Haley Davis
English 1301 TTAP 9:30
November 10, 2014
TEACHING TO THE TEST: IS HARMING KIDS
Hammering test preparations into the brains of children can only cause more harm than good, leaving many with nothing more than a migraine headache to deal with. Teaching to the test, solely focuses on preparing for standardized tests, and its pressures of passing such a test. When a district decides on a test, the curriculum, and what is critical for the students to achieve, they are taking instruction out of the hands of the teachers and students, and putting it into the hands of politicians and individual businesses who sell the test.
With math and reading scores being the only measurement of evaluations assessed, as well as a teacher’s performance, takes on an utmost precedence in the classroom, making it more important than critical thinking, critical analysis, social growth, and logical inquisitiveness, therefore leaving huge gaps in our public education. With less time provided for other standard based curriculum to explore or higher critical learning skills to be developed. This type of building construction does not prepare students for the day-to-day challenges of a job nor does it prepare students for college life (Analyzing the Reliability of the Easy).
Research suggests that teaching to the test fails the students as a whole because it does not provide developmental opportunities for critical thinking, reasoning, and analytical skills. “No Child Left Behind” which is the title of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act describes a worthy goal for our nation but is aggravating and not solving the problems that causes many children to be left behind prior reports and articles on NCLB have exposed problems with most of these studies focusing on the effects of NCLB. A few studies have tried to expose the laws conceptual and structural flaws and have proposed small changes; those adopted were only minor revisions. None of these studies proposed an alternative approach to the federal role in improving public schools for students in poverty.
Teaching to the test does not allow developmental critical learning to progress. NCLB asks for several evaluations that assess higher order thinking and are methodically beneficial. However, the Department of Education, here in the U.S., and in most states, does not impose, is not rooted. The drive for consistency and the necessities for rapidly enforcing, “in need of improvement” rulings and penalties makes it inadvertently unfeasible for states to execute and measurement structure that promotes high-quality learning (Failing Our Children). An increasing amount of research advocates high stakes measurements show little to no growth on the status of a student’s success. As a result, its execution comes at a major social expense. Connecting specific responsibility rules to standardized measurement produces a strong encouragement to whittle down curriculum to specific areas that need to be tested, as well as an increased instruction known as the drill and kill. Studies show standardized responsibility restructuring provides negative results and decision-making policies (Re-Thinking the Concept). There has been an fluctuation of time allowed on test practices at the cost of “engaging and varied learning activities” that standardized testing altered instruction has promoted (School Is So Boring). Standardized test scores may improve with teaching to the test, however, “it narrows the breadth and depth of knowledge” along with comprehension that is obtained. This could result in harmful results on educational instruction for a pupil and produce a false impression onto the community that there is an educational gain in students learning, where in all honesty, there is not.
An increasing amount of research advocates high stake measurements show little to no growth on the status of a student’s success however; its execution has major expenses socially. Connecting specific
