To: Ohio Department of Education
Excessive Standardized Testing in Ohio Public Schools
It is evident that standardized testing is becoming unnecessary and repetitive, deviating from its original purpose. There is an excess number of tests administered, resulting in a loss of focus in the classroom and society as a whole. We challenge the Ohio Department of Education and Ohio educators, as well as the entire community, to devise a multilateral solution to this pressing issue.
Why is this important?
With the recent developments in public education, we have witnessed a general trend: the increase of emphasis placed on standardized testing, along with an increased quantity of the tests themselves.This is seen in the implementation of the Ohio Graduation Tests 2005 and onward, as well as the new Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Next Generation Assessments, the latter two of which have caused dissent among both educators and students, as well as the entire community. The reasons behind this unrest include the exorbitant amount of time said testing takes away from learning, the heavy reliance they place upon technology, and the lack of consideration towards both socioeconomic background and educators’ opinions. We are concerned that these tests do not address the realistic issues we are faced with.
The shift towards an emphasis on standardized testing averts the focus of teaching from actual learning and expanding on the curriculum to solely preparing for tests . In addition, the increased number of tests requires a greater amount of time spent taking the tests rather than time spent in a class setting and limits the time and resources available to both educators and students. Thus, the sheer volume of mandated tests should not be imposed as it will take an excessive amount of time that could otherwise be devoted to other educational purposes.
While these “reforms” are a disadvantage to every student involved, we recognize specifically the risks they pose to the more underprivileged districts, especially in regards to technology. Not every school has the resources/budget available to make online-only tests possible. Even the schools that have sufficient existing computers may need them for other projects and classes online. Other technological problems may ensue; if a student takes a time-sensitive test, for example, poor internet connection could lead to an inaccurate score. These online tests use software that is difficult to keep up with, and many require introductory courses on how to use this new testing software, taking up even more class time. Emphasis on technology, as well as its subsequent problems, creates a greater disparity between school districts of varying economic backgrounds.
Part of the reason why there is a generally negative attitude towards these new policies is that educators feel as though neither their opinions nor their experiences have been considered, and they are not involved in any sort of decision-making. They have had little to do in developing the “reforms” that they themselves must carry out. If there was more productive and multilateral communication between policymakers and educators, new policies and testing mechanisms would be well-informed and better serve the public education system.
We have already experienced firsthand the effects of the new ponderous testing system: the loss of enriching projects, a relentless concern for our more economically-burdened peers, and an exam-induced exhaustion of students and teachers.
The shift towards an emphasis on standardized testing averts the focus of teaching from actual learning and expanding on the curriculum to solely preparing for tests . In addition, the increased number of tests requires a greater amount of time spent taking the tests rather than time spent in a class setting and limits the time and resources available to both educators and students. Thus, the sheer volume of mandated tests should not be imposed as it will take an excessive amount of time that could otherwise be devoted to other educational purposes.
While these “reforms” are a disadvantage to every student involved, we recognize specifically the risks they pose to the more underprivileged districts, especially in regards to technology. Not every school has the resources/budget available to make online-only tests possible. Even the schools that have sufficient existing computers may need them for other projects and classes online. Other technological problems may ensue; if a student takes a time-sensitive test, for example, poor internet connection could lead to an inaccurate score. These online tests use software that is difficult to keep up with, and many require introductory courses on how to use this new testing software, taking up even more class time. Emphasis on technology, as well as its subsequent problems, creates a greater disparity between school districts of varying economic backgrounds.
Part of the reason why there is a generally negative attitude towards these new policies is that educators feel as though neither their opinions nor their experiences have been considered, and they are not involved in any sort of decision-making. They have had little to do in developing the “reforms” that they themselves must carry out. If there was more productive and multilateral communication between policymakers and educators, new policies and testing mechanisms would be well-informed and better serve the public education system.
We have already experienced firsthand the effects of the new ponderous testing system: the loss of enriching projects, a relentless concern for our more economically-burdened peers, and an exam-induced exhaustion of students and teachers.