Home > Education > Primary School > Reading & Writing Skills
Should schools require more rigorous testing of students to determine literacy levels?
Results so far:
| No | 49% | 231 votes | Total: 474 votes | |
| Yes | 51% | 243 votes |
No
by Kathy Myers
Created on: December 11, 2009
As an educator I have seen many changes in education over the past 23 years. The amount of time spent on testing has skyrocketed. I feel like we are testing every few weeks and I am not persuaded that it is reliable or valid concerning assessing needs of students, and basing their literacy deficiencies and achievement on such tests.
One very important thing we have to remember is all tests are not created equal, and more is not always better. In many schools there are at least three different types of assessments used on a regular basis. Tests are administered at least three times a year to assess reading and math, and at times even more frequent. These are not classroom tests that gauge learning based on what the teacher has taught or presented, but test that are supposed to assess overall learning, which in my opinion; they only give a brief inconsistent view of students learning.
Reading tests are also constructed in various formats which play a monumental role in the success of the student when completing these tests. Johnny may be a whiz-bang at reading, but the way the questions are posed directly affects how he might respond. If he is not familiar with that specific format it could give a false interpretation of his scores.
Test structures vary and so does the reliability. It seems that we are all too willing to accept the test manufacture’s data and assume that if they says it is research based, it must be a “valid reliable” test. However, I have seen numerous tests for the same specific grade level be absolutely miles apart on reading skills, and also the range of complexity is astounding.
If the test items are multiple choice answers, chances are many Johnny will get the answer correct provided he has prior knowledge of the skill. If the questions are posed as open ended short answer, Johnny may not do as well because he may not like to write as well as other students, and may also have a difficult time putting his thoughts into the correct wording the test requires in order to attain credit.
Vocabulary in directions and test items is a huge hurdle when using many test. Most reading assessments do not speak like children speak. This in itself makes it very difficult for students to understand what the question may be asking. They may know the answers, but don’t understand the questions asked.
A huge bias of many test is that they assume children all come from mainstream backgrounds. The reading information is totally foreign to students from many geographical areas. As a child reads the material presented he/she may be struggling to understand the information, much less understand what the questions want to know. While diversity is fine, many times it is a stumbling block in testing.
The best test you can give to determine the literacy level of a child is from the teacher. He/she may not give a formal test, but I can guarantee that a good teacher can pinpoint and diagnose literacy problems working with a child for just a few weeks, whereas a test might pick up on some problems. Teachers are the answer, and when we finally accept them as the professionals they are, and listen to them, literacy will improve.
Learn more about this author, Kathy Myers.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
by J.M. Schell
Created on: June 30, 2008
I've no knowledge of literacy teaching in Great Britain. Perhaps it's the case that Wales and Scotland learned that constant testing (when did they ever have time to actually learn to read and write if all they ever did was test?) doesn't get the job done, but by what other metric are we to measure the success of a program, if not testing?
Here in the US, the teachers unions hold an absolute death grip on all things educational K-12 (5- 18-year-olds). While this may be temporarily loosened locally and occasionally statewide where fed-up voters enact some sort of testing regime, eventually the concentrated interest (teachers/unions) are able by pouring millions of dollars into the effort and through their control where the rubber meets the road, get such programs rescinded.
It's happened in my state. We had a statewide testing system wherein students in 3rd, 5th, 8th and 11th grades (ages 9, 11, 13, 17) were tested in those years to see whether the schools were doing their job. The teachers and the unions fought this tooth and nail, but citizens voted for it overwhelmingly. The first couple of years, it was obvious the schools had been teaching virtually nothing (big surprise). For a few years after that grades went upward satisfactorily, then leveled off, eliciting the usual bellowed excuses by the teachers: the test is flawed! It's culturally/racially biased! Parents aren't involved enough! Kids come to school hungry! Etc., etc., etc. Now, with the leftists back in our state's governor's office and controlling the legislature, the testing is of course going away.
Likewise, with the leftists largely in control of the US Congress, and soon to take control at the White House, America's nationwide quality-control effort in the public schools, the No Child Left Behind Act, is also going away. The complaint by the teachers and the union is that NCLB is not perfect therefore, it should be done away with. What went before was clearly perfect . . . for the teachers and their unions.
Too bad, in the teachers' and the unions' view, if American high school graduates test out below most 3rd world nations in most core subjects. The American public schools, after all, are a jobs program for union members, not a place where parents can expect nor certainly demand that their kids are educated. Why should we expect the schools and the teachers to be held accountable and their performance fairly judged by testing what students have learned, and demanding improvement where it's warranted? How will that help union teachers?
Testing "all the time" is of course counter-productive and you don't need a doctorate in "Education" or to have been a headmaster even in a British school to figure that one out. But is it entirely unreasonable for parents and taxpapyers-the customers of schools, believe it or not!-to expect the schools to well, actually educate children? Parents and other taxpayers sometimes simply get fed-up with the lack of education and often grasp at any straw.
I don't think a reasonable amount of testing is too much to ask, but in America (and judging from the other contribution here, Britain, too) teachers believe it is because too often what it shows more than what a child is learning is what a teacher is not teaching.
Learn more about this author, J.M. Schell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley