In our current cultural climate of “leaving no child behind,” proficiency testing has become the means of assessing progress. Such testing creates a climate in which a school’s curriculum is based upon what is being tested. This raises a serious question: What is the basis for a standardized “proficiency” test? Is it not to test children for a minimal standard of achievement? Such thinking makes educators set the bar at the least common denominator rather than setting it at the level of the average student’s potential. This means that in our current system, only the weakest students struggle, while those who are in the upper 40-50% of their class are being kept from realizing their own potential.
This leads to the opening question: What is the goal of education? Is it to prepare our children for their future, providing them with the skills and knowledge necessary to be a productive member of society in a workplace that is increasingly global. If this is the goal of education, then the least common denominator cannot be our standard. Such an education would teach only the basics, never daring the students to push themselves to their potential.
Others would say that the goal of education is more complex. For those students who can not (or will not) attend college, school teaches those basic skills necessary for living and being productive in the workforce. For those students who do wish to pursue a college degree, the goal is to help them be well rounded, preparing each student for the unique experiences they will find in college. Yet how does standardized testing help these children?
At its best, testing does little more than diagnose where problems exist. It does nothing to fix the problems. And testing is not always at its best. Consider the child to whom the test is administered. Does that test show the child’s ability or does it show how well the child tested that day? As a pastor, I’ve talked to parents whose child has failed one of these tests. On one occasion, the child’s parents were divorced just a few days before the test. Another child was ill the day of the test, but was well enough to go to school. Both of these children are bright; both were functioning well under their full potential, and both failed the test. When the test was re-administered later, both children passed the test easily.
1 comment:
Tom:
Good post. You are right; we are on the horns of a dilemma on this one. Testing is clearly not a great way to measure learning, but if not testing, then what?
It should be mentioned that the motivation for such testing was the fact that too many persons were graduating from high school who were functionally illiterate. Whatever the reasons for this, a standard of measurement became necessary.
Where do we go from here? Good question?
Post a Comment