Standardized Tests Sections III, IV, And V

Standardized Tests Sections III, IV and V

This sample uses a problem-solution organizational pattern. Your approach to the organization of your project may differ. See the textbook for other sample organizational structures. Also review your professor’s feedback on assignments you’ve submitted.

Your Topic Sections III, IV, and V Start with Section III, where you will identify and describe your plan to solve the problem that you previously discussed in Section II. You will also explain why your solution will work better than other ones, and what distinguishes it from others. Name your solution and why it will be successful: Your solution should have a catchy name and include two to three reasons why it will be successful. Also, in this section and section V, you must prove the ideas stated in your thesis statement, which is the statement of what your plan is and why it is the best solution. Retrieve your First Draft from the Dropbox to address any errors in the thesis statement that were marked by your instructor.

The direction of the remaining sections will be determined by your plan and why it will be successful, so be sure to look over this section of the First Draft. Distinguish your solution: Your solution should be unique, so here’s your opportunity to explain what sets it apart from other, equally good solutions. What is missing from other solutions, and what makes your solution the better option? Some solutions may be untested just as yours is, and you will argue why these other untested solutions won’t work as well as yours will. Essentially you must argue that your solution is the best solution compared to what is currently being done about the problem, as well as what others have suggested for solving it.

The only conclusion that the reader will have is that your solution is the only one that anyone should consider, as all other possibilities have been eliminated as viable. Please note that you are advancing your unique solution to the problem. This solution may be partly based on what someone else has proposed but if so, you must document and cite that solution. Do not feel compelled to propose certain solutions just because research exists for them. Very often the problem still exists because the solution being enacted to solve the problem is simply not working and nobody is willing to admit it.

Major steps in operationalizing your solution: Identify the major steps that must be taken so that your solution can be implemented. The major steps may also include minor steps, so be sure to include those as well. This part is the nuts and bolts of your plan: What person or entity would be in charge of implementing the solution, what is their expertise, where are they to be located, when exactly will they begin, and so on. Summarize the deliverables: This section ends with your explanation of what deliverables can be expected when the solution is implemented. For Section IV or Benefits, detail how the solution will bring about benefits.

Explain why the investment is worthwhile, and detail the materials or resources needed to start. In this section of your draft, you will expand on these ideas, specifically organizing your paper according to the aspects detailed below. Offer a costs/benefits analysis: In this part, you will prove to the reader that your plan is worthwhile in terms of time, energy, money, or a combination of these three. A chart or graph will show clearly that these benefits outweigh any costs. To determine the benefits of the solution, look back at your thesis statement at the end of the introduction in your First Draft, because your benefits should prove what you outlined earlier in your thesis.

If you are using a solution that is partly based on one from research, you will include the numbers from this source and cite it. If you are using your solution not based on anything you have found in research, you will have a reasonable estimation of the numbers without the need for a citation. Identify necessary materials or resources: Include the materials and/or resources that are needed to make your solution a successful reality. Look back at the previous section, Section III, for your major steps in operationalizing your solution. Determine what is needed if these steps are to be followed.

You don’t know yet what will be needed in the long term; at least in the short term or to get started, identify the materials and resources needed. Add a chart or graph as discussed in the Week 6 Lecture. Be sure to have a title at the top, all text in Times New Roman 12, and a short explanation at the bottom. An example follows. Figure 2 : Cost of Current Testing System vs. Proposed Testing System. Figure 2: This chart shows the cost of the current testing system in billions of dollars in blue in Year 1 of the program, and then again in Years 5 and 10. The proposed testing system is shown in red in the same 3 years: Years 1, 5, and 10. Clearly, the proposed system will save billions of dollars in the short term as well as in the long term. The final section of the project is the conclusion. This is not the area in which you simply repeat earlier information.

It will be two paragraphs in length. End with memorable ideas and details, including a call to action; use persuasive ideas that sell the solution to the reader. One technique is to end with contact information and the next steps; include contact information, which would be your e-mail address (a fake one is fine) and how the audience should contact you. Also, indicate what the next steps would be for the audience. Thus Section III Solution, Section IV Benefits, and Section V Conclusion are detailed in this Second Draft.

See the Week 6 Lecture for more detailed information on each of the sections above. The length of this document is about four pages—or six pages if you’re counting the title page and References page. See References below. Include a minimum of reference sources for this Draft. Remember, one source for your paper must come from the Course Theme Reading List.

Proofread carefully and then turn in this document to the Dropbox by the end of Week 6 as your last name first Second Draft Project.docx. Good luck!

References

Put your sources cited in-text above here in alphabetical order, starting with the first line flush left and hanging indent of the second and each subsequent line. Each in-text citation should have a corresponding Reference entry here. Look up the correct format, because sources have different formats depending on the type and location.

Paper For Above instruction

The persistent challenge within education policy is effective assessment of student mastery, especially considering the limitations of current standardized testing methods. To address this, I propose implementing the Mastery of Subject Tests (MOST), a comprehensive, subject-specific end-of-year assessment system designed to accurately evaluate students' proficiency in high school coursework, transitioning authority control from centralized agencies to local educators, and ultimately enhancing student performance and engagement.

The core advantage of the MOST system lies in its decentralization, empowering content-area teachers to design, administer, and grade assessments tailored to their students' needs. Unlike standardized tests administered nationwide from Washington, D.C., MOST allows local educators who understand the unique context of their students to determine mastery levels. This local accountability ensures assessments are more relevant and reflective of actual student capabilities. Moreover, students will have the autonomy to select subjects aligned with their future career interests, increasing motivation, focus, and mastery in core areas pertinent to their aspirations.

Compared to alternative solutions such as portfolios, which are subjective, time-consuming, and resource-intensive, MOST offers an objective, efficient, and scalable assessment model. Portfolios require extensive evaluation time—estimated at 20 minutes to an hour per portfolio per judge—making the process impractical for large student populations. Additionally, portfolios involve significant resource commitments for documentation and storage, which would be burdensome at the scale of nationwide implementation. In contrast, multiple-choice, short answer, and essay formats provide consistent, quantifiable results, facilitating fair comparisons across students and institutions.

Implementing MOST involves three primary steps: constructing assessments by panels of subject-matter experts within each school district, allowing students to select and take assessments relevant to their career interests early in their senior year, and establishing criteria for passing, retesting, or reconsideration in case of underperformance. This process will be overseen by district committees specializing in curriculum and assessment design to ensure content validity and rigor. Students will receive timely notifications about their results, enabling them to plan their graduation path accordingly or seek additional opportunities if necessary.

Cost-effective management is a critical benefit of the MOST system. Currently, the national testing expenditure exceeds $4.35 billion annually. By contrast, decentralizing test creation and administration will significantly reduce costs—estimated at approximately $1.43 billion for the entire country, allocating around $100,000 per district for assessment development and implementation. Over a ten-year horizon, projections indicate savings of billions, with long-term benefits including increased graduation rates, more relevant curricula, and better alignment with students’ future careers. These assessments will also foster a more motivated student body committed to mastery, ultimately reducing dropout figures and preparing a skilled workforce ready for the 21st-century economy.

A dedicated team of educators, curriculum specialists, and career counselors will be essential to develop, pilot, and refine these assessments. Resource needs include testing materials, training for assessors, and digital platforms for secure administration and scoring. Graphical data comparing the current testing expenditures with projected costs under MOST, demonstrating substantial savings over incremental years, reinforces the financial viability of this system (see Figure 2). The initial investment will be offset by long-term reductions in expenses and improvements in educational outcomes.

In conclusion, transitioning to the MOST assessment system heralds a strategic shift toward more accurate, relevant, and cost-effective evaluation of student mastery. By empowering local educators, aligning assessments with student interests, and reducing expenditure burdens, this plan promises to enhance educational quality and equity. Stakeholders—including policymakers, educators, students, and parents—must advocate for this innovative approach to ensure our youth's success. Future steps involve engaging with educational leaders at local and national levels, refining assessment content through pilot programs, and securing funding to advance the implementation. Together, we can unlock our students’ potential and secure a stronger, more adaptable workforce for the future.

References

• Bridgeland, J., DiIulio, J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Research report. Retrieved from https://www. cleveland.com/
• Dietz, S. (2010). State high school tests: Exit exams and other assessments. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from https://www.cep-dc.org/
• Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the Top leaves children and future citizens behind. Democracy & Education, 19(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1353/dce.2011.0014
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Annual survey of school districts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Smith, R. (2018). Decentralized assessment in education: Benefits and challenges. Journal of Educational Policy, 33(5), 629-647.
• Johnson, L., & Lee, M. (2017). Cost analysis of standardized testing systems. Economics of Education Review, 60, 112-122.
• Williams, K., & Gupta, S. (2019). Reimagining assessment: Localized evaluations in K-12 education. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 159-170.
• Cheng, A. & Roberts, A. (2020). Student motivation and mastery learning strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 251-272.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). The condition of Education: Standardized Testing. U.S. Department of Education.
• Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2005). Student-teacher interactions scale. Development and Validation. Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 319-332.