of every school year from 3rd grade to 11th grade bubbling in answers on high-stakes tests, currently perform well below those of other industrialized countries in math and science, and have more trouble writing, analyzing and defending their views, because they have much less practice in doing so.

Linda Darling-Hammond [May 30, 2011] Execessive Testing Is a Dangerous Obsession. The New York Times. [Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommon Professor of Education at Stanford University, where she is co-director of the Stanford Center on Opportunity Policy in Education. She was founding director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, and she led President Obama’s education policy transition team.]

The current desire to attach scores from a burgeoning battery of tests to teacher evaluation could make matters worse. Recent research shows that test score gains are highly unstable and error- prone for measuring individual teachers, and that making high-stakes decisions based on these tests causes schools to reduce their teaching of important content and skills not measured by the tests. As a group of leading researchers warned last week before the New York Regents voted on such a scheme, we can expect teaching and curriculum to be narrowed further as teachers focus more intensely on these tests, and we can expect teachers to seek to avoid serving special education students, new English learners and others whose learning is poorly measured by the tests.

STANDARDIZED TESTING DIVERTS ATTENTION FROM SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Paul Thomas [July 6, 2011] Avoiding the Poverty Issue. The New York Times. [Paul Thomas is an associate professor of education at Furman University in Greenville, S.C. He is writing a book on poverty in the United States

Evidence and basic logic refute the use of test scores to evaluate the quality of teachers. Many examinations of using test scores in teacher evaluation have exposed the complexity and difficulty in identifying teacher quality and measuring it. But beyond that evidence, we should consider the tension created by our faith in accountability and the flaw of holding teachers accountable for the outcomes of their students.


Overwhelming evidence shows that student outcomes in education are connected to out-of- school factors -- from about 60 percent to as much as 86 percent. But admitting and accepting that student achievement and education quality are overwhelmed by cultural and social dynamics speaks against our idealized view of our culture and our enduring faith in rugged individualism.

Continuing to place faith and power in standardized test scores -- despite decades of evidence that test scores reflect more significantly the lives of children than the quality of teachers or schools -- reveals our social refusal to examine our commitments and the undeniable inequity of our society.



Test-based claims of education in Finland being superior to our system help mask our failure to care about childhood poverty as a society. The U.S. has well above 20 percent of children in poverty, while only 3 percent to 4 percent of children in Finland are poor.



In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed: "We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished."Focusing on tests, schools and teachers allows political discourse to keep our attention distracted from the social failures reflected in our schools, not caused by our schools.Why do we cling to test scores and demonize our teachers and schools? To avoid facing the plight of poverty on our children and our schools.

BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE UNCERTAIN


The current desire to attach scores from a burgeoning battery of tests to teacher evaluation could make matters worse. Recent research shows that test score gains are highly unstable and error- prone for measuring individual teachers, and that making high-stakes decisions based on these tests causes schools to reduce their teaching of important content and skills not measured by the tests. As a group of leading researchers warned last week before the New York Regents voted on such a scheme, we can expect teaching and curriculum to be narrowed further as teachers focus more intensely on these tests, and we can expect teachers to seek to avoid serving special education students, new English learners and others whose learning is poorly measured by the tests.

nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web view12/11/2014 · nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com

Documents

Transcript of nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web view12/11/2014 · nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com