|
||||
|
|||||||||||||||
A Case Against OPTThe media is filled with reports of decline of American public education. Claims of declining standardized test scores, poor showings on international comparisons, lack of student motivation, higher drop-out rates, and poorly trained teachers have led the charge for "back-to-basics" curriculums, higher standards, and accountability for public dollars. With input and support from businesses and special interests, the state of Ohio created a set of standardized tests with the intent to raise the standards of education and the level of achievement for every child in Ohio. On the face of it, these sound like laudable ideals. However, the realities and consequences resulting from the implementation and subsequent use of these test results show a much different picture. The original intent of these tests was one of a diagnostic nature, to determine if school districts were delivering the curriculum required to meet the learning outcomes as adopted by the Ohio Department of Education. However, since their inception the focus has changed. Now test scores are being used to rank school districts, evaluated district effectiveness and make individual high-stakes decisions, such as graduation and grade advancement. Although few would argue that our educational system is indeed in need of reforms, this centralized method of testing for proficiency is a quick, one-dimensional, overly simplistic, one-size-fits-all attempt to solve a very complex problem. Research has shown that standardized test scores are effected by such issues as parental education levels; number of parents at home; type of community; and socio-economic levels than any other factors. [top] The Ohio Proficiency Test is no different. Research released in February, 2000 by education professor, Randy Hoover, at Youngstown State University, examined 40 factors (both in-school and out-of-school factors), to see which most affected Ohio Proficiency Test Scores. The study found that Ohio Proficiency Test scores were mostly correlated with socio-economic out-of-school factors, and not with factors within the control of classroom teachers. The conclusion from this report is that Ohio Proficiency Tests are not measuring meaningful academic performance, but rather simply identifying well-funded school districts -- a fact we already know. As a result, one could conclude that the testing mania and focus on test scores in Ohio, as well as around the nation, has diverted attention away from key issues of educational reform, including: inadequate and inequitable funding; diminished tax bases; adequate staffing with qualified teachers; scheduling; curriculum; parental and community involvement; deteriorating physical facilities; lack of books or other resources; and lack of classroom space. The specificity of state standards and mandates has created an environment where the tests are driving the curriculums, thereby leaving few options at the district level in determining content, depth, timing and assessment of curriculums. In efforts to improve test scores, districts are discarding entire curricula and are devoting weeks and sometimes months solely to prepare children for the test. All this is an attempt to improve rankings on a test which has never been proven to enhance learning or improve teaching methods. [top] Spontaneity, creativity, joy, and progressive teaching methods in our classrooms are at great risk. State mandates have essentially degraded the teaching profession, implying that assessments and evaluation of student performance are better off in the hands of the state, rather than with the teachers and parents who know children best. As a result, local school districts are degraded, losing their rights to deliver a curriculum in a manner specifically designed to meet the needs of their community and the individuals involved in their educational process. In short, "accountability" is just a new phrase to describe increased government control of our classrooms. The futures of our children are being molded by the hands of a small group of elite individuals who have no personal stake in their ultimate success or failure. Although state officials would have us believe that these standards are resulting in high school diplomas that finally "mean something," it is abusive to assume that one single assessment, no matter how well designed, could measure skills and proficiency so completely that is should be used as the sole or primary determinant of such important decisions and evaluations such as graduation, grade advancement and school district effectiveness. And yet, that is exactly what is done in Ohio. The label "proficient," which is assigned based on test scores is highly questionable due to the narrow scope of these tests. Most standardized tests are poorly designed, lacking the depth required to assess all vital criteria necessary in evaluating skill proficiency, and the typical multiple-choice format provides little information to adequately assess critical thinking and problem-solving skills. On the Ohio Proficiency Test, there are only a few questions or problems presented for any given topic, from which a child is determined to be "proficient" or not. The determination of cut-off scores and the actual scoring process itself have not been adequately opened to public scrutiny and debate. To declare that "proficiency" is achieved at one score, but that a child is "non-proficient" for a score just one point lower is absurd. The use of such a limited evaluation for high-stakes decision making is abusive and a violation of justice. [top] Although most would agree that student assessment and performance evaluation should certainly play a vital role in our educational process, the top-down approach of state mandated tests is not the best course of action. See A History of Ohio Proficiency Tests here. See Ohio Proficiency Tests and Education Standards
Legislation here. -- 2000
Additional Resources Influential Organizations
|
Last updated:
StopOPTs © 2000-2006