The Paradoxes of High Stakes Testing Obtain

The Paradoxes of High Stakes Testing
By:Michael Russell,George Madaus,Jennifer Higgins
Published on 2009-02-01 by IAP

As a nation, we spend more than $1 billion a year on federally mandated educational tests that 30 million students must take each year. The country spends an additional $1.2 billion on test preparation materials designed to help students pass these tests. While test mandates were put in place with good intentions, increasingly educational leaders and policy makers are questioning these test based reform efforts. Some question whether these programs are doing more harm than good. Others call for the development of more and better tests. Given the vast amount of resources our nation pours into testing, is it time we pay closer attention to these testing programs? Is it time we hold the testing industry and policy makers accountable for the tests they make and use? Is it time we invest resources to develop new ways of testing our students? The Paradoxes of HighStakes Testing explores these and other questions, as it helps parents, teachers, educational leaders, and policy makers better understand the complexities of educational policies that use tests as a lever for improving the quality of education. The book explores: \u003e\u003e how testing is used to enable teachers and schools to be more effective and improve student learning, \u003e\u003e why testing is so ingrained in the American psyche and why policy makers rely on testing policies to reform our educational system, \u003e\u003e what we can learn from a long history of testbased reform efforts that have occurred over centuries and across continents, \u003e\u003e what effects testing has on teaching and learning in our schools when it is used to solve political, social, or economic problems. Most importantly, the book describes several ways in which testing can be improved to provide more accurate and more useful measures of student learning. Many of these improvements capitalize on technology to provide teachers with more detailed, diagnostic information about student learning and measure skills that some leaders argue are essential for the 21st century work force. Exploring what is within reach is critical because current testing policies are hindering these improvements. Finally, given that testing is and will continue to be an integral part of our educational system, the book concludes that, like other sectors of our society, educational testing must be more closely monitored to ensure that high quality tests are used to measure student achievement and to minimize the negative effects that testing has on students, schools, and our society. Given the opportunity our nation has to rethink and redesign its testing policies, The Paradoxes of HighStakes Testing presents a clear strategy to maximize the positive effects of educational testing.

This Book was ranked at 37 by Google Books for keyword Test.

Book ID of The Paradoxes of High Stakes Testing's Books is rfwnDwAAQBAJ, Book which was written byMichael Russell,George Madaus,Jennifer Higginshave ETAG "isSi09srjEM"

Book which was published by IAP since 2009-02-01 have ISBNs, ISBN 13 Code is 9781607529835 and ISBN 10 Code is 1607529831

Reading Mode in Text Status is false and Reading Mode in Image Status is true

Book which have "265 Pages" is Printed at BOOK under CategoryEducation

This Book was rated by Raters and have average rate at ""

This eBook Maturity (Adult Book) status is NOT_MATURE

Book was written in en

eBook Version Availability Status at PDF is true and in ePub is false

Book Preview

Do not you type of hate how we have joined the decadent stage of Goodreads where perhaps fifty % (or more) of the opinions compiled by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now actually naked and unabashed inside their variously powerful efforts at being arc, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Don't you kind of wood (secretly, in the marrow of one's gut's happy druthers) for the great ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all reviews were consistently plainspoke Don't you kind of loathe how we've joined the decadent stage of Goodreads wherein perhaps fifty per cent (or more) of the evaluations compiled by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now actually bare and unabashed within their variously powerful attempts at being arch, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Do not you sort of wood (secretly, in the marrow of your gut's merry druthers) for the nice ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all opinions were uniformly plainspoken, only practical, unpretentious, and -- above all otherwise -- boring, dull, boring? Don't you type of hate when people state'do not you think this way or experience this way'in an attempt to goad you equally psychologically and grammatically into agreeing together? In the language of ABBA: I really do, I do, I do(, I really do, I do). Well, since the interwebs is really a earth where days gone by stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the current (and with fetish porn), we are able to review the past in its inviolable presentness anytime we wish. Or at the least until this website finally tanks. Consider (won't you?) Matt Nieberle's overview of Macbeth in its entirety. I've bound it with a heavy rope and pulled it here for your perusal. (Please understand that several a sic are intended in these reviews.) its really complex and foolish! why cant we be studying like Romeo and Juliet?!?! at the least that guide is good! There you've it. Refreshingly, not a evaluation written in one of many witch's comments or alluding to Hillary and Bill Clinton or discussing the reviewer's first period. Merely a primal yell unleashed into the black wilderness of the cosmos.Yes, Mr. Nieberle is (probably) an adolescent, but I admire his capability to strongarm the temptation to be clever or ironic. (Don't you?) He speaks the native language of the idk generation having an economy and an understanding that renders his convictions much more emphatic. Here's MICHAEL's report on the same play. You could'know'MICHAEL; he is the'Problems Architect'at Goodreads. (A problematic title itself in so it implies he designs problems... which might be the case, for all I know.) This book shouldn't be required reading... reading plays that you never want to learn is awful. Reading a play kinda sucks to start with, if it absolutely was designed to be read, then it would have been a novel, not really a play. Together with that the teach had us students see the play aloud (on person for each character for a few pages). None people had browse the play before. None of us wanted to read it (I made the mistake of taking the'easy'english class for 6 years). The teacher picked students that looked like they weren't paying attention. All this compounded to create me virtually hate reading classics for something such as 10 years (granted macbeth alone wasn't the problem). I also hate iambic pentameter. Pure activism there. STOP the mandatory reading of plays. It's wrong, morally and academically. And yes it can really fuck up your GPA. There's no wasteful extravagance in this editorial... no fanfare, no fireworks, no linked photos of half-naked, oiled-up, big-bosomed starlets, no invented dialogues between the writer and the review-writer. It's simple and memorable. Being required to see plays is wrong, and if you require anyone, under duress, to read a play then you definitely have sinned and are likely to hell, if you believe in hell. Or even, you're going to the DMV. I'm also fed up with all you smug spelling snobs. You damnable fascists along with your new-fangled dictionaries and your fancy-schmancy spell check. Sometimes the passionate immediacy of an email overcomes its spelling limitations. Also, in this age whenever we are taught to respect each other's differences, it appears offensively egocentric and mean-spirited to expect others tokowtow for your small linguistic rules. Inspired expression is going to free of charge itself no matter how you are attempting in order to shackle it. That's your stick, Aubrey. Throughout this judgment, your perform Macbeth had been your worste peice ever authored by Shakespeare, this is saying considerably looking at also i understand the Romeo plus Juliet. Ontop connected with it is previously incredible piece, unlikely characters along with absolutly discusting list of ethics, Shakespeare freely portrays Sweetheart Macbeth for the reason that legitimate vilian in the play. Thinking of she's mearly your style inside the trunk round along with Macbeth him self is truely committing your hideous criminal activity, which includes killing along with deception, I do not understand why it is so straightforward to believe that will Macbeth might be prepared to perform superior as an alternative to bad if only his or her better half had been additional possitive. I believe until this play is definitely uterally unrealistic. Although the subsequent is certainly the actual ne in addition especially regarding traditional publication reviewing. Although succinct and also without any distracting desire in order to coyness or cuteness, Jo's assessment alludes into a bitterness hence profound it is inexpressible. A person imagines a number of Signet Typical Designs broken into to help bits together with pruning shears inside Jo's vicinity. I dislike that play. So much so which I can not even give you every analogies or maybe similes in respect of just how much I personally detest it. A good incrementally snarkier style will often have explained anything like...'I dispise this have fun with being a simile I cannot arise with.' Definitely not Jo. Your lover echoes any raw, undecorated fact unsuitable to get figurative language. And also there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Once within a terrific although, when you're getting neck-deep around dandified pomo hijinks, it is really a great wallow inside pig coop you might be itchin'for. Many thanks, Jo. I adore both you and your in vain grasping from similes of which are not able to method the bilious hatred in your heart. That you are acquire, plus My business is yours. Figuratively chatting, of course. And now this is my critique: Macbeth by simply Bill Shakespeare is the greatest fictional deliver the results in the English language, and anybody who disagrees is surely an asshole including a dumbhead.