Assessment for Understanding

Assessments are a tool that measures how much a student knows about any given subject. I think that tests as assessments are overused and often do not measure knowledge accurately. Students are not robots and do not think the same way as the creators of the texts and materials used, or even the same way as their peers. It is important to have a variety of assessment strategies in order to make sure that you are getting an accurate picture of the students' knowledge. The difference between assessment and accountability is that assessment should be used to evaluate learning and knowledge, as well as aiding the teacher in understanding her students, while accountability is being held responsible for making sure the students have the skills and knowledge that they should. Ensuring accountability can be an effective tool for administrators, but it should not occur at the students' expense. My views are close to the author of Assessment for Understanding because I agree that the focus of classrooms should not be on standardized test (Furger 2002).

As a student myself, and an excellent test taker, I know that some students worked much harder than me to get good test scores. Also, there were students who knew more than I did but scored lower. While this evidence is anecdotal, I think it underlines the problems in the culture of standardized tests that the United States has immersed itself in. Students can not and should not be quantified and boiled down into a set of scores. I think that to assume so is also not in the interests of students because it leads them to believe that as long as you can do well in tests, you will do well in life. That is false. Real life assessments are performance based, and rarely do you have to take a written test at the end of the day to prove that you know how to do your job.

When teachers "teach to the test," they focus on only what is on the standardized tests. This means that all other relevant information as well as projects and activities are abandoned in favor of preparing students for the tests (Furger 2002). The effect of this on the classroom is a much narrower curriculum, as well as less engagement for the students. Performance-based assessments are more comprehensive when compared to standardized testing, as well as being more differentiating content and product based on student interest as well as readiness and learning style.

I think that students learn better when projects are used where they are assessed alternatively. An engaged student is a happy and productive student, and projects are an excellent way to engage a student and encourage them to enjoy learning. I think that alternative assessments are a much more realistic way to assess learning, as well as being more helpful to the teacher. I believe that where most of the controversy lies in abandoning standardized tests is that it takes more work to use alternative assessments as well as that there are no cut and dry answers. It is much more difficult to assess a portfolio than to check off correct answers. This is a paltry reason to stay with standardized tests as our major form of educational assessment. To change this culture, I think we must work to inform the public that standardized tests are more hurtful than helpful. The way schools are funded based on the scores of their students is also an ineffective way of evaluating schools. Schools are not businesses. While it may make sense for a company to cut funding to a factory that is not performing, to do so to a school is only making the situation more desperate.