Should students who fail standardized tests still advance?
Filed under: Elementary school, Middle school, High school, Public school
Standardized testing is a hotly contested topic between lawmakers, educators, parents and students. Are they effective? What do they prove? Do they hinder educators who, instead of fully investigating topics as they see fit, must teach their students simply to pass a test?
I'm most familiar with the system in Texas -- the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test, but many states operate on similar models. These are standardized tests in math, English, reading, science and social science that, theoretically, students must pass in order to continue their educational careers. The idea is to restrict "social promotion" -- the practice of advancing a student according to his or her age, with less emphasis placed on academic achievement.
But this isn't how it works in practice. Some districts advance the vast majority of students who fail the test, while others hold back just as many. The law provides leeway for parents and administrators, giving them, and not the state, the final say on whether or not a child is promoted to the next grade level.
Without standardized tests, what systems do we use to hold school systems accountable? On the other hand, tests cause anxiety, are often culturally biased, and generally prove, above all, that students who pass are better at taking tests than those who fail. Beyond this, the idea of creating an educational model that treats every child of a certain age as if he or she were the same, seems almost ludicrous.
Does your state or school district use standardized testing? How does it work in practice? Has your child been held back? Do you have a child advance despite failing the test -- why wasn't s/he held back?
Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments