Background
Large-scale, standardized tests compare students within a given school, schools in a district and so on. Increasingly, the tests are used for student and learning environment decisions that reflect the individual student and society at large.
To a greater extent, they shape curriculum and instruction insofar as the tests have warped classrooms into test-taking workshops. Proponents of these actions have argued that the large-scale assessment tests utilize the full purpose of measurement and hold the educators accountable for student performance. Thus, the large-scale, standardized assessments are claimed to be superior to past exams. There are real-world limits to what these sorts of tests can do. Even more important, though, is the new reform which is being predicated on assessments.
Furthermore, under a new federal law, states are required to assess the reading and math skills for accountability, annually, in grades 3-8. The assessments will also occur at least once during a student’s secondary career. Fleischer, Ketter, and Yagelski (2005) explain that the assessments must be based on content and performance standards that the state develops. Also, the assessments should measure critical thinking, provide other diagnostic material, as well as be legitimate and consistent.
These schools have been influenced by the federal government that standardized testing is the best way to meet their goals and most importantly, the federal government’s funding. Thorough exams of requirements, however, reveal many limitations of these tests.
Assessment
Moreover, the standards are often verbose and try making more of what should be a concise project. Most are so vague that the standards fail to impart what is important to teach from common perceptions of what should be taught to students under any number of given circumstances. (Olsen, 2002). Due to this ambiguity, the large-scale assessments, especially at the state and federal government level, do not even assess the standards they are designed to.
Moreover, much of value in state standards is lost due to a test designed to be taken in the manner of a large-scale assessment. Students should still perform science experiments, write research papers, read novels and analyze them, give presentations, evaluate and synthesize information a mixture of data, and apply this learning to real life situations. (Chudowsky & Pellegrino, 2003). Large-scale assessments are poor evaluators for these important learning modes. If classroom instruction focuses on the test, students will only hone testing strategy; an unsuccessful skill in the business world and life.
Additionally, components of critical thinking: analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creativity have a minuscule role in large-scale assessments. This approach to education is revealed by in-depth work, not by standardized tests. These tests cannot standardize these attributes and therefore the tests simply do not include them. All of these attributes are required in post-secondary education and the professional world. As a result, these tests are limiting the students to meeting their future needs in order to evaluate schools for federal funding. Aside from students’ futures, their enthusiasm for learning is lost through standardized testing. This enthusiasm also drives the concept of lifelong learning, and lifelong learning only benefits the student, no matter their age or grade level.
Intervention Chosen
Likewise, large-scale assessments can be useful different levels, whether measuring educational strengths or weaknesses. However, this information needs to be developed in a detailed and comprehensive manner, which is commensurate, for the kind of diagnosis being made.
Riddle and Skinner (2007) state, the lengthy scoring procedure for most large-scale assessments makes them nearly useless for helping a particular individual, while attending secondary institutions. On the other hand, this information has some value to teachers and schools for longer-range planning. In addition, standardized tests usually include only a few questions on any particular topic. This is simply too little information to produce comprehensive or detailed results to affect the needed quantity and quality of change.
Consequently, diagnosis suggests the use of a formative assessment. (Fritzberg, 2004). These assessments can help a teacher and student know how to proceed with the students’ learning objectives. Large-scale assessments administered at the end of the academic year, or otherwise known as summative assessment, cannot possibly meet this need. Thorough diagnostic practices determine the appropriate action to take following the detection of difficulty in a subject area.
With limited information, large-scale assessments provide little more than negligible guidance for instruction. There is no way to assist these students at the end of the year or the end of their career, in some cases. The students can also benefit from formative assessment in that they understand their own needs. Thus, the use of formative assessment gives the students the ability to help themselves.
Analysis of The Intervention program
Therefore, test validity, experts explain, resides in the conclusion derived from assessment results. Relying solely on large-scale assessments as progress reports in broad areas such as reading or math is likely to lead to incorrect inferences.
Further, the actions taken as a result of those assumptions could result in even more harm. For these and other reasons, the testing profession must call for using multiple measures in large-scale assessments. Reliability is sometimes treated as the most important aspect of testing. Well-designed classroom-based assessments can provide consistent information that enhances validity and diagnostic capacity in assessing large-scale student populations.
Indeed, when large-scale assessments are the primary factor in any form of education accountability, the temptation exists to apply test data in defining curriculum and focusing instruction. Only test strategy is taught, and what is taught does not include critical thinking and reasoning. The method in which the subject is taught becomes the model for teaching the students and that is not how the case should be. Fritzberg (2004) states, at the extreme, schools become a test prep program, and this extreme already exists. The possibility of using a large-scale assessment that does not limit curriculum and instruction is feasible.
However, producing and proctoring an assessment such as this can result in a school receiving lower test scores than it currently does. Also, this procedure means the community is not informed about the non-tested areas. Ultimately, to improve learning and provide accountability, districts cannot rely solely on large-scale assessments.
Conclusion
The intrinsic restrictions of the instruments allow them only to produce information that is inadequate. Thus, educators at all levels must create systems to strengthen large-scale assessments and to use this information to inform the public. This information should then be disseminated throughout the community so that all involved constituencies can be informed. Following this dissemination, a process of acclimation to these assessments tools can take place and further replacement of these large-scale assessment tools can occur. Only then can students truly thrive in their learning environments.
References
Chudowsky, N., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2003). Large-scale Assessments That Support Learning: What Will it Take? Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 75-80.
Fritzberg, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind? Assessing President Bush’s Assessment Law. Educational Foundations, 18(3-4), 7-25.
Olsen, K. (2002). How Does Legislative Agency Influence Social Control Through Curriculum. Minnesota, USA. University of Minnesota.
Riddle, W., & Skinner, R. (2007). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act. Congressional Research Service Report (RL Publication No. 33960, pg. 1-22). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Fleischer, C., Ketter, J., & Yagelski, R. (2005). Teach Writing, Not Testing: Some Worries About the SAT Writing Test. California English, 11(1), 22-27.