Now that you've gotten a peek at what the test will be like, what do YOU think? It's important and timely to consider our own point of view toward standardized testing! I want to hear your opinion!
Make sure to back up your opinion with evidence. An opinion is not valid in a debate unless it has facts behind it! Cite your source! Two full paragraphs, minimum. Respond to previous classmates' points of view.
You can view both sides of the debate here: http://standardizedtests.procon.org/
You can also read up on what lawmakers are thinking here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/senate-begins-debate-on-education-law-focuses-on-testing/2015/01/21/583b24d4-a19b-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html
OR, you can do your own research and find evidence from elsewhere around the internet! :)
I say nay to SBAC Testing because it is a poor way of accessing a student's knowledge and learning of the year. As we all witnessed the SBAC Testing took a while to complete for some, including me. If a student couldn’t finish their SBAC in the time allotted, the grade may not reflect the students true academical abilities because the test was incomplete. In addition, Procon.org added to the topic that, “Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful” (Con #4). They argue that the SBAC tests cannot measure many qualities of education. Some of these attributes are creativity, critical-thinking, resourcefulness, and motivation.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the SBAC Testings are very time and wages consuming. SBAC preparations studies can take up a quarter of the school year at some schools. These schools are losing time to instruct their students on other important topics. Likewise, the SBAC tests are very expensive. They may seem inexpensive, but, “According to the Texas Education Agency, the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students…”(Con #11). These expenses could be used to reinstate P.E. and music teachers in elementary schools, which were previously revoked due to so called “budget calls.” The SBAC testing should be terminated to save various things.
I agree with Andrew stating:"I say nay to SBAC Testing because it is a poor way of accessing a student's knowledge and learning of the year." For example,studies show that standardized testing did not improve average student accomplishment,"the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading"(procon.org Con #1). This shows, standardized testing really hasn't had a signifcant affect on student preformance in America. We have even dropped in our rank compared to the other nations of the world because these tests are doing nothing for our student achievement and preformance. These tests have no affect on student preformace and I don't find them necessary.
ReplyDeleteFurther, standardized testing is consuming precious class time just for preparing for these tests. For example,"Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year's instruction to test prep"(procon.org Con # 7). This time consumption especially applies to the new CAASPP testing. This test is very "new" and students are not used to doing a test like this. We consume class time to try to figure out how these special functions work on the test. This affects math classes more than english classes. In my opinion, these expensive and time consuming tests should be eliminated from school districts in America. This will not only save money, but it will also save us some class time.
I agree with John and Andrew and say nay to the SBAC’s!! One reason is my own and is that the SBAC’s are just stupid! Another is that they are "narrowing the curriculum" (Source 1). In fact, in 2007 there was a reported decrease of 44% spent on science, history, and art. A total of 145 minutes (about 1.5 hours) per week were devoted to math and reading. Another reason is that they are unfair. They are “discriminatory against non english speakers and students with special needs”. The English learners are taking the test before even learning the language (Source 1). It has not improved student achievement. After 2002 the US dropped from being nationally ranked as 18th to 31st for the “PISA” (Source 1).SBAC tests are also not objective. The scores can vary based on what the student was doing while taking the test (Source 1). Someone could have been distracted, had been distracting others, or actually getting their work done. Even congress is involved.
ReplyDeleteCongress is trying to rewrite the education law. They are wondering if they should require students to be tested every year. When the 2002 “NCLB” law passed, teachers had to test their students every year in math and reading (Source 2). This testing happens from grades 3-8 and then once in high school (Source 2). Finally, being under this new law can create some stress. Schools that fail to improve test scores had to face sanctions. And President Obama’s administrators have increased this pressure. Overall, the SBAC’s are done, finished, stupid, weird, etc. I could go on with a bunch more things that are negative, but I won’t because the world is full of negatives and not a lot of positives. ��
I say nay to the SBAC's. these standardized tests are not doing anything to help our education. If anything, they are bringing us lower. For example, "US students slipped from 18th in the world in 2000 to 31st in 2009," (Procon.org Con #1). Also, these tests don't tell us about how well the students are doing academically. "50-80% of year over year of test score improvements were temporary and 'caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long term changes in learning....'" (Procon.org Con #2). These standardized tests are doing nothing for our learning benefits.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is even a federal level of this argument. "What I'm hearing from the second world is that the footprint of the first world has become way to big in their lives." (Washington post.com) This shows that this problem of standardized testing is huge. Though I do agree with Andrew, John, and Saskia, I find there is one upside to the SBAC's. It is " Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students." Though there are one or two upsides to the SBAC's, the cons out-way the pros. Down with the SBAC!!!!!!!
-Isaac E.
Although the SBAC's bring a much more convenient way of testing, it is not a very good way to bring out a student's potential and has been lowering a student's ability to do well in the tests. Sources show that "the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science" (Procon.org) after the tests had been distributed. This evidence is hard to dismiss; the time set for these tests and the abundance of time consuming questions do not even each other out. Students become more stressed and therefore are not able to utilize the academics they have learned as easily as they have with pencil and paper tests. This causes a tremendous drop in test scores, which is something most everybody strives to avoid. A study in 2007 discovered "that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math" (Procon.org). The tests are limiting the already small amount of time students have to learn and prepare for future jobs and careers. The standardized tests shifts the focus of a well-rounded curriculum to a narrow and unreasonable learning method. Students are not able to learn and excel in many areas, as they are forced to keep their minds focused on math and English. This puts those who are weak in either one of the two areas at a disadvantage, which is unfair to them.
ReplyDeleteNot only are the tests unreasonable, they are expensive and they take a toll on school budgets. The Texas Education Agency states that "the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year" (Procon.org). These tests are causing schools around the country to spend a large amount of money to pay for the tests, money that could be used to expand the learning curriculum. The tests take large chunks of money from the school's budgets and, combined with taxes, schools are finding themselves with a limited budget that was much narrower than before. A source states that the tests had many problems and the "Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test...delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state's superintendents" (Procon.org). The tests have many mistakes that degrade in the quality of the test taking. The accuracy of the tests, even after countless upgrades, were low and did not measure a student's academic abilities accurately. These tests are taking a large toll on the country. Although there are some benefits to the tests, they are ruled out by the disadvantages created by them.
No to the SBACs!
--Jun
DeleteI say nay to standardized testing. Standardized tests have so far not helped kids very much at all, "After No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science"(Procon.org). This shows that standardized tests have resulted not in improvement of students, but instead in quite the opposite. They have caused students to become worse in several subjects, which is a terrible thing, especially if it keeps going at this rate. One reason for this could be all the stress the test creates, and it could also be the cause of students vomitting during the test, " On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that "test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it."(Procon.org). Students are becoming so stressed that not only are some of their grades slipping, but they are also vomitting on their test, and it doesn't seem to be too rare.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, standardized tests are having a bad affect on younger students as well. The tests and all the preparation they take are robbing children of their childhood, " Mar. 2009 research from the Alliance for Childhood showed "time for play in most public kindergartens has dwindled to the vanishing point, replaced by lengthy lessons and standardized testing"(Procon.org). Students as young as kindergarteners are already having to deal with the standardized tests and the stress they cause. The time that originally was bbeing used to give the students time to play and just be kids has been stolen from them far too early, being replaced with lessons that are meant to help prepare them for the tests that they won't have to take for a few years. This could have bad affects on their minds, such as making them behave younger or older than they are, causing many problems. Are the standardized tests really worth all these drawbacks and after-affects? Especially considering the cost of taking the tests, " According to the Texas Education Agency, the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year"(Procon.org). So basically, we are spending a lot of money and time on tests that have many drawbacks and don't even improve student's ability to think or learn. Why? Shouldn't we be able to come up with effective, inexpensive, and benficial tests?
Like everyone else, I have to say no on the SBAC for they are being not a very good way of displaying students' knowledge. According to sources, these test aren't really helping the students. According to one source, " the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading" (Procon.org). Moreover, these tests are doing the exact opposite of what they were intended to do which is to help but instead they hurt the students academically. Plus, they don't effectively show how well student perform. For example, "50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and "caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning" (Procon.org). This shows that sometimes these tests aren't doing anything for students.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, they are very expensive for schools. the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year" (Procon.org). This shows that these tests are way to expensive to get and they could have used this money to get music and P.E teachers back. The money could also be to improve other things in schools as well. Overall the SBACs should be gone to help both schools and students.
In my opinion, the SBAC is not helpful. It has not improved students achievements. For example, "...a similar drop in science and no change in reading" (standardizedtests.procon.org). This shows that the test is not helping us in the subjects we learn. It makes students score drop in science and does not help them in reading. In addition, "...44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math" (standardizedtests.procon.org). This shows that students are not allowed to learn as much in science and other subject because they are too busy focusing on reading and math.
ReplyDeleteThe SBAC also takes too much time in class when it could be used to learn more things in the subjects. For example, "Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year's instruction to test prep" (standardizedtests.procon.org). This shows the test does not allow the teacher to teach more because they are forced to focus on teaching about the SBAC. So I say nay to the SBAC.
Just like every one else, I say "nay" to the SBACs. This is because the SBACs are didn't increase student achievement even though the cost is much higher, and secondly that the standardized test are an unreliable way of testing students. First of all, the SBACs don't increase student achievement and it is more expensive. It also drops in some subjects. For example, "After No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading"(www.procon.org con #1)That means that all you are doing is wasting money. If you spent more to gain more, then it is okay. However, if you spend more one something, and the result is worse then the original. Thus you should switch back to the both cheaper and better way. While this was a huge argument, it is only the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the SBACs, are a unreliable measure of student performance. For example, "A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and 'caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning...' "(www.procon.org con #2). The temporary change was, well, temporary. That means that student achievement, even when going up, either luck or a random blessing. This means that we will never know if the SBACs have helped or lowered the intelligence of the students or schools in particular. So in all standardized testing is bad.
I say that we should not have the SBAC for multiple reasons. I think for one reason why we should not have the SBAC is because they are not improving our students test scores. ProCon.org says that "policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education." this shows us that the people who are making us take these tests and the people who are creating them are not making us do the tests because they will raise test scores. This is only one of the multiple reasons why we should not use standardized testing.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that we should not have to take standardized testing is because they measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful.This means that it only allows students to show a little bit of what they know. ProCon.org also says that the "qualities that standardized tests cannot measure include "creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, and many others". This shows that these tests can not tell things such as how deep a student thinks how much they listen, and how they behave. We should not be forced to take these worthless standardized tests.
Standardized testing is not as good as the SBAC. "Standardized testing has not improved student achievement" (http://standardizedtests.procon.org/). Multiple choice does not help student prepare for the future because they have a chance of getting it right if they just guess. For job interviews, people can't just pick a letter from a list of choices. Students need to make their own paragraphs and sentences. This will show how much students know and understand.
ReplyDeleteStandardized tests don't only lack in improving students. "Only 60% of colleges place considerable importance of standardized test on admission tests" (http://www.campusexplorer.com/Is-Standardized-Testing-Fair/). Not all colleges think that standardized testing is important. It will be even harder to get into a good university. In conclusion, standardized testing doesn't improve students' abilities in education.
In my opinion the SBAC testing is not useful. From reading some of the other students responses the SBAC took a very long time and isn't that useful. LIke Andrew said, some students may not be able to finish in the time given because the test takes very long. This may also the grades in other classes drop for the students too. For example, "...a similar drop in science and no change in reading" (standardizedtests.procon.org). This study shows that the SBAC is not doing any goofd for itself and no good for other classes.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, "44% of school districts have reduced the time spent on science, social studies, and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math. The statistics shown reveals, that the school districts do not realize that the testing is not helping in any way, and they are going to continue to do it. I agree with Isaiah on how he quoted that not all colleges think standardized testing is useful. To conclude, the SBAC does not improve students academic abilities.
There are many valid arguments to testify against the use of standardized testing like how "NCLB tests are drastically narrowing the curriculum" and that "standardized tests only measure a small portion of what makes education meaningful" (Procon.org), but standardized testing is also beneficial compared to the SBAC. Standardized testing is much less stressful than the SBAC. Mental health is one of the most important things in children and teenagers. Forcing a completely new way of learning upon a huge group of students in the U.S. without much preparation is very stressful to them. For example, "A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that 'the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs.'" (Procon.org). Standardized testing has been the traditional way of learning for a long time and has slowly changed. All of the sudden, they have been given computers and different standards with little preparation and are told to take tests that are completely different than what they have normally taken. Not only has non-standardized testing affected mental health and stress, but it has affected the meaning of the tests.
ReplyDeleteThe switch to the SBACs have completely changed what we are taking tests on. Originally, testing was supposed to test what you have learned about the subjects and standards. Now, with the SBACs, we are taking tests on real life situations. We are given a question that relates to a real life situation or something that we might encounter. Testing is meant to ensure that students understand what they are learning in class. With non-standardized testing, we use skills that we learn outside of class to solve problems. While this may sound like a good thing, it varies greatly student to student. Some students have ran into situations where they have leaned these skills while others have not. Moreover, the questions rely greatly on these skills that some have not learned.
I also say "nay" to the SBAC'S because they are not a good way of showing the academic ability of the students. As many people have said, they are not useful. In (Procon #1) it says "Standardized testing has not improved student achievement." If this doesn't do anything whatsoever, what is the point of having the standardized testing. And the tests are not showing the true score of the students, because it is not a long term educational effect.
ReplyDeleteAs Ms. Mansour had said how it shows the love for the tests. In ( procon.org)#22, it says"An obsession with testing robs children of their childhoods." The standardized testing shows your skills at that very moment. not many people are faced with the problems or questions that we are faced with on the standardized testing. This test is very expensive to the schools just to show how muck kids don't care, and what the academic level is of each kid. The tests are not objective and they don't help with our education. I have been a personal witness of these tests, and that is part of the reason I say no to these tests.
I disagree with most of my classmates, I think "Yea" to the SBAC. To me I it is good to be challenged and forced to think harder, and the SBAC definitely pushes you to think harder. A good example of the SBAC's good effects is, " 93% of the studies on student testing, including the use of large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests found a 'positive effect' on student achievement" (Procon.org). This shows how these tests help students reach high scores on test. I say yea to the SBAC.
ReplyDeleteTo keep going on the topic of "Yea" to the SBAC, I think the tests help students in future schooling. An example of this is, "Stricter standards and increased testing are better preparing school students for college" (procon.org). This is example shows how these test are preparing students for the future. The SBAC also teaches students to support their statements with facts which is great. To conclude this I say YEA to the SBAC!
Tests like the SBAC is a poor way of accessing a students knowledge and learning of the year. I agree with Andrew, saying, "As we all witnessed the SBAC Testing took a while to complete for some, including me." The SBAC tests take up too much time and most students don't finish in the time given. Also, Procon.org states, "Standardized testing has not improved student achievement." (Argument 1). This shows that standardized tests do not improve the the students performance.
ReplyDeleteStandardized tests also don't cover everything the student has learned through the year. According to Procon.org, "Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful." They don't take everything the student has learned. The standardized test covers small portions of what they have learned. Procon.org also says, "Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives." This means that standardized tests don't prepare students for life after school. If students get 100% on those tests, it shows they are good at testing, but how will testing help them play bills?
In all honesty, I think that standardized tests and the SBACs in particular are unnecessary. Standardized tests are classified as such because the questions, administration procedures, and scoring are the same for every single test taker. This is unfair because not all students may be capable of showcasing their abilities through testing. For instance, "Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non English speakers and students with special needs" (procon.org). This is applicable because even if their intelligence was proficient, their abilities would not be observable through standardized testing.
ReplyDeleteStandardized testing shouldn't be so imposed on kids. Every single school year, we are told that we need to study to pass whatever test we will take at the end of the year. We always here things like ,"Listen, because this information will be needed on the STAR test", or ,"You should remember this for the SBAC". It's not often that someone tells me that what I learn will be used in my adult life. One day, teachers might just be teaching for the sole purpose of taking tests. ProCon.org also agrees that,"America is facing a 'creativity crisis,' as standardized testing and rote learning 'dumb down' curricula and jeopardize the country's economic future". If that quote doesn't make sense to you, let's pretend that a standardized test is a three-foot tall fence. If we were all told to make it to the other side, people who are already tall could climb over it with ease. People who are naturally short would struggle. Do you think that would be fair?
((I would also like to add that I think the SBACs do not really push us harder, they simply stress us out and force us to remember what we've learned in the past))
KA2
I agree with everyone else who thinks that the SBAC takes too much time to complete. I also think that the SBAC is an inefficient way to "use test scores to judge not only schools but also teacher performance" (Washingtonpost.com). It's not fair to judge the teachers based on how well their students are doing, even though there are some bad teachers out there, not all teachers are bad at teaching and it could just be their students. Ultimately it's the student's choice if they'll listen to their teachers or not, therefore making the SBAC a bad way of judging teaches and schools.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as much as I hate taking tests, I think having more than one test per year would be a better way to judge how well students are being taught and ect. Washingtonpost.com states that, "several witnesses told the Senate that annual exams are the best way to gauge how schools are performing", but I'd like to respectfully disagree with that statement because One giant annual test puts a lot of pressure on students to make sure they do well. Also sense it's an annual thing, what if something bad is going on in a student's life at the time and it distracts them? It may not affect many students, but it wouldn't be fair to those of which it does affect, giving them a disadvantage to study or stay focused in school/testing. It's no surprise that some things that go on at home affects students' performances at school, therefore multiple tests would be a better option. Finding the average of the tests would be more helpful to some students and may be an annoying thing to do, but if we really want to make sure students are getting properly educated why only test them once and risk all the possible things that could go wrong. It can be easily related to a science experiment, which is tested multiple times to make sure the outcome is accurate; the same goes for testing students'.
-Nikamarie F.
I honestly have to say nay to the SBAC's. I say this because,"Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful." (Procon.org) As you can see, these tests aren't really helping us. In fact,"US students slipped from 18th in the world in 2000 to 31st in 2009,"(Procon.org) These tests are bringing us lower, nit educating us. These Tests were meant to help us, and so far they're not doing a fantastic job.
ReplyDeleteThese tests aren't teaching us anything really. They cut the curriculums, and don't even improve anything really. For example,"Standardized testing has not improved student achievement."(Procon.org) All these tests do is give students more things to stress about."Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students"(Procon.org) And if it couldn't get any worse, these test practically destroy your childhood."An obsession with testing robs children of their childhoods"(Procon.org) Furthermore,"time for play in most public kindergartens has dwindled to the vanishing point, replaced by lengthy lessons and standardized testing." Last thing a parent wants is for their child to be engulfed so much in their studies that they don't even know what hide and seek is.
I agree with everyone who said nay to the SBAC. This is because, "Standardized testing has not improved student achievement" (Procon.org). This shows that the tests are basically useless. Also, "Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful" (Porcon.org). This furthers my point because the tests don't really help educate us, they are more like a check up on how we are doing.
ReplyDeleteMy second point is that it can harm the young student. For example, "Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students" (Procon.org). The teacher probably makes it a big deal to them and they probably feel like they HAVE to pass it. It could also be the parents , one day the kid went home and told his parents about the test and they said if he passed they would get him ice cream. Anyways, this is why I say nay to the SBAC
I agree with every one else who said nay to the SBAC. The standardized testing isn't very helpful if,"standardized testing has not improved student achievement"(procon.org). These tests aren't really improving anything, so they're kind of useless in a way. Also, "Standardized testing causes severe stress on students"(procon.org). The lat thing you want is for students to be stressing over these tests, when (as the previous evidence stated) these tests aren't improving anything for the students.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to point out that," an obsession with testing robs children of their childhood"(procon.org). The last thing you want to do is rob children of their childhood, for its THEIR childhood where they grow up to learn new things, not to be tested on useless tests. This also refers back to how the tests cause stress on the students. Teachers make a big deal and put even more stress on them, which is robbing their childhood and all they'll do is just stay inside and study because they'll want to do good on the tests. This is why I say nay to the SBAC.
~Juliana P.
I say nay to SBAC testing. These tests are helping students' education. For one of various reasons, SBAC testing is "narrowing the curriculum" (Source 1). Tests even show that students spent 44% less time on history, science, and art. If we continue to test using SBAC testing, these numbers will drop even lower and the students' education is going to be even more poor.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, "the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading" (procon.org). This comes to show that the SBAC test is completely doing the opposite of what it should be doing. Instead of improving students' education, the SBAC tests are making their education poorer. Through the previous examples, you can see that SBAC testing is worsening students' education and should be stopped.
-KA1
I also say nay to the SBAC's testing system like many of my classmates. One reason is that preparing for these tests takes way to much time from actual education. " Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year's instruction to test prep" (procon.org). One quarter of the year is almost a waste of time when students could be learning their lessons instead of preparing for a test that takes up an entire quarter. Since the SBAC is a totally new testing system that the students aren't familiar to, they have to spend time learning how to use every button or widget on the test in order to successfully complete it which is time consuming.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, not only is the new standardized testing time consuming, it is also expensive. According to this quote, " According to the Texas Education Agency, the state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students, while the cost to Texas taxpayers from 2009 through 2012 is projected to be around $88 million per year" (procon.org). This new system of testing shows how much money it takes from your pocket just so the Education Agency can change the way our tests work. Overall, I say nay to this new way of testing.
-Shreya S.
I say nay to SBAC testing.One reason is that SBAC testing is having a negative effect on students. For example, " Testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both" (procon.org). Test are supposed to see the progress of each student but SBAC testing is affecting the students' performance. Also, "If we neglect creative students in school because of the structure and the testing movement... then they become underachievers"(procon.org). SBAC testing was supposed help better the students which in actually has the opposite effect.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I say nay to SBAC testing is that by using the SBAC testing we are cutting more money from our schools. According to procon.org "The state spent $9 million in 2003 to test students." Testing is very expensive which can cut off money from other things important to student education. Also "$254 million contract to administer Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test, delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state's superintendents"(procon.org). Not only can testing cost a lot of money but it can be time consuming and have many errors. In conclusion I say nay to the SBAC.
I say that the SBAC is a bad idea. One reason i say this is because the tests take way too long to prepare for, therefore taking the time away from learning new things. Another reason I feel this way is because I feel that these tests do not measure everything that you have learned over the past year, therefore not allowing teachers to fully understand the comprehension a a specific student. (Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful.) I also feel this way because the tests are not as reliable as a test on paper. This is because the SBAC's are done on the internet, other than paper, so if the internet or the SBAC website goes down, the test goes with it. These are only some of the many reasons I feel the SBAC's are a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, i feel like there are many reasons these tests are a bad idea, and another one of my main reasons is because The tests are not only expensive to make, but expensive for the schools who would like to use the tests, making them buy computers to take them on. Also, since the test is on a computer, it is bound to make errors that cannot be fixed. (The billion dollar testing industry is notorious for making costly and time-consuming scoring errors.) Another main reason i think these tests are a bad idea is because they introduce an opportunity for students to cheat. Since the tests are on computers and because teachers don't always heavily monitor the computers, students could sneak an email to each other that has an answer in it.This is why i feel the SBAC's are a bad idea.
These are all really well thought-out responses. In fact, I am considering sending the SBAC committee a link to our blog, just so they can think about student feelings as they modify this test (I don't think the test will go away, but perhaps they will consider not making it so strenuous or stressful!).
ReplyDeleteYou are all brilliant and will do well on this test with a little bit of effort. I don't want any of you to stress out about it or feel like your results on one test define you, your abilities, or your intellect. I've spent all year with you, and I can assure each one of you, you are excellent writers, thinkers, readers, and creators! I am proud of your accomplishments this year!
I think standardized testing is beneficial. For example, "Standardized testing are reliable and objective measures of student achievement."(procon.org). This means the tests measure student performance in a great way. Now schools can base their changes otonthis information. Lastly, the tests do not affect your grade, so there is no pressure on students.
ReplyDeleteThere was only one big con I noticed while taking the practice test. My lack of typing skills. And i'm sure I was not the only one. Anyone with even a slight lack will have a disadvantage taking the test. However, it appears that our class or even the school has already noticed because you gave us those website to improve our skills already.