learning, and should allow students

learning, and should allow students to show what they know and can do. It should also prompt evaluation of the curriculum itself, as teachers try to make sense of how students perceive and experience it. Failure of stu-
dents to learn or participate may say more about students' resistance to the curriculum (or to the teacher) than about their ability to learn. This chapter continues the "backwards" planning approach from Chapter 3, linking assessment with curriculum organized for student engagement with big ideas. However, since classrooms are situated within standards-based assessment systems that increasingly drive curriculum and instruction at the classroom level, we begin with this larger context.


REFORM-BY•TESTING AND CURRICULUM

The logic behind standards-based reform:by:testing is that if states set clear, highstandards,- align.curriculum to them, teach to them, test stu-
dent mastery.of them, and attach consequences to test results (such as Vvaiiie—r a student receives a diploma or whether a schoof recevies-good or bad publicity), then teachin and Learning will improve (Kornhaber, 2004). This logic comes from the social efficiency perspective about the purpose of schooling: to prepare young people for the needs of society, particularly employment in an expanding capitalist economy. Schools are conceptualized as factories producing workers; curriculum and systems of measuring achievement derive largely from needs of prospective employ-
ers (Shepard, 2000).
No Child Left Behind legislation, embedded within this logic, is receiv-
ing mixed reviews. While some find standardized testing to be a very use-
ful lever to improve teaching and learning, especially for students from historically underserved communities (e.g., see "Don't turn back the clock," 2003; Hunt, 2003), others find it punishes those very same students (e.g., see Orfield & Kornhaber, 2001). Nationally, there is tremendous contro-
versy over whether standards-based reform by testing promotes or under-
mines equity. I suspect that some of this controversy results from how assessment is actually used in particular schools, school districts, and states. As Hood (1998) pointed out, the issue is not so much what kind of assess-
ment is used, but "whether inferences and decisions made from test scores are appropriate for different groups" (p. 189).
The extent to which achievement testing can serve as a tool to close teaching and learning gaps probably depends on the extent to which school leaders directly confront the deficiency paradigm. Facing achievement gaps squarely requires interpretation of why they exist. As Gay (2000) argued, there is a real danger in "merely belaboring the disproportionately poor

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 2:

learning, and should allow students to show what they know and can do. It should also prompt evaluation of the curriculum itself, as teachers try to make sense of how students perceive and experience it. Failure of Stu-
dents or learn to Participate may say more about students' resistance to the curriculum (or to the teacher) than about Hwy Ability to learn. This chapter continues the "backwards" planning approach from Chapter 3, linking assessment with curriculum organized for student engagement with big ideas. However, since Classrooms are situated within standards-based assessment systems Increasingly That drive curriculum and instruction at the classroom level, we begin with this larger context. REFORM-BY • TESTING AND CURRICULUM The logic behind standards-based reform: by: testing is that if states set clear, Highstandards, - Align.curriculum to them, to teach them, test Stu- dent Mastery.of them, and attach Consequences to test results (color: such as Vvaiiie-ra student Receives a diploma or a Whether Schoof Recevies-good or bad publicity), then teachin and Learning will improve (Kornhaber, 2004). This logic comes from the social efficiency perspective about the purpose of schooling: to prepare young people for the needs of society, particularly employment in an expanding capitalist economy. Schools are conceptualized as factories producing workers; curriculum and systems of measuring Achievement Largely derive from needs of prospective Employ- ers (Shepard, 2000). No Child Left Behind Legislation, embedded within this logic, is Receiv- ing mixed reviews. While some find standardized testing to be a very Use- ful lever to Improve teaching and learning, Especially for students from historically Underserved Communities (eg, see "Do not turn back the clock," in 2003; Hunt, 2003), others find it punishes those very same students (eg, see Orfield & Kornhaber, 2001). Nationally, there is tremendous Contro- Whether Versy over standards-based reform by testing Promotes Under- or mines equity. I suspect that some of this controversy results from how assessment is actually used in particular schools, school districts, and states. As Hood (1,998) pointed out, the issue is not so much what kind of Assess- ment is used, but "Whether Inferences and decisions made ​​from test scores are Appropriate for different groups" (p. 189). The Extent to Which Achievement testing can serve as a tool to close teaching and learning gaps probably it depends on the extent to which school leaders directly confront the deficiency paradigm. Facing achievement gaps squarely requires interpretation of why they exist. As Gay (2000) argued, there is a real danger in "merely belaboring the disproportionately poor