Second Draft
Running head: STANDARDIZED TESTS SECTIONS III, IV and V 0
Standardized Tests Sections III, IV, and V
Sammy North
DeVry University
This sample uses a problem-solution organizational pattern. Your approach to the organization of your project may differ. See the textbook for other sample organizational structures. Also review your professor’s feedback on assignments you’ve submitted.
Standardized Tests Sections III, IV, and V
The best plan to solve the problem of standardized tests is instituting the MOST or Mastery Of Subject Tests, which are the end-of-year subject tests to be administered to each student before graduation, to determine his or her mastery of the area studied in high school. Because these tests would be administered and graded by individual school districts throughout the country and not from Washington, D.C., they will decentralize control of students’ learning away from government officials who know next to nothing about these students, and into the hands of content-area teachers who know their students best. These tests will also raise the standards and expectations of all students, who will choose the content areas they wish to be tested in, and focus on mastering those areas in high school. Thus, when they take the tests, they are motivated to show that they are the masters of one field instead of being jacks-of-all-trades. The standards of mastery will be higher when you have students improving year after year on a content area of their own choosing, rather than having their focus scattered on fields that they have no desire to pursue after graduation. These tests will save everyone both time and money, as shown in the next section, Benefits, and they lead to increased mastery of core subjects, as well as diminish dropout rates.
These end-of-year subject tests are better than solutions that have been proposed, such as portfolios, since these tests would be objective determinants of learning rather than subject artifacts of courses. The portfolio may be an accurate representation of a student’s abilities, as well as his or her growth throughout high school, but it is far too subjective; mastery would be determined by the judge reading the portfolio, whose personal biases would be too difficult to control for in such an important test. Also, portfolios are too costly in terms of time and resources; the process of gathering and housing these documents would be too large a task for the last few months of a student’s final year. For consistent scoring of portfolios, one study determined that it would take 20 minutes to 1 hour to score one portfolio by one judge; this would be doubled if two judges were used (as cited in Dietz, 2010). If 40 minutes to 2 hours sounds like a lot, multiply that by the number of graduating seniors, and you get numbers too unrealistic to consider. Plus, the criteria used to judge each assessment would have to be aligned to the courses the student took in order to be seen as equal to a standardized test (as cited in Dietz, 2010), which would be problematic in terms of showing equal levels of rigor and substantive content. Of course, having no test whatsoever is not viable, because it does not prepare students for assessments that will be commonplace in college and the workplace. Having the current college entrance exams, the SAT or ACT, replace standardized tests for everyone is also not viable, because not everyone will pursue college; those who opt to enter the workforce immediately after graduation would not be well served by these tests.
There are three steps in putting this plan into action. First, these must be constructed and administered by experts in individual school districts. A committee of specialists in different fields must ensure that each test assesses knowledge that students should have in each school subject. The test would be multiple choice, short answer, and essay for more traditional subjects such as English and history; for the arts or music, the test would be performance-oriented. Next, students must choose and take the test that is most appropriate to their future career: students interested in history would be tested in that subject area, and those interested in music would perform for their test. Finally, committee members must decide whether students have passed the test, which would be administered early in their senior year; students must be notified about their passing this test so that they can earn their high school diploma. If students fail, they should be given ample opportunity to retake the test. If students still fail the test, they might consider another subject area. For example, if students interested in a career in music consistently underperform on the test, then they should be counseled to try another test, because maybe a career in music isn’t showing the best of their talents. Thus these tests more accurately assess students’ strengths and indicate which careers are best suited to them. They will produce high school graduates who are more prepared for their chosen careers and, as the next section will prove, these tests will be more cost effective and benefit all stakeholders of education.
This plan will help to save time and money. Additionally, this plan will put to better use the collective energy of stakeholders in education—students, parents, teachers, administrators, and the public—who are currently caught up in the standardized testing craze. The most recent price tag for the current testing system is $4.35 billion (as cited in Onosko, 2011). The proposed plan could accomplish the same goal but at a far lower cost in terms of money. If the cost of time and hours for each individual district’s subject-matter committee is $1.43 billion, it can be accounted for by including each of the current 14,310 school districts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) and giving each one $100,000 to cover costs. Even with rate-of-inflation increases, that is much lower than the current system. As shown in Chart 1, the cost is lower than the previous system. By Year 10, it could be reasonably estimated at over $3 billion, far less than the almost $7 billion the current system would cost. Additionally, the time it takes for standardized tests versus the proposed plan is no contest when you determine the amount of time in test-taking strategies that schools are consumed with. Plus, the number of graduates would increase because students would be far more interested in attending schools that are aligned to their future interests, and taking tests that measure their mastery of those interests. A curriculum with coursework that is more relevant to their future careers would keep dropouts from leaving school (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006); this study serves as proof that schools can prevent students from dropping out if they just open their minds to the possibilities. A committee of subject-matter specialists will need to be convened to start this project. A focus group consisting of educators at all levels of the subject, as well as people working in that field, will help to construct, disseminate, and assess these tests.
Figure 2: Cost of Current Testing System vs. Proposed Testing System
Figure 2: This chart shows the cost of the current testing system in billions of dollars in blue in Year 1 of the program, and then again in Years 5 and 10. The proposed testing system is shown in red in the same 3 years: Years 1, 5, and 10. Clearly, the proposed system will save billions of dollars in the short term as well as in the long term.
Let’s help our students achieve the most with the proposed MOST, or Mastery Of Subject Tests, initiative. It will help students master the subject they have learned about in high school and not force them to pass tests that are not a part of their futures. If we don’t act fast to replace standardized tests, more and more students will fall through the cracks and drop out of school. Our current model for K–12 education uses a one-size-fits-all approach that just leaves our children behind, instead of giving them the opportunity to reach their full potential. If we are to maintain our position as a 21st century superpower, we must educate a highly skilled, technologically savvy workforce that can handle the demands put in front of them. Also, if we are to maintain our current position as the center of the world regarding our athletes and entertainers, we must nurture their talents early on in their careers, instead of blocking their talents in an avalanche of testing in subjects that aren’t relevant to them. After all, America is known as the land of opportunity, and if we continue to use standardized tests, we may become known as the land of lost opportunity.
No Child Left Behind has left nobody ahead, least of all our country’s educational standing compared to our competitors around the world. It’s time to bring back power to the people. Contact me at [email protected] and join me in fighting for a better tomorrow for our children. Sign up for updated information on our progress, and contact your local legislators who can spur action with the local districts in the hope of effecting change at the national level. The time to take charge of our children’s education is now. To get the most out of our children’s education, let’s support MOST!
References
Bridgeland, J., DiIulio, J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Retrieved from http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/thesilentepidemic3-06.pdf
Dietz, S. (2010). State high school tests: Exit exams and other assessments. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED514155.pdf
Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the Top leaves children and future citizens behind. Democracy & Education, 19(2), 1-11.
U.S. Census Bureau (2004). Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0074/tab10.pdf
