Are Americans Schools Obsessed with Assessment - Research Proposal Example

Are American Schools Obsessed with Assessment? Introduction American schools have for the most part always placed a lot of emphasis on educational assessments. However, only in recent years have American administrators began to look more thoroughly into the current assessment regiment. (Stiggins, 263-273) When one examines the purpose of educational assessment and the attention that American educators have given to its practical uses it is not unreasonable to conclude that American schools are almost entirely obsessed with assessment. The sole purpose of the assessment process in American schools is the of setting educational standards and improving upon student output and educators’ input. (Winfield and Woodard, 3-27) It is the manner in which states and educators have responded to standardized assessments that have given rise to the claim that American schools have become obsessed with assessments. Perceptions that Americans are obsessed with assessments are largely related to criticisms about the usefulness and effectiveness of the assessment process in light of the response to them by school teachers and state education administrators. Essentially students and teachers alike are accused of ignoring the practical necessity of assessments and their contribution to educational reform. When the usefulness of assessments are taken into account, it becomes obvious that Americans are taking excessive and unjustifiable advantage of an accountability tool designed only to make the necessary changes in American schools for optimal student output and teacher input. Assessment in American Schools There are essentially two types of assessment policies and practices in US schools and school systems. (Shavelson and Pine, 22-27) They are standardized and non-standardized testing systems. (Shavelson and Pine, 22-27) Standardized testing are conducted on a national and/or state and district levels while non-standardized assessments are conducted within the classrooms. (Bass and Glaser, 2007) In each case assessments are largely viewed as a necessary component of education accountability with consequences for students, teachers and districts. (McDonnell, 2004) Classroom based assessments are used in American classrooms to evaluate how students are responding to the material and instructions given in the classroom. (Worthen and Spandel, 65-69) Counselors use testing to identify a students’ weaknesses and strengths with a view to making remedial referrals, or course placements. (Worthen and Spandel, 65-69) Education administrators use assessments to measure teaching goals and effectiveness and to evaluate schools, districts and states with respect to their curriculum and educational process. (Worthen and Spandel, 65-69) By virtue of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 2002 US schools are required by law to conduct assessments of student progress and achievement and to report these results to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (No Child Left Behind Act 2002) The NCLB also reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965 and provided for Improving America’s Schools Act 1994. Cumulatively, these acts together with the NCLB require that states: “...adopt academic content and performance standards and assessments aligned with them.” (Menken, 521-545) These tests are required to be conducted in basic reading and mathematics skills at regular intervals for students in grades 3-8. (No Child Left Behind Act 2002) Other basic skills testing is likewise required for students in science for grades 3-5, 6-9 and 10-11. (No Child Left Behind Act 2002) The compulsory nature of these assessments under the act are manifested by the requirement that schools participate in the national assessments if they are to receive federal funding. (No Child Left Behind Act 2002) Problems with Assessment in American Schools The notion that American schools are obsessed with assessments are reflected in the arguments against the effectiveness of standardized assessments as set out in the NCLB and its related laws. Assessment critics for the most part argue that the validity of these tests can be compromised by a number of factors. Too much depends of the teacher’s actual skills and judgment with respect to specific indicators. (Feinberg, 15) Moreover, certain external factors such as handwriting, attention problems during the assessment and student conduct can render a test result unreliable. (Feinberg, 15) Some experts and even casual observers argue that standardized assessments are not capable of objectively assessing a student’s knowledge. If in fact, this is an accurate reflection of the standardized assessment regime then the practice and policy of implementing these tests can only be explained away by an obsession. Perhaps the most persuasive argument against the utility of standardized assessments is the argument that requiring these testing as a means of accountability has the potential to compromise a teacher’s approach to classroom instructions. (Menken, 521-545) For instance, a teacher aware of the particular subject matter of a standardized test may focus far too much attention of that particular subject matter in class so that his or her students will do well on the assessments. (Menken, 521-545) The result is that other subjects will taught piecemeal, if at all. Kate Menken refers to this method of teaching as “teaching to the test” and expresses a general concern that the NCLB Act encourages this kind of teaching. (Menken, 521-545) Obviously, if teachers cater to the test rather than actual effective class room instructions, American teaching can be fairly accused of teaching with an obsession with assessments. Another argument demonstrating some measure of assessment obsession in the American school system is set forth by representative arguments made by the South Carolina Department of Education. (South Carolina Department of Education, 2003) The South Carolina Department of Education reports on the findings of an “Oregon-based testing organization” which reports that there is evidence that some states are lowering the standards of their state-wide assessments to ensure that a higher percentage of their students pass them. (South Carolina Department of Education, 2003) John Ryan puts these arguments in perspective by arguing that the NCLB 2002 provides incentives that compromise the Act’s ultimate goals of setting and maintaining educational standards. (Ryan, 932-947) Ryan explains that in its attempt to improve “achievement standards” the NCLB encourages states “to lower academic standards.” (Ryan, 932-947) Moreover it: “It (NCBL) creates incentive to increase segregation by class and race and to push low-performing students out of school entirely, which will make it even more difficult for disadvantaged students to catch up to their more affluent peers.” (Ryan, 932-947) Another concern is that talented teachers may be encouraged to stay away from the most academically challenged class rooms “where they are needed the most”. (Ryan, 932-947) Each of these incentives are influenced by the NCLB’s punitive and reward system with respect to government grants and funding based on assessment outputs. For instance under the act, if a school meets the required assessment standard it will receive bonus grants. (No Child Left Behind Act 2002) John Cloud also argues that the nature and tenure of the NCLB forces the various school systems to provide for education in such a manner as to focus primarily on certain skills in writing, reading and maths. (Cloud, 40-46) The result is that little or no attention is given to students with special education requirements as all attention is focused on the skills mandated by the NCLB. (Cloud, 40-46) Jamie McKenzie, an educator from Rutgers University argues that NCLB forces schools to focus too narrowly on math, reading and science thereby denying the student a broader educational basis. (McKenzie, 2003) Essentially, American schools become to caught up in assessment results and the rebounding funding benefits, placement reputations under the NCLB with the result that these priorities can easily be interpreted as obsession-based. Evidence of obsession with assessment is also reflected in a report released by Shape the Nation 2006 which was a project coordinated by the American Hearth Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (Trickey, 2006) The project announced that most state’s curriculum failed to make provision for sufficient “physical education requirements”. (Trickey, 2006) This lack of attention to physical education resulted in a drop in daily physical education classes from 42 percent in 1991 to just 23 per cent in 2003. (Tricky, 2006) Helyn Trickey reports that the drop in physical education in state schools’ curriculum is attributed to the assessments’ mandate under the NCLB Act. (2006) Trickey claims that: “Critics contend that the very legislation meant to bolster national academic standards..may be a culprit in the diminishing P.E. curriculum, unintentionally sapping schools of time and resources for exercise as educators focus more and more on test scores and rigorous academic coursework.” (2006) In 2007, the results of a national study conducted on the impact of NCLB were published. (Lynch, 2007) The study was conducted by the Council on Education Policy who reported that although Art was listed as one of the core 10 subjects under NCLB only two subjects required assessment and reporting. (Lynch, 2007) The two subjects were math and reading and with the focus on these two subjects Art suffered. (Lynch, 2007) According to the findings of the Council on Education Policy, since the implementation of the NCLB, elementary schools suffered a 22 percent decline in instructions in art and music. (Lynch) Despite the obsessive emphasis on assessments in American schools as a direct result of the NCLB mandate, the Commission on No Child Left Behind in its 2007 report made recommendations to further entrench the assessment system into the American educational culture. (Thompson and Barnes, 2007) This in part is a result of the irrefutable evidence that American schools are essentially deeply reliant on if not obsessed with the ideals of assessment. For instance the Commission reports that: “...witnesses repeatedly told the Commission that annual assessments are less helpful to educators on the front lines in an immediate way. Instead, they said other types of assessments are needed to help teachers and parents keep track of student progress over the course of a year and to help teachers diagnose student learning needs and adjust their instruction appropriately.” (Thompson and Barnes, 2007, 111) Be that as it may, rather than recommend that standardized assessments cover a broader subject field, the Commission merely recommends that changes be made to improve upon the quality of assessments and the consequential evaluation of assessment results. (Thompson and Barnes, 2007, 112) To the Commission’s credit, it at least recognizes the obsession the teaching practices and policies have developed with respect to assessments. By broadening the field of standardized assessments teachers will be more inclined to focus on a wider curriculum. For the present, teaching instructions focus too narrowly on those subjects included in the NCLB assessments with the result that other core subjects receive only scant attention. Linda Winfield and Michael Woodard argue that theoretically standardized assessments are valuable tools for improving educational standards in US schools. (Winfield and Woodard, 3-27) However, unless this assessments are married to a commitment to teach and to learn: “...this policy serves as a symbolic and political fiction rather than an instrumental one in improving schooling outcomes...” (Winfield and Woodard, 3-27) As demonstrated throughout this paper the tenure of the NCLB Act is such that it encourages obsession with these assessments along limited lines with attention only to the outcomes associated with the specific tests. For the only thing that educators are concerned about is obtaining good test results on the specific test subjects covered under the national assessment scheme. This obsession precluded a commitment to learning and teaching in other core subjects. Conclusion No one doubts the value of standardized assessments with respect to setting standards for teaching and learning. However, when the results of those assessments make the difference between receiving a bonus and being denied a bonus the assessment scheme loses its value. The results of the assessment become the focus rather than the evaluative merits of those assessments. In this way American schools have become obsessed with assessment in the sense that they are preparing for the assessments and not providing a well-rounded tuition, the very thing that assessments are designed to evaluate and improve where necessary. The overall result is that assessments have little value and educational progress runs the risk of remaining stagnant and unchanging. Bibliography Bass, K.M. and Glaser, R. (2004) “Developing Assessments to Inform Teaching and Learning.” CES Report 628 Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study on Evaluation. Cloud, John. (July 27, 2007) “The Genius Problem.” Time, 40-46. Feinberg, R. (1990) “Multiple-Choice and Its Critics.” College Board Review. No. 156, 12-17 Lynch, Robert. (Dec. 3, 2007) “No Child Left Behind Act Wrongly left the Arts Behind.” The Hill. Available online at: http://thehill.com/op-eds/no-child-left-behind-act-wrongly-left-the-arts-behind-2007-03-12.html Retrieved September 6, 2008 McDonnell, L.M. (2004) Politics, Persuasion, and Educational Testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McKenzie, Jamie. (2003) “Gambling With the Children.” No Child Left Behind. Vol. 1(1) Available online at: http://nochildleft.com/2003/jancov03.html#index Retrieved September, 5 2008. Menken, Kate. (2006) “Teaching to the Test: How No Child Left Behind Impacts Language Policy, Curriculum, and Instructions for English Language Learners.” Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 30(2), 521-545 No Child Left Behind Act 2002 Ryan, James. (2004) “The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act.” New York University Law Review Vol. 79, 932-947 Shavelson, R.G. and Pine, J. (1992) “Performance Assessments: Political Rhetoric and Measurement Reality.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 21(4), 22-27 South Carolina Department of Education. (2003) “New Study Confirms vast Differences in State Goals for Academic ‘Proficiency’ under NCLB.” Available online at: http://ed.sc.gov/news/more.cfm?articleID=385 Retrieved September 5, 2008. Stiggins, Richard. (1991) “Facing the Challenges of a New Era of Educational Assessment.” Applied Measurement in Education. Vol 4(4), 263-273 Thompson, Tommy and Barnes, Roy. (2007) “Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation’s Children.” The Commission on No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Trickey, Helyn. (August, 24, 2006) “No Child Left Out of the Dodgeball Game?” CNN.Com. Available online at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/20/PE.NCLB/index.html Retrieved September 4, 2008. Winfield, Linda and Woodard, Michael. (1991) “Assessment, Equity, and Diversity in Reforming America’s Schools.” Educational Policy, Vol. 8(1), 3-27 Worthen, B. and Spandel, V. (1991) “Putting the Standardized Test Debate in Perspective.” Educational Leadership. Vol. 48(5), 65-69 Read More