I am not surprised that there is so
much negativity surrounding PARCC testing. Each year, both students and
teachers struggle with the “importance” of standardized testing. While teachers
are forced to rush through the curriculum and cutting out lessons unimportant
to the test, students feel the stress and pressures prevalent in the school
community and may start to recognize a deficit ideology in themselves. As a
result, something which seems good in theory is not good in practice. If there
is such negative talk around education, what do students learn in the
classroom? The answer according o the readings is virtually nothing. To me, it
appears that the only things students learn are how to memorize and recall
information and “passing” a test. According to Dr. Johnson’s essay, about 80%
of teachers have students who think negatively of the exam, whether about their
performance or the test in general. Because students are almost unable to
express themselves and their interests in the typical classroom, they believe
that the education system is out to destroy them. This idea is also prevalent
among diverse learners (special education, ELL’s, etc.). The PARCC test
illustrates the ideals of American society. The questions and directions are
not geared for all types of learners, rather, questions and directions focus on
those in power. If a student cannot read and understand the questions, how can
they do well?
What really strikes me is the
relation between PARCC testing and common core standards. Generally speaking,
the common core writing standards give freedom to both teacher and student.
Upon first glance, it seems that the creators of said standards have the
students’ best interests in mind. In other words, the non-content specific
standards allow students the freedom to express themselves. While this may be
the case, the current education system appears to find more consolation knowing
that they are drilling facts into students. They think that setting children up
to be at the same level is more productive than allowing them to think and
explore. These readings made it apparent that there is a need for ongoing
discussion about the disadvantages of such tests and the benefits of critical
thinking and literacy.
What differences do you see between the CCSS and the NCTE standards? Look at verbs and consider the implicit ideologies.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that the relationship between the standards and the test is a little strained. Those designing the standards, both NCTE and CCSS, seem to be directing their attention towards developing the kinds of skills that will help students to be thoughtful individuals and prepare them for further education (even if not explicitly preparing them for real life. The tests, on the other hand, don't seem to align in any way with the goal of teaching our kids.
ReplyDeletei agree with you and Scott about the disconnect between standards and the test. What i mentioned in my own post is how, while the standards promote lifelong learning, the test absolutely stunts any kind of academic growth or progress that a student may have achieved thus far. I liked what you said about the test trying to set all students up to be at the same level. I think that individualized learning is a much better approach than forcing everyone to reach an unattainable level of "competence" in a subject area, which is only measured by the PARCC test, rather than diverse assessments.
ReplyDelete