Ellison, C.

CT 709 Response Paper 2 1

Education curriculum is a pendulum, swinging back and forth. Ideals are adopted,

abandoned, and adopted again at a later point. In the current swing, standardized testing is the

buzz word. Everyone is talking about testing more testing needed, what assessments to

use/how to use them, mandated testing, too much testing... Standardized testing has a place in

education, but it is my opinion that testing is taking precedence over learning.

The underlying thought behind testing is to show progress/mastery of the content. In

theory, this concept is sound how can students show what they know? In practice, however,

testing has taken on a different meaning. In addition to allowing students to demonstrate

knowledge, testing is used to determine teacher/school funding, to determine student progress,

and to show proficiency. These concepts might be innocuous by themselves, but in todays high-

stakes testing world, this combination serves be a volatile cocktail. Educators are faced with

endangered jobs, based on poor test scores. Students, especially elementary, are no longer

encouraged to pursue creative outlets. Student learning is pushed back testing now takes

precedence, and testing occurs sometimes more frequently than actual learning.

Most of the rigorous testing is a result of The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This

was enacted on the thought that having high standards and measurable outcomes would increase

student success. According to a National Education Association (NEA) article, the testing

obsession has nudged aside visual arts, music, physical education, social studies, and science, not

to mention world languages Our schools, once vigorous and dynamic centers for learning,

have been reduced to mere test prep factories, where teachers and students act out a script written

by someone who has never visited their classroom and where achievement means nothing more

than scoring well on a bubble test, (Walker, 2014). Sadly, this statement still holds true today.

Not only does this take resources away from schools in need, but it penalizes students who do
Ellison, C. CT 709 Response Paper 2 2

not think of the world in tests, or are unable to demonstrate knowledge on a test. By limiting our

focus to just teaching to the test, we are showing students that we as a society do not value

creative, well-rounded individuals, and that we only value you if you can pass a test.

In addition, high-stakes testing does not allow students to show mastery. Teachers today

spend their instruction period highlighting information found on the test. Educators find

themselves answering questions with the response of Write this down. Youll need to know this

for the test. That kind of knowledge is stored temporarily, with no real connections for the

students. Students learn the material for the test, and then will never use it again or even be able

to recall it later on.

I have seen first-hand the quantity of assessments used in elementary schools. In a

previous district, we were assessing students in fifth grade constantly. Looking at the curriculum

map provided by the district, there were many periods where a testing window for a particular

assessment was less than a week apart from a different assessment window. We no sooner

finished one assessment then we had to prepare for the next. This rigorous schedule was not

beneficial to the students. We (grade level team) saw a drop in test scores, a decrease in student

performance, and an increase in student behaviors. After viewing state assessment results, little

student progress was achieved. Testing was occurring too much, with not enough time devoted

to actual instruction.

William Pinar felt that Reconceptualization is a reaction to what the field has been, and

what it is seen to be at the present time, (Flinders p. 149). Pinar felt that one curriculum camp

could not exist without another (traditionalists, conceptual-empiricists, and reconceptualists are

not exclusive of each other), but that there needs to be a balance between them. I agree with his
Ellison, C. CT 709 Response Paper 2 3

assertion. You can have too much of one, and not enough of another, which detracts from the

contribution to education.

I have both general education classroom experience and special education self-contained

classroom experience. In regards to testing, I support the Special Education testing over what is

used in the classroom. To show mastery, students in an alternate learning program were allowed

to complete Performance portfolios. Students were allowed to submit various projects, of their

own creation, to show understanding and mastery. However, demanding criteria had to be met to

allow for this option. To allow more student success, and to meet the needs of testing, I believe

that all students should be allowed to demonstrate knowledge via this alternative method. The

standardized testing as we know it today should be replaced with more thought-provoking

projects which students design to show mastery. Students can learn how to take tests, or they can

learn about the world around them, and demonstrate, based on their knowledge and skill set.

Portfolio-based assessment should be the norm, not the exception.

To ensure equality and consistency, rubrics would be put in place for the portfolio

assessment. Yes, it takes longer to grade than a computerized, multiple-choice test, but it is a

more accurate representation of what the student truly knows. These rubrics should be simple

and generic, to allow for a multitude of different creations. It should judge based on level of

understanding shown by the student, and can be a checklist of sorts, to ensure that all pertinent

information is displayed.

Portfolio-based assessments would allow all students to be successful, not just those who

can get lucky clicking on a computer screen. It also dispels test-anxiety, because its not a test.

When allowed to create their own way to demonstrate knowledge, students will put forth more

effort, the resulting outcome will be much more significant, and the student can satisfactorily
Ellison, C. CT 709 Response Paper 2 4

show understanding of a concept. Students who dont take tests well, or students who have a

different learning modality will benefit, as well as the students who have been taught to the

test. I feel that portfolio-based assessments are a viable testing source.

In regards to this issue, I do view myself as a critical pedagogue, because I am wanting

the best for all students. I see that the current method is not benefiting all students, and have

proposed a solution that would instead satisfy the unmet need. My definition of insanity is doing

the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. By constantly assessing

students, we keep expecting a different outcome. Therefore I conclude that we are insane.

Instead, my solution is to reduce the number of assessments given and to allow students choice

in their assessments. While not a radical choice, this aspect is often overlooked, simply because

it does not conform to the preconceived notions that more testing is better, and that different

results will be reached. We are in a society of more, more, more, and unfortunately, testing has

been included. Sadly, our students will be the ones to suffer.

References:

Flinders, D. J. & Thornton, S. J. (2012). The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. In The

curriculum studies reader (4th ed., p. 149-156). New York: NY: Routledge.

Walker, T. (2014, September 2). The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing Curriculum

NEA Today. Retrieved November 21, 2015, from http://neatoday.org/2014/09/02/the-

testing-obsession-and-the-disappearing-curriculum-2/.