Consequences for Schools and Students

If a school follows the approach of teaching students in a way that will ensure that they will do well on state standardized tests, the result will be that the school can protect their funding.  This is because the amount of funding the school gets is tied to its performance on the state standardized testing.  The thing is, is this approach really good for the students?  Low ability students will benefit because everything they are taught is what they are expected to know in order to pass these tests.  High ability students are unlikely to meet their potential.  They will not learn anything more than what they need to pass the test.  These students are in danger of becoming bored.  However, if a teacher teaches for the sake of learning, not just to pass the test, all of the students in the class are more likely to love learning.  The high ability students are also less likely to become bored and are allowed to reach their potential.  The low ability students may have to work harder.  Some people may argue that the low ability students will have a disadvantage in that they might not get the help that they need.  This will depend on the district they are in and how much money is being distributed to Special Ed. or tutoring.  This creates a cycle in which teaching beyond the bare minimum may mean extra funding is necessary for struggling students, but yet that funding is based on standardized test performance.  I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter.

Different Approaches to prepare for State Standardized Testing

It seems like schools have different approaches for preparing students for state standardized testing.  One approach is to teach the students in a way that they do the best they can on the test.  This often means memorizing information and taking practice multiple choice tests.  One of the consequences of this approach is that kids are only memorizing what they need to know for the test, not actually learning it and remembering it.  Another approach is to teach in a way that all of the students learn and remember the material and sometimes become curious to know more about the particular subject.  I personally agree with the second approach because I think it is good to remember the information when students get to more challenging tests such as exams, or the SATs when they are at a higher level of learning.  I also think that if kids learn about something they might want to research it and learn even more about it.  Which one of these approaches do you agree with and why?  Post a comment in the section below.

Two Reasons for State Standardized Testing

I can think of two reasons why state standardized testing exists.  One reason is the fact that schools get funding based on how their students are doing, so schools have an incentive to make sure the students know the bare minimum for their particular grade level.  A second reason is that it's a way to make sure all of the students in the school have actually learned everything they are expected to know for their grade.  Post a comment identifying any other reasons you can think of for state standardized tests.