I grew up in a factory.  My parents were not workers in this factory, nor executives, yet I was still, like they were, a product.  From age five I was molded into who I have become.  I saw many get tossed aside as defaults because of no fault of their own.  So here I am, a survivor of a selective process, better known as public education.  I am surrounded by others who have passed the necessary requirements assigned by such “codes” as the MEAP, Proficiency test, ACT, SAT, and those worthless scantron tests that polished many years of education.  These tests would determine our future for us, and as long as we have a few lucky attributes, memorization and recitation in particular, it will be a good one.  Yes, I am one of the lucky ones.  But now that I am here, I realize how many others should have this chance, but don’t for foolish reasons such as test skills, culture, and race.  It just does not seem fair to me anymore.  In a country of equal opportunity, how can we consistently rely on one form of assessment?  Obviously, our diversity cannot be judged by one measurement of success.  New, more accurate assessments need to be implemented so that every student has an equal opportunity at success.
 There are many things holding us back from this goal.  First let us meet a huge group of conservatives.  Their only goal: to defend the status quo.  Let me be the first to congratulate them on successfully doing this.  They took standardized tests, which were first developed to identify mentally retarded children, and turned them into a discriminatory item (Nieto, 2000).  Because of this they have managed, throughout our history, to shove any chances of success into the corner for any group who is not the typical white middle class.  The ethnocentrism of this group is becoming more and more prevalent in education, and standards enforce it.  As ClearingHouse author Diane Ravich (1996) states, they “establish the principle that all students should encounter the same educational opportunities and the same performance expectations, regardless of who their parents are or what neighborhood they live in” (p.135).  So basically they are saying that the foreign students who come here in hope for a brighter future have no chance.  If they are not good English speakers they will not meet the standards, and there is no exceptions for them as to a slower pace, or interpretation.  What about the students from inner cities?  Well, that doesn’t matter to them either.  If they are getting shot at outside school, or beat up at home, that is no excuse for not meeting the standards.  Sounds a little unforgiving to me, especially in the land of equality.
 This type of theory puts a strain not only on the students, but also on teachers and schools.  Ravich (et. al.) assumes, along with many progressive teachers, that right now, “tests drive the cirriculum…teachers teach what they think is likely to be on the standardized tests,” which means valuable information is passed over (135).  What is on standardized tests is names, dates, definitions; concrete things, which a student will forget the day after.  What is wrong with students being able to draw a definition, or knowing the decade, not month, day, and year of an event?  I am sure there are teachers who teach like this out there, but teaching with creativity has become a risk.  Nieto reinforces this idea in his book Affirming Diversity when he describes what these tests result in: “new testing mandates narrowed the cirriculum and created conditions hostile to learning; in addition, teacher motivation was reduced” (94).  Everyone looses in this type of situation.
  Public schools that fail to meet the standards required face a terrible future; instead of receiving help they are negatively targeted.  Many state legislators are identifying these schools and then closing them down and handing out vouchers to parents (Pipho, 2000).  Another threatening alternative being used is turning these low performance schools into charter schools (Phipo, et.al., 2000).  This will not solve any of the problems.  In essence, this is just another way to keep the status quo going.  Family income correlates highly with standardized test scores, which proves that the schools that do well on testing are schools that are found in nice areas, that because of the racial hierarchy are mostly white.  The inner-city schools that are failing to meet the standards, which are filled with minority groups, are getting nothing. The schools are already lacking in regards to “instructional quality, resources, and other support services,” which starts them off at a disadvantage, narrowing their likelihood of success from the beginning (Nieto, 2000, p.93). Then their “un-acceptable” scores make things even worse instead of improving the situation.  That leaves no possible way for these students to succeed. The already successful dominant group is just furthering the gap between itself and the marginalized groups.
 It’s time that we started asking ourselves why testing is so important?  What do they really tell you about a student?  Well, if a student fails a test all it really relates to you is that he or she is a bad test taker, or maybe a minority.  If a student passes it may tell you that they memorized the information.  What it won’t tell you is that the student understands the information.  Our students need to know how to “frame problems for themselves, how to formulate plans to address them, how to assess multiple outcomes, how to consider relationships, how to deal with ambiguity, and how to shift purposes in light of new information” (Eisner, 1999, p.658).  If our teaching is geared towards passing concrete tests, it does not take long for students to catch on and study only what is needed.  What we should be teaching is preparation for the future, which will for very few include the “use of routine skills and rote memory” that these tests are actually assessing (Eisner, 1999, p.659).
What is scariest about this topic is where it is headed if we continue to turn our heads.   The federal education strategy, Goals 2000, is centered on this type of continuous testing in hopes that it will raise national standards.  This theory calls for a series of test administered in forth, eighth, and twelfth grades that call upon information from the five main subject areas.  As Nieto (2000) explains, the plan “focused little attention, however, on changes in curriculum or instructional practices, or on improvements in teacher education” (p.93).  Yes, there is much more attention now being focused on “high-stakes” testing, but the signals are not being heard, or else they are being ingored.
There seems to be no end to this hierarchy, but there is.  If the assessment in our schools is what is keeping this going, which I believe it is, then it is assessment that needs to be changed.  Obviously this needs to began at the bottom, with the teachers and individual schools.  The drive of schools should not be competition with other districts; it should be to educate each child to their highest degree.  We need to rethink the culture of each and every school and realize what standards are good for every individual class.  That is the key, individual.  Each student should be catered to his or her individual needs, and exceptions easily made.  Schools should make sure that the “children’s development dictates cirriculum direction rather than the curriculum driving student progress” (National Education Association [NEA], 1992, p.15).  In no way can we accept the same standards for a school in Suburbia City and another in the inner city.
It is obvious here that the standards being set and the ways in which they are measured are un-reasonable for many. With a change in the standards must come a change in the assessment.  New, more accurate ways of assessing can only result in better scores.  Student portfolios are one alternative that I strongly support.  There are many ways a student can make one of these.  But the main goal is that they, as an individual, choose.  Any type of student work can make up a portfolio; audiotapes, videotapes, computer disks, pictures, etc.  Portfolios are a wonderful new strategy because they “integrate instruction and assessment…(and) show what students have learned” (NEA, 1996, p.17).
Of course, there are still the parents out there who disagree with the use of portfolios.  Not only do they deviate from the text, they can become personal, which scares many parents off.  The NEA (1996) reported that one group of outraged parents accused, “they are too much of an opportunity for kids to reflect on or question their surroundings” (p.17).  That is the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard.  God forbid a little critical thinking going on in a student’s mind!
For those teachers who are scared of this, don’t go back to testing, there are other ways.  Most students, especially adolescents, are the hardest on themselves.  So why not let them assess their own work, monitor their own progress, and design their own premeditation.  As a teacher, you will have the ability to override any outrageous grade students may assign themselves, but that will only happen once in a while.  Not only will this give students more responsibility, it will also give them a feeling of trust.  Students will not only be failing you if they do not succeed, they will fail themselves (Clark, 2000).
 If you are a stickler for tests, there is still ways to make them more relevant.  Make sure they meet these guidelines, recommended by D.S. Clark (2000);
“·Replicate(s) the authentic tasks that one might face in real life,
·assess(es) knowledge in terms of its constructive use for learning in the future,
·guide(s) rather than judges, allowing educators to find out if students can create their own answers, choose their own learning activities, and determine the basis for their own assessment, and
·serve(s) the students needs” (p. 201).
So, no scantrons please!  Assessment should always “complement the curriculum and encourage expansion,” which is rarely possible with one word answers (Clark, 2000, p. 201).
 Too many of America’s schools marginalize students with worthless testing.  Students go through school “like an army marching in tandem, at the end of an eight- or a 12- year period students would exit the school having mastered the content assigned to each previous grade levels,” and that’s if their lucky (Eisner, 1999, p. 658).  Our educational system needs to be restructured in a way to suit every individual student.  This includes cirriculum and testing.  I know there are many whom fear loosing our capitalistic economy if there are to many successes, but to continue to keep our country’s youth treated this way is a great injustice.  It’s always been said to let nature run its course, yet in our schools the future of a child is decided for them.  If we, as individual teachers, one-by-one begin to change this, one-day we may actually have equal education in this country.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Bibliography

Clark, D.C., & Clark, S. (2000, March).  Appropriate Assessment Strategies for Young  Adolescents in an Era of Standards-Based Reform.  The ClearingHouse, 73, 201.
Eisner, Elliot W.  (1999, May).  The Uses and Limits of Performance Assessment.  Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 658-659.
Merina, Anita. (1992, Sept 15).  Innovation: how NEA members are changing the way schools work. NEA Today,11, 9-10.
Nieto, Sonia. (2000).  Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Phipo, Chris. (2000, May). Stateling- The Sting of High-Stakes Testing and Accountability.  Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 645.
Ravich, Diane.  (1996, Jan-Feb).  The case for national standards and assessments.  The Clearing House, 69, 134-136.
Tozar, S.E., Violas, P.C., & Senese, G. (1988).  School and Society (3rd ed.). Boston: MrGraw Hill.