Response to Editorial: "Keeping my fingers crossed..."

In response to my classmate's blog post, found here:

I think that many of the criticisms of the TAKS test are misguided. Standardized testing does have weaknesses, especially the problem of "teaching to the test" which makes teachers feel they are restricted in their methods. However, the issue of "teaching to the test" is, in my opinion, more a reflection of the general inadequacy of our school system than a damaging by-product of standardized testing.

 

The primary purpose of a standardized test is to ensure that the progress and achievement of students is comparable across a range of different schools and districts. The centralized way that our schools are organized (with curriculum and graduation standards set by the state so that a high school diploma earned by a students in different districts are of comparable meaning) necessitates a standardized way to measure academic progress. Standardized tests like the TAKS are designed to measure the progress of students in certain essential academic areas like math and reading, and students with a mastery of those subjects in a grade-level appropriate way should have no problem passing such a test. Minimal “teaching to the test” should be required if students are being equipped with the skills that each grade is supposed to provide them. The problem is that some students don’t have a sufficient mastery of the curriculum to pass the test (i.e., they haven’t learned what they are supposed to have learned in that grade or set of grades). Instead of allowing those students to repeat that grade and acquire those essential skills, teachers are given incentives to ensure that students simply pass the test, and often try to accomplish this by teaching the students tactics for navigating and mastering “the test” rather than what the test is intended to measure. This is where “teaching to the test” becomes an issue, and thus it would not be an issue if students were being properly educated in the areas that the state has deemed essential.

 

So I think, unlike your contention that phasing out the importance of the TAKS test will help teachers and students, eliminating the need to pass the TAKS test in 3^rd, 5^th, and 8^th grades will only hurt students in the long run. If a student cannot pass the TAKS test in those grades it is almost certain that they haven’t gained the proper tools to advance to next grade. Not being prepared to handle the curriculum of the next grade will only leave students at a greater academic disadvantage and place an greater strain on teachers that will have to devote valuable teaching time to remedial skills. Similarly, when you say that teachers should be able to devote more time to college-preparedness, I believe you are missing the fact that the skills tested on TAKS are essential to college success.

 

I agree with you that the idea of having three “tiers” of high school classes will be beneficial for Texas’ education system. Elite students generally have no problem with minimum state graduation requirements and separating low-performing students can help them get more personalized help and reduce the chances that they will “fall through the cracks.”

Editorial: Exonerees deserve better compensation

    Exonerees are currently not compensated enough to adequately cover the consequences to their lives that being unjustly imprisoned has cost them. This is the claim made by the author of the editorial Exonerees deserve better compensation found HERE on the Dallas Morning News website.

            Because this piece is well structured and easy to understand, the intended audience of this editorial seems to be the citizen of Texas who does not know about the Timothy Cole Act. This editorial would also be helpful to those who have reservations about the bill since it offers a good deal of background knowledge to support the author’s claim and the language used has a sense of urgency for people to address the issue and understand the severity of it, arguing the bill “deserves quick approval.”

            The author of this editorial has a high credibility a member of the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News. The reader can tell that the author is informed. His/her piece is well written, succinct, to-the-point and uses a diverse amount of evidence. The author’s argument is weakened, however, by the lack of information provided regarding any oppositional opinions.

            The author provides factual evidence and background information, such as current Texas policies regarding exonerees, as well as anecdotal evidence to support his claim that currently exonerees do not benefit much from the current laws. The author clearly and briefly lays out his/her argument for the Timothy Cole Act to be passed. This bill increases the amount of financial compensation given to Texas exonerees and addresses the issues in a more holistic manner than the current legislation by providing health insurance, tuition payments and the option of annual payments (so that exonerees do not squander their money and end up on the streets).

            I agree with the author of this editorial. Government too often feels they can throw a bunch of money at people in order to solve a problem. Rafael Anchia’s Timothy Cole Act takes into consideration the various levels of trauma experienced by Texas exonerees and allocates the money in a way that is much more helpful in getting these victims back on their feet. Though nothing could ever make up for sending someone to years of jail when they are innocent, this bill should be passed!