Introduction of Innovative Educational Practices and Development of Innovation Skills in Education System

The practice of evaluating students and teachers based on expensive and stressful standardized testing has been the focus of educational reform for over a decade and has thus far proven to be ineffective (Ravitch 51).

After the implementation of the “No Child Left Behind Act” high risk standardized testing has become a pressure cooker of corruption in the United States due to often unrealistic expectations, abundant incentives, and harsh punishments placed upon educators and administrators, overall resulting in the essential need for reform. The concept that every student’s academic ability can be assessed by a single universal exam is a misguided notion.

By believing that instructors are the most important influence in a child’s education, teachers are given an unrealistic responsibility. Many policymakers believe that holding educators accountable for student success is the best way to improve public education. This asks educators to overcome these outside variables that are far outside of teachers’ control. Policymakers suggested linking teacher evaluations to student achievement, measured by standardized tests. This is not a beneficial way to hold teachers accountable because of the many outside factors that affect student achievement. A better way to hold teachers accountable is to stem out of a realistic perspective on what teachers can and should do for their students. Each part of society holds an important responsibility in increasing student achievement. Teachers should not be asked to be responsible for more than they can handle.

Downing, S., & Haladyna, T. (1996). A model for evaluation of high-stakes testing programs: Why the fox should not guard the chicken coop. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 5(1), 5–12.

Cizek, Gregory J. "More Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing." Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 20.4 (2005): 19-27. Google Scholar. Web. 8 Mar. 2017. This source explores the negative critiques of standardized testing from within the education profession. The history of high stakes tests is described to provide background information on how testing practices have evolved. Various consequences addressed include: reduction of instruction time, neglect of teaching material not covered by the tests, instruction and assessment mirroring the tests, and negative effects on teacher morale and creativity. Cizek also takes time to address the time commitment of test taking. While multiple hours spent on one test is necessary in

Public school curriculums have been morphed to teach what is on standardized tests specifically. "Research has shown that incentives can encourage teachers to "teach to the test" by narrowing their focus to the material most likely to appear on the test. As a result, their students' scores may be artificially inflated because the score reflects their knowledge of only part of the material the students should know about the subject." (Do High-Stakes Tests Improve Learning?). The concept of teaching to test is the problem in school systems.

When high stakes tests are used as a large part of a teacher’s performance evaluation it fails to show the bigger picture. Students come from diverse learning backgrounds and testing does not show the growth that the teacher helped the students to accomplish. High stakes testing forces teachers to focus only on subjects tested and spend many, many hours on teaching test-taking strategies. By narrowing the curriculum, testing does not allow students to focus on a deep understanding of material or develop critical thinking skills. There has also been a “trickle down” of curriculum into the lower grade levels to help prepare them for standardized testing.

One of the most substantial and consequential reforms in education has been the nationwide adoption of standards-based accountability policies that use high-stakes standardized tests to evaluate the progress of students, the ability of teachers, and the effectiveness of schools {Dee:2011cl, Jacob:2005bm, Cohen:2009wl}. Since their inception in the late 1990s, high-stakes tests have been subject to much controversy. Researchers have uncovered various efforts by schools and districts to “game the system,” including discouraging low-performing students from taking the test {Heilig:2008hb}, targeting resources and attention to students near proficiency cutoffs {BooherJennings:2005bz, Neal:2010ut}, narrowing curricula to tested subjects {Au:2007ja, Koretz:2009ta}, even increasing students’ caloric intake on test days {Figlio:2005bp} and out-and-out cheating {Jacob:2003cd}. Moreover, teachers and administrators have criticized the policy, echoing concerns over a lack of resources, narrowed

High stakes assessments are damaging our education system because all the important decisions are being made base in one assessment and not taking under consideration other evaluations. I would like to see a change in the way students, teachers and schools are being evaluated, I want to see a balance between the decisions that is affecting students. I want our schools to teach the curriculum and not a test. I don’t want students feel pressure and stop learning because of the fear of one

High-stakes testing. In today’s educational society, those words have the power to strike fear and doubt into teachers and students alike. High-stakes tests are exams used to determine important things about a school, district, teacher accountability and student performance. For a student, these tests have the power to determine whether or not she will advance to the next grade level and whether or not she graduates from high school. For a teacher, these tests often serve as evaluators of how well he teaches his students. Schools and school districts, who often run their establishments like businesses, use these high-stake tests to boost ratings, receive grades, and in many cases, request funding for things like transportation, based on how well the school as a whole did perform.

High stakes testing is basically one test that results have proven in the most recent years an enormous impact on education today. The outcome of these tests can have a major effect on students, teachers and schools. High stakes testing should not determine how smart a student is or how well a teacher can teach. These tests have been proven to have a negative impact on a student’s motivation to learn as well as a teacher’s motivation to teach. Not all students learn the same nor do they test the same. Therefore, a teacher’s performance should not be based on the results of these tests alone. High stakes testing put too much stress on students and teachers, have narrow curriculum and do not show diversity to ELL students.

Today, it can be observed that society has shifted education drastically from the time schools were constituted, to now. Throughout history, schools have gone from private, where only the elite can attend, to public schools where virtually anyone can attend. One of the factors that goes along with education is standardized testing. Frederick J. Kelly, father of the standardized test, once said, “These tests are too crude to be used, and should be abandoned.” Not only has this shift occurred within education itself, but it has occurred within the testing concepts found within standardized testing so much so that the founder of these tests has chosen to give up on it.

High Stake Testing- According to our textbook, high stake testing involves all students including those with disabilities participating in a standardized summative common assessment, which is mandated by the federal government. (Salend, 2016, pg 454) These assessments are used to measure mastery of benchmarks in the curriculum. (Salend, 2016, pg 454) These assessments are used and analyzed in order to make important decisions. The results of high stake testing can be used to make decisions about a student’s education program and promotion. They often are used to measure teaching effectiveness. The use of high stake testing is highly controversial. Many argue these tests are not an accurate depiction of a student’s abilities. Not every student is a good test taker, and other means of assessments could be used to measure student’s skills and abilities. It may also cause pressure on students as well as cause testing anxiety and lack of motivation in some students. (Salend, 2016, pg 455) Other consequences of high stake testing is that is puts too much reliance on a test to measure teacher effectiveness. It also puts a lot of pressure on teachers since they are often evaluated based on the results of students performance on the test. This may lead to teacher’s teaching to the test and may limit their creativity and time spent on other content outside of the test. There are alternative testing assessments and testing accommodations available for students with disabilities.

The word ‘innovation’ is derived from Latin word ‘innovare’, which means “to change something to new”. In other words, we may say that ‘innovation’ means changing the regular way of doing things and involves doing the regular things in a novel way.

Although testing has been around for a long time, I instinctively believe that testing doesn’t give a clear picture student achievement. Thus, I make a strong connection to the following quote: “A central question has been whether accountability policies and standardized testing [are] helping or harming those children the polices are most often designed to serve” (Skrla, Mckenzie, Sheurich, 2009 p.11). For instance, when I analyzed and interpreted the TAPR of Richard J Wilson Elementary school, I found valuable information that all teachers should know at the beginning of every school year. Specifically, examining the categories of tested and the students’ performance on individual TEKS would allow teachers to have a clear picture of what exact skills and content knowledge students are expected to achieve throughout the school year.