|
|
The Impact
of State-Mandated Testing
|
The political and pedagogical difficulties posed by state-mandated testing continue to be well documented (McNeil, McNeil and Valenzuela, J. Bernstein, S. Bernstein, Blalock and Haswell). Past modules have addressed the issues surrounding these difficulties, such as assessment (DeGenaro and White, Glau), race and social class (Young, Ribble), and language (Uehling, DelQuadro). I would like to add to the discussion by addressing pedagogical strategies that account for standardized testing. At the same time, I want to consider how such strategies can address the goals of egalitarian education in a democratic society so that all students are encouraged to develop their intellectual gifts rather than be stigmatized for performance on standardized tests.
In 1985, Mike Rose suggested that the notion that “good writing is correct writing” that drives the standards movement “seems to reemerge with most potency in times of crisis: when budgets crunch and accountability looms, or particularly, when ‘nontraditional’ students flood our institutions” (522). Indeed, as Mina Shaughnessy observed in Errors and Expectations in 1977, “remedial programs are likely to be evaluated (and budgeted) according to the speed with which they produce correct writers, correctness being a highly measurable feature of acceptable writing” (9).
Regrettably, as both of these pioneering practitioners and theorists of basic writing noted, the end result of such thinking tends to blame the victim for inadequate writing and critical thinking skills. A generation has passed since Shaughnessy and Rose began their groundbreaking work, yet their conclusions seem relevant for our own time. Rather than stigmatize individual students with labels, categories, and other barriers to public higher education, systemic social change is needed to address inadequate public schooling at all levels. Nonetheless, state-mandated standardized testing clearly remains a seemingly non-negotiable reality for many of us who teach basic writing, if not a persistent threat to the existence of the course itself.
One of the provisions of the “No
Child Left Behind” act of 2001 is that all public school students will soon
be required to take standardized tests that measure “accountability.” In
These students, while needing more time (Leki, Agnew and McLaughlin, Herbert) to transition into some courses at the college level can make tremendous gains in a supportive educational environment (Sternglass). These gains are clearly beneficial to the future progress of students who take basic writing courses, who come from a variety of backgrounds and are often labeled “nontraditional.” Such students may speak languages or dialects other than “standard” English, have diagnosed or unaccounted for learning disabilities, are returning to college after a long absence, or, as is often the case for many students enrolled in basic writing, have undergone years of inadequate instruction in distressed public schools (Christopher).
In order to address the needs of
students in basic writing who are required to take state-mandated standardized
tests, practitioners and theorists offer several approaches. Flippo, Becker,
and Wark suggest, in their review of coaching strategies, that preparation ideally
“would be a learning and thinking experience rather
than simply a crash course or cramming strategy to pass the exam” (238). Ferris
and Hedgcock present guidelines for ESL students that could be generalized to
all students enrolled in basic writing courses: “scores, grades, and evaluative
feedback should consistently contribute to writers’ learning processes and the
overall improvement of their measurable writing skills” (227-28). McClaskey,
who teachers high school students in
In my own practice, I have found a strong correlation between students’ success in achieving passing scores on the reading and writing skills tests. Since facility with reading seems to indicate enhanced success with writing, I have developed a linked basic writing and reading course that focuses on the metacognitive relationship between these two critical processes. In addition, when I teach basic writing as a single (unlinked) 3-hour course, I also focus the curriculum on the relationships between writing and reading.
The most significant link between the practitioners and theorists cited above seems to be the need to create an intellectually challenging and engaging curriculum for our students in basic writing, a curriculum that provides critical practice with writing and reading rather than with drills and skills. We can also, as appropriate, bring the issue of high stakes testing into our classrooms as a subject for further inquiry for reading and writing for our students (Shor). The necessity to remain informed about current laws and practices regarding state-mandated standardized tests and other accountability measures both locally and nationally need not stop at our classroom door.
I am interested to hear how others deal with the challenges of state-mandated testing, whether as teachers, administrators, researchers, parents, activists, or advocates. I provide the following questions to begin our conversation and look forward to discussing other questions or concerns that the issue of standards calls forth.
If you have
a question or a problem about a specific book or product, please fill out our
Product Feedback
Form.
For further information about this site contact english@mcgraw-hill.com