Home
“When an Adult Took Standardized Tests Forced On Kids” by Marion Brady talks mainly about the issue of making kids take standardized tests. The author Marion Brady states in the article about how his friend a school board member took the states standardized test for math and reading (Brady 1). The person that took the test really was in awe about the stuff that was on the test. The author’s friend is described as being a success,
His now-grown kids are well educated. He has a big house in a good part of town. Paid-for condo in the Caribbean. Influential friends. Lots of frequent flyer miles. Enough time of his own to give serious attention to his school board responsibilities. The margins of his electoral wins and his good relationships with administrators and teachers testify to his openness to dialogue and willingness to listen (Brady 1).
The man took the test and realized that he didn’t do well and that it was harder than he had expected. He had ended up getting ten out of sixty questions right on the math and got a 62% on the reading (Brady 1). It is evident that the standardized test was hard even for a man who has a Bachelor of Science degree and two masters’ degrees. The author then goes on to talk about how the test would not be effective in the kid’s future because the things on the test probably won’t come up in your future. The article really makes its point how standardized tests are bad for kids.
“Two Cheers for Standardized Testing” by John F. Covaleskie talks about how it’s not the test that is bad but the use of it (Covaleskie 1). The author states
The basic criticism that the tests are reductionist in content and often trivialize education is true beyond critique. Standardized tests are constructed on a reductionist, simplistic, and decidedly non-intellectual view of education (Covaleskie 1).
Every state has different testing standards, and the author defends that the reason the tests might be bad is that we might be “stuck with imperfect tests” (Covaleskie 2). He likes to talk about how the teachers are having a tough time teaching to the test.
Teachers often argue that outside control of the curriculum demeans them, disempowers them, deskills them, deprives them of their professional authority and autonomy, and reduces them to the status of mere functionaries and employees (Covaleskie 3).
The article has many views on the problem of standardized testing and it’s hard to decipher whether he is against the test or not, but the author does have great points for both sides. One thing I found intriguing about the article was that when he asked his daughter (a teacher in the inner-city school) if she taught to the test. Her response to him was that “she teaches the curriculum assigned, and how the test measures what the students know, and they are learning to read and do arithmetic, which are the main tasks for primary students. It is not a lifeless exercise constricted by the test, but a learning experience preparing them for further learning (Covaleskie 7).
“The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools” by Alfie Kohn talks about how standardized testing “has swelled and mutated our schools (Kohn 1).” This article clearly is against the standardized tests and the uses it supposedly has on kids. After reading the article the author states some very good details and opinions on the testing systems. The author states
Few countries today give these formal examinations to students before age sixteen or so…In the U.S., we subject children as young as six to standardized exams, despite the fact that almost all experts in early childhood education condemn this practice (Kohn 1).
The article really shows their opinion because something interesting I found was that Kohn thought it could be counted as “legal cheating” if the teachers teach to the test. Also, Kohn talks about how he believes “higher scores do not necessarily signal higher-quality learning”.
In states where the test scores are rising, improvements may have nothing to do with whether schools have upgraded their teaching and curricula but instead reflect students and teachers increased familiarity with the state assessments and improved test-taking skills unrelated to the curriculum (Kohn 19).
This quote really does show that the states test is not about the student’s knowledge of schoolwork but how much they know that will be on the test. The article is clearly against standardized testing for students.
In the first article it is clearly against standardized testing and in the second article it is hard to determine but it seemed more on the side that it agreed with standard testing. In the first article the author quotes the friend of his saying
It might be argued that I’ve been out of school to long, that if I’d actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the material would be fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took (Brady 2).
While the author states his opinion on the issues on the standardized test, in the second article the author has some clear points for good of the test.
I rather cheerfully concede the point raised by critics that testing is a political event far more than an educational one. But as a political event, it needs to be celebrated, though perhaps not with unbridled enthusiasm, for what it is—one of the messy and perhaps unfortunate, but nonetheless necessary, ways that we gather the information that we need to shape education policy (Covaleskie 4).
Both articles like to demonstrate their opinions and yes they are both very different each one has many quality facts to make a reader fall for both opinions given.
The second article in contrast to the third article is clear. The third article is clearly against standardized testing and the second isn’t. The second article Covaleskie shows his opinion on facts he believes isn’t true.
By forcing teachers to “teach to the test” and focus on the discrete skills of the test, standardized testing prevents teacher’s form helping students grow intellectually and emotionally. It distorts the process of schooling and denied children the opportunity for the proper development and age-appropriate experiences while placing them under unwarranted and potentially damaging pressure to do well on these “high stakes” tests. If any of this were true, it would convince me to oppose testing. But it is my experience that these things are not true (Covaleskie 6).
While in the third arictle he clearly believes that the last statement would be true. “If a test requires coverage of a great deal of material—however superficially—then exploring a few things deeply will be poor preparation for the test even though it may be far more effective for achieving various intellectual goals (Kohn 19).” The authors have very different views on the issues of testing.
The articles two and three might be very different but article one and article three have the same views on the issues of standardized testing. Both view standardized testing as bad for kids and that it isn’t helping anyone. In fact it is hurting children’s future plans and teacher’s ways of teaching (Kohn). “ Tests have lately become a mechanism by which public officials can impose their will on schools, and they doing so with vengeance (Kohn 1).” Here the author is saying that the test is giving public officials ways to critic schools and teachers by the performance of the tests. A fact that mentions almost the same thing is stated in article one.
As of last night, 658 principles around the state (New York) had signed a letter—488 of them from Long Island, where insurrection began—protesting the use of students’ test scores to evaluate teachers’ and principles’ performance (Brady 2).
These articles really show their true opinions when it comes to this topic and it really puts things into different perspectives and makes the reader understand where they are coming from.
1) Do I need more of my own opinion?
2) Should I use less quotes?
3) Did the quotes match what I was going on with?
His now-grown kids are well educated. He has a big house in a good part of town. Paid-for condo in the Caribbean. Influential friends. Lots of frequent flyer miles. Enough time of his own to give serious attention to his school board responsibilities. The margins of his electoral wins and his good relationships with administrators and teachers testify to his openness to dialogue and willingness to listen (Brady 1).
The man took the test and realized that he didn’t do well and that it was harder than he had expected. He had ended up getting ten out of sixty questions right on the math and got a 62% on the reading (Brady 1). It is evident that the standardized test was hard even for a man who has a Bachelor of Science degree and two masters’ degrees. The author then goes on to talk about how the test would not be effective in the kid’s future because the things on the test probably won’t come up in your future. The article really makes its point how standardized tests are bad for kids.
“Two Cheers for Standardized Testing” by John F. Covaleskie talks about how it’s not the test that is bad but the use of it (Covaleskie 1). The author states
The basic criticism that the tests are reductionist in content and often trivialize education is true beyond critique. Standardized tests are constructed on a reductionist, simplistic, and decidedly non-intellectual view of education (Covaleskie 1).
Every state has different testing standards, and the author defends that the reason the tests might be bad is that we might be “stuck with imperfect tests” (Covaleskie 2). He likes to talk about how the teachers are having a tough time teaching to the test.
Teachers often argue that outside control of the curriculum demeans them, disempowers them, deskills them, deprives them of their professional authority and autonomy, and reduces them to the status of mere functionaries and employees (Covaleskie 3).
The article has many views on the problem of standardized testing and it’s hard to decipher whether he is against the test or not, but the author does have great points for both sides. One thing I found intriguing about the article was that when he asked his daughter (a teacher in the inner-city school) if she taught to the test. Her response to him was that “she teaches the curriculum assigned, and how the test measures what the students know, and they are learning to read and do arithmetic, which are the main tasks for primary students. It is not a lifeless exercise constricted by the test, but a learning experience preparing them for further learning (Covaleskie 7).
“The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools” by Alfie Kohn talks about how standardized testing “has swelled and mutated our schools (Kohn 1).” This article clearly is against the standardized tests and the uses it supposedly has on kids. After reading the article the author states some very good details and opinions on the testing systems. The author states
Few countries today give these formal examinations to students before age sixteen or so…In the U.S., we subject children as young as six to standardized exams, despite the fact that almost all experts in early childhood education condemn this practice (Kohn 1).
The article really shows their opinion because something interesting I found was that Kohn thought it could be counted as “legal cheating” if the teachers teach to the test. Also, Kohn talks about how he believes “higher scores do not necessarily signal higher-quality learning”.
In states where the test scores are rising, improvements may have nothing to do with whether schools have upgraded their teaching and curricula but instead reflect students and teachers increased familiarity with the state assessments and improved test-taking skills unrelated to the curriculum (Kohn 19).
This quote really does show that the states test is not about the student’s knowledge of schoolwork but how much they know that will be on the test. The article is clearly against standardized testing for students.
In the first article it is clearly against standardized testing and in the second article it is hard to determine but it seemed more on the side that it agreed with standard testing. In the first article the author quotes the friend of his saying
It might be argued that I’ve been out of school to long, that if I’d actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the material would be fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took (Brady 2).
While the author states his opinion on the issues on the standardized test, in the second article the author has some clear points for good of the test.
I rather cheerfully concede the point raised by critics that testing is a political event far more than an educational one. But as a political event, it needs to be celebrated, though perhaps not with unbridled enthusiasm, for what it is—one of the messy and perhaps unfortunate, but nonetheless necessary, ways that we gather the information that we need to shape education policy (Covaleskie 4).
Both articles like to demonstrate their opinions and yes they are both very different each one has many quality facts to make a reader fall for both opinions given.
The second article in contrast to the third article is clear. The third article is clearly against standardized testing and the second isn’t. The second article Covaleskie shows his opinion on facts he believes isn’t true.
By forcing teachers to “teach to the test” and focus on the discrete skills of the test, standardized testing prevents teacher’s form helping students grow intellectually and emotionally. It distorts the process of schooling and denied children the opportunity for the proper development and age-appropriate experiences while placing them under unwarranted and potentially damaging pressure to do well on these “high stakes” tests. If any of this were true, it would convince me to oppose testing. But it is my experience that these things are not true (Covaleskie 6).
While in the third arictle he clearly believes that the last statement would be true. “If a test requires coverage of a great deal of material—however superficially—then exploring a few things deeply will be poor preparation for the test even though it may be far more effective for achieving various intellectual goals (Kohn 19).” The authors have very different views on the issues of testing.
The articles two and three might be very different but article one and article three have the same views on the issues of standardized testing. Both view standardized testing as bad for kids and that it isn’t helping anyone. In fact it is hurting children’s future plans and teacher’s ways of teaching (Kohn). “ Tests have lately become a mechanism by which public officials can impose their will on schools, and they doing so with vengeance (Kohn 1).” Here the author is saying that the test is giving public officials ways to critic schools and teachers by the performance of the tests. A fact that mentions almost the same thing is stated in article one.
As of last night, 658 principles around the state (New York) had signed a letter—488 of them from Long Island, where insurrection began—protesting the use of students’ test scores to evaluate teachers’ and principles’ performance (Brady 2).
These articles really show their true opinions when it comes to this topic and it really puts things into different perspectives and makes the reader understand where they are coming from.
1) Do I need more of my own opinion?
2) Should I use less quotes?
3) Did the quotes match what I was going on with?
