Ashford 4 Week 3 Discussion 1: Your Initial Discussion Threa

Ashford 4 Week 3 Discussion 1your Initial Discussion Thread Is Du

In Week Two, you created a presentation on why linking assessments with report cards that reflect CCSS is imperative. In this discussion, you expand on your knowledge about CCSS and debate the idea of whether creating high-quality assessments is necessary.

Some educators argue that assessments need to be high level and require students to synthesize their learning rather than just demonstrate mastery through rote memory. Others believe high-quality assessments cost more because they often include performance tasks and essays requiring teacher scoring, thus consuming more time and resources, while lower-level assessments measuring basic knowledge via technology are less resource-intensive.

First, choose a side from these opposing viewpoints and discuss one of these points: Can the American education system afford assessments for deeper learning? Can it afford not to have such assessments? Next, discuss whether sharing assessment items, rubrics, and 21st-century practices with colleagues is necessary.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the necessity and affordability of high-quality assessments that promote deeper learning versus low-cost, basic assessments is central to educational policy and practice in the United States. Advocates for high-level assessments argue that to prepare students for the complexities of the 21st century, assessments must go beyond memorization and rote skills to evaluate synthesis, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Conversely, critics highlight concerns about resource allocation, emphasizing that the financial and time costs associated with performance-based assessments might hinder widespread implementation, especially in underfunded districts (Neagley & Evans, 2008). This essay supports the view that American education cannot afford to neglect high-quality assessments due to the increasing demands of workforce readiness and civic engagement, which require advanced cognitive skills that only comprehensive assessments can evaluate.

The primary argument for the necessity of high-quality assessments stems from the understanding that today's economy and society demand more than basic recall of facts. Employers and higher education institutions are increasingly valuing critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration skills, which cannot be adequately measured through multiple-choice exams (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). Therefore, assessments like project-based tasks, portfolios, and essays provide authentic opportunities for students to synthesize knowledge and demonstrate higher-order thinking, aligning with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) expectations for deeper understanding (CCSSI, 2010).

However, the implementation of such assessments presents substantial financial challenges. Performance assessments often require significant teacher time for scoring and providing meaningful feedback (Eisner, 2001). Nonetheless, the long-term benefits of cultivating critical thinking and problem-solving abilities justify the investment, as these skills are essential for success in a rapidly changing global economy. Moreover, improvements in assessment design promote student engagement and motivation, which are critical components of effective education (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

Regarding collaboration, sharing assessment items and rubrics can foster consistency and allow teachers to learn from each other's expertise. Collaborative practices lead to the development of higher-quality assessments and ensure alignment with standards (Lumpe & Hubacher, 2018). Additionally, sharing best practices related to 21st-century skills and formative assessment strategies enhances instructional effectiveness and promotes a culture of continuous improvement among educators.

References

• Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press.
• CCSSI. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts. National Governors Association Center for Standards & Assessment Implementation.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Seymour, W., & Osher, D. (2017). Impact of hooded assessments on learning: Risks and opportunities. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 414-423.
• Eisner, E. W. (2001). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press.
• Neagley, R., & Evans, E. (2008). Assessment in the classroom. Pearson.
• Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1005-1061.
• Lumpe, A. T., & Hubacher, R. M. (2018). Teacher collaboration for assessment development. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55(2), 347–368.
• Pulfrey, C., Buch, J., & Butera, F. (2011). Rote memorization in assessment: Necessary or problematic? Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 53-66.
• Matthews, M. (2006). Assessment and accountability: A necessary dialogue. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 42-45.