Standardized Testing vs. Pedagogy Standardized testing has become a huge topic of debate in the United States of America. It’s rise over the past 20 plus years has caused much speculation on whether or not it is the best form of assessment for K-12 students. The rise is largely due to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act that passed in 1994 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation shifted the focus of assessment onto multiple choice testing of common state curriculum, with the hopes that it would raise the standards of Education all over the country. This shift has not yielded the results that were hoped through this legislation, and has put ever more pressure on educators who now have to plan their own activities as well
…show more content…
It stated national goals that were related to student readiness for public education, a graduation rate rise of 90%, subject attainment improvement, the ability for our students to compete internationally, preparing adults with life and civic skills, and making a completely drug and violence free environment for all schools in America. While these goals were incredibly noble they were also impossible to reach, “everyone knew they were unattainable, but pretended to take them seriously” (Moores, 2004). According to Moores, the goals applying to everyone in the U.S. was just unfeasible. Despite their unrealistic expectations, this legislation laid the groundwork for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that had much more specific measurements for …show more content…
Alexandra Cole and Jennifer De Maio believe that in order to successfully assess students, the process of developing assessment tools needs to be a collaborative effort that includes faculty input. “There are obvious advantages to using standardized tests: they are traditional, widely recognized, and accepted means of assessment; they are not labor intensive; they can offer longitudinal data; and they can be useful as part of a multiple-method approach” (Cole & De Maio, 2009). However, Cole and De Maio also argue that while this testing is effective, it is not the only approach that should be used for assessment of learning outcomes. The article goes on to suggest that only using standardized tests can hurt students ability to think critically and tie different concepts together the way that they could using less traditional types of
It stated national goals that were related to student readiness for public education, a graduation rate rise of 90%, subject attainment improvement, the ability for our students to compete internationally, preparing adults with life and civic skills, and making a completely drug and violence free environment for all schools in America. While these goals were incredibly noble they were also impossible to reach, “everyone knew they were unattainable, but pretended to take them seriously” (Moores, 2004). According to Moores, the goals applying to everyone in the U.S. was just unfeasible. Despite their unrealistic expectations, this legislation laid the groundwork for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that had much more specific measurements for …show more content…
Alexandra Cole and Jennifer De Maio believe that in order to successfully assess students, the process of developing assessment tools needs to be a collaborative effort that includes faculty input. “There are obvious advantages to using standardized tests: they are traditional, widely recognized, and accepted means of assessment; they are not labor intensive; they can offer longitudinal data; and they can be useful as part of a multiple-method approach” (Cole & De Maio, 2009). However, Cole and De Maio also argue that while this testing is effective, it is not the only approach that should be used for assessment of learning outcomes. The article goes on to suggest that only using standardized tests can hurt students ability to think critically and tie different concepts together the way that they could using less traditional types of