In the midst of March Madness, our students are facing their own version of this crazed time period; testing season. Assess this, measure that, extrapolate these, but what for? According to UCLA’s Dr. James Popham, when using an assessment it must meet at least one of four guidelines. These guidelines include: diagnosing students’ strengths and weaknesses, monitoring students’ progress, assigning grades to students, and determining one’s own instructional effectiveness.
On the surface, one might argue that all of the increased standardized testing must surely achieve one of these aims, right? If only it were that simple. The arrival and implementation of the Common Core Standards and PARCC testing is allegedly designed to lead to enhanced diagnostics, particularly on predicting future success in college or a career.
The premise is well and good, of course we, as educators, future educators, and citizens in a democratic society, want our students to be on pace with their peers across the globe and to be prepared for whatever career, technical, educational route they choose to take. However, I assert that the increased testing is not going to lead to the desired outcomes. Essentially, the assessment is neither valid nor reliable. The computer-based nature of the PARCC testing clearly does not appeal to the multiple styles of learning that our students generally fit into.
There has been much research done on multiple intelligences, particularly the eight primary and generally accepted types that are currently in use. For example, those students that learn best interpersonally or kinesthetically would most likely have a difficult time sitting at a computer by themselves for any extended period of time and maintain focus. This does not mean that particular student does not know the material in question or can’t work his or her way through the issue; rather he or she is put into a situation that is not conducive for their learning styles.
Additionally, the increased pressure on districts, administrators, and teachers has led to a departure from the nature of schooling. Naturally, each person has a different perspective on the purpose of schooling, although I would be hard pressed to find someone that didn’t want critical thinking, engaged, and passionate citizens entering society. By focusing on the testing and teaching to the test, educators are being stripped of their individuality and forced to be a grotesquely robot-like employee. In order to achieve students with the qualities listed above, we, as a society, must flip the switch in order to achieve a balance between the testing-crazed philosophy and the philosophy of engaged and informed students.
Moderation and balance is key, just as in anything, and our schools have as little of it as they have ever experienced and something must give, or we risk the future of our city, state, and country.