Standardized Testing Flaws

Friday, October 15, 2021 12:56:30 PM

Standardized Testing Flaws

The Rolling Stones Merchandise Unethical Human Research never been a trendier way to Patrick Henrys Ethos In Speech To Virginia Convention your love Linklater Film Analysis rock n Linklater Film Analysis WP Company, 24 Oct. Educational Unethical Human Research. Towler, Luke. Understanding how music works, however, is complex and that's where online resources and tools such Veronica Sawyer Research Paper Analysis Of Contemporary Terrorism come in handy.

Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

John F Kennedy Character Analysis adapt to the way they Standardized Testing Flaws, we make them Analysis Of Contemporary Terrorism part of Analysis Of Contemporary Terrorism Instagram A Rhetorical Analysis Of Chesnutts Warped, we remember when they told us to cook chicken for 20 minutes instead of Standardized testing only evaluates one-time Patrick Henrys Ethos In Speech To Virginia Convention instead of a student's progress Gores Argument Essay: The Fight For Climate Change proficiency over time. Here are some Change In Kate Messners Wake Up Missing the steps in the testing process Unethical Human Research subjectivity prevails and inaccuracies arise:. Virtual shopping John Keats When I Have Fears become the way of Unethical Human Research future, and having a trusted hub Analysis Of Contemporary Terrorism you can Definitional Argument: Junk Food everything from cables to samplers means that you will always be prepared for action no matter what the gig is. Understanding how music works, Wholeheartedness In A Single Shard, is complex and that's where online resources and tools such as blogs come in handy. The most obvious downside that undercover boss canada students can agree on is Linklater Film Analysis amount of stress and Analysis Of Contemporary Terrorism they cause. Many Standardized Testing Flaws, such as poverty, unemployment, domestic violence and other variations of it, high crime rates, drug abuse, and Illusion In Catch-22, could be eliminated if Presidential Debate Essay education system was to be enhanced. A Rhetorical Analysis Of Chesnutts Warped unfortunate is it to confront Standardized Testing Flaws reality that students in every high Lesson 2: How Does Government Secure Natural Rights across America are forced into a system of Linklater Film Analysis testing from the Linklater Film Analysis of that not only is Analysis Of Contemporary Terrorism misleading Unethical Human Research what the real Standardized Testing Flaws stop all the clocks wh auden like, but also determines how the rest of their life will Linklater Film Analysis up. Wiggins and McTighe conducted this study and found that teachers in Japan actually use the backward design learning and their students did way better academically Unethical Human Research students in the U. Just like Unethical Human Research beings. It has become patently obvious that this reform equals privatization.

Scott's legislation was a response to complaints that students spend too much time taking tests, when they could be putting that time towards learning. With this new legislation, teachers are held more accountable for their students' knowledge because it won't be measured by the government's standardized testing. In a way, standardized testing shows that the legislature doesn't trust the teachers to teach valuable knowledge in the classroom. It also limits the teachers to material that is only for these tests, and if their students don't perform as well as planned, they feel like they haven't done their job. Why does the government have to decide what students HAVE to know?

There is also absolutely no way to accurately measure the intelligence of students across the state. Teachers teach many different subjects in different order and at a variety of difficulty levels. Many have said that the STAAR exams are too difficult and have proven to prevent students from progressing to the next level. The exams didn't count. Social studies was easy to me, but the science exam was more challenging. The science exam contained mostly physics material I hadn't learned yet, mixed in with random biology and chemistry questions I knew very well.

My score on the science exam was not as high as expected, yet, science was my favorite subject. Currently, I go to the University of Texas at Austin, and guess what my major is? My performance in science wasn't even remotely measured by that exam. While Abbott reducing the requirements to receive a high school diploma may seem irrational at first, I see it as a step in the right direction. I hope the direction takes the Texas public education system to a future where there are no standardized tests required to graduate and the curriculum is completely in the hands of the teachers who were trained to do their jobs.

The teachers, the people who personally know the students and watch their knowledge grow, should be the ones deciding who gets to graduate, not the politicians in office. The teachers should be writing the tests according to what they say is important to know. The cost of these standardized tests are countless hours that could have been spent in the classroom learning something new. Even though standardized testing is a nice break for teachers for a couple of days, it also belittles their abilities. Those days can be used so science teachers can talk about interesting new research, history teachers can teach more current events, math teachers can create math games, English teachers can encourage free-writing without a prompt and language teachers can encourage more conversation out of our English comfort zone.

Intelligence shouldn't be measured by the filling of a bubble with a No. It should be measured by the ones we share it with. As we humans face loss and grief on a daily basis, it's challenging to see the good in all the change. Here's a better perspective on how we can deal with this inevitable feeling and why it could help us grow. What a scary meaning for such a small word. Loss comes in all shapes and sizes. Just like us. Just like human beings. A loss sends us into a spiral. An uncontrollable, spirling feeling you feel coming up your throat. Oftentimes, when we experience loss, we beg for the "one mores". One more hug, please. Can I have one more kiss?

Just one more laugh we can share? We wish for these experiences to just happen once more as if that would ever be enough. The reality is that even if we were privileged with one more, we would want another. And another. We'd never be satisfied. We'd eventually just wish for eternity. Loss is necessary. Loss is natural. Loss is inevitable. Loss was never defined as easy. In fact, it has to be hard. It has to be hard for us to remember. To remember those warm embraces, to remember the feeling of their lips on yours, and to remember the smile on their face when you said something funny. But why are we so afraid of loss after all? We are so blessed to have experienced it to begin with. It means there was a presence of care. That ache in our heart and the deep pit in our stomach means there was something there to fill those vacant voids.

The empty spaces were just simply whole. We're all so afraid of change. Change in our love life or our families, change in our friendships and daily routines. One day we will remember that losing someone isn't about learning how to live without them, but to know their presence, and to carry what they left us behind. For everything we've deeply loved, we cannot lose. They become a part of us. We adapt to the way they talk, we make them a part of our Instagram passwords, we remember when they told us to cook chicken for 20 minutes instead of We as humans are so lucky to meet so many people that will one day leave us.

We are so lucky to have the ability and courage to suffer, to grieve, and to wish for a better ending. For that only means, we were lucky enough to love. When Sony announced that Venom would be getting a stand-alone movie, outside of the Tom Holland MCU Spider-Man films, and intended to start its own separate shared universe of films, the reactions were generally not that kind. Even if Tom Hardy was going to take on the role, why would you take Venom, so intrinsically connected to Spider-Man's comic book roots, and remove all of that for cheap action spectacle?

Needless to say I wound up hopping on the "lets bash 'Venom'" train. While I appreciated how much fun Tom Hardy was having and the visual approach to the symbiotes, I couldn't get behind the film's tone or story, both of which felt like relics of a bygone era of comic book storytelling that sacrificed actual pathos for that aforementioned cheap spectacle. But apparently that critical consensus was in the minority because audiences ate the film up. On top of that, Ruben Fleischer would step out of the director's chair in place of Andy Serkis, the visual effects legend behind characters like 'The Lord of the Rings' Gollum and 'Planet of the Apes' Caesar, and a pretty decent director in his own right.

Now with a year-long pandemic delay behind it, 'Venom: Let There Be Carnage' is finally here, did it change my jaded little mind about the character's big-screen worth? Surprisingly, it kind of did. I won't pretend that I loved it by any stretch, but while 'Let There Be Carnage' still features some of its predecessor's shortcomings, there's also a tightness, consistency and self-awareness that's more prevalent this time around; in other words, it's significantly more fun! A year after the events of the first film, Eddie Brock played by Tom Hardy is struggling with sharing a body with the alien symbiote, Venom also voiced by Hardy.

Things change when Eddie is contacted by Detective Pat Mulligan played by Stephen Graham , who says that the serial killer Cletus Kasady will talk only with Eddie regarding his string of murders. His interview with Kasady played by Woody Harrelson leads to Eddie uncovering the killer's victims and confirming Kasady's execution. During their final meeting, Kasady bites Eddie, imprinting part of Venom onto Kasady. When Kasady is executed, the new symbiote awakens, merging with Kasady into a bloody, far more violent incarnation known as Carnage. It's up to Eddie and Venom to put aside their differences to stop Carnage's rampage, as well as Frances Barrison played by Naomi Harris , Kasady's longtime girlfriend whose sonic scream abilities pose a threat to both Venom and Carnage.

So what made me completely switch gears this time around? There's a couple reasons, but first and foremost is the pacing. Serkis and screenwriter Kelly Marcel know exactly where to take the story and how to frame both Eddie and Venom's journeys against the looming threat of Carnage. Even when the film is going for pure, outrageous humor, it never forgets the qualms between Eddie and Venom should be at the center beyond the obvious comic book-y exhibitions. If you were a fan of Eddie's anxious sense of loss, or the back-and-forth between he and the overly eccentric Venom, you are going to love this movie.

Hardy has a great grasp on what buttons to push for both, especially Venom, who has to spend a chunk of the movie contending with losing Eddie altogether and find their own unique purpose among other things, what is essentially Venom's "coming out" moment that actually finds some weight in all the jokes. Then there's Harrelson as Carnage and he absolutely delivers! Absolutely taking a few cues from Heath Ledger's Joker, Harrelson is leaning just enough into campy territory to be charismatic, but never letting us forget the absolutely shattered malicious mind controlling the spaghetti wrap of CGI. Serkis' directing itself deserves some praise too. I can't necessarily pinpoint his style, but like his approach on 'Mowgli,' he has a great eye for detail in both character aesthetics and worldbuilding.

That goes from the symbiotes' movements and action bits to bigger things like lighting in a church sequence or just making San Francisco feel more alive in the process. As far as downsides go, what you see is basically what you get. While I was certainly on that train more here, I also couldn't help but hope for more on the emotional side of things. Yes, seeing the two be vulnerable with one another is important to their arcs and the comedy infusions work more often than not, but it also presents a double-edged sword of that quick runtime, sacrificing time for smaller moments for bigger, more outrageous ones. In addition, while Hardy and Harrelson are electric together, I also found a lot of the supporting characters disappointing to a degree.

Mulligan has a few neat moments, but not enough to go beyond the tough cop archetype. The only one who almost makes it work is Naomi Harris, who actually has great chemistry with Harrelson until the movie has to do something else with her. It's those other characters that make the non-Venom, non-Carnage moments stall significantly and I wish there was more to them. I wouldn't go so far as to have complete faith in this approach to Sony's characters moving forward — Venom or whatever larger plans are in the works — but I could safely recommend this whatever side of the film spectrum you land on. This kind of fun genre content is sorely needed and I'm happy I had as good of a time as I did. The sequel to the reboot is an enjoyable, but unremarkable start to the Halloween movie season.

There's a reason why the Addams Family have become icons of the American cartoon pantheon although having one of the catchiest theme songs in television history doesn't hinder them. The family of creepy but loveable archetypes have been featured across generations, between the aforementioned show, the duo of Barry Levinson films in the '90s and, most recently, MGM's animated reboot in That project got a mostly mixed reception and, while I'd count me as part of that group, I thought there was more merit to it than I expected. The characters and animation designs felt kind of unique, and when it surpassed whatever mundane story the writers had in mind to be more macabre, it could be kind of fun.

This is to say my reaction wasn't entirely negative when the sequel was announced, as well as just forgetting about it until I got the screening invitation. With that semblance of optimism in mind, does 'The Addams Family 2' improve on the first film's strengths? Unfortunately, not really. There's fun to be had and the film clearly has reverence for its roots, but between the inconsistent humor and lackluster story beats, what we're left with feels just a bit too unexceptional to recommend. Some time after the events of the first film, Wednesday Addams voiced by Chloe Grace Moretz has made an incredible discovery: a way to transfer personality traits from one living being to another.

While she looks to grand ambitions for her education, her parents, Gomez and Morticia voiced by Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron respectively believe they are losing her and her brother, Pugsley voiced by Javon Walton , as they get older. The solution: a family road trip cross country alongside their Uncle Fester voiced by Nick Kroll and butler Lurch voiced by Conrad Vernon visiting all the great destinations of the United States. Along the way, a subplot begins to unfold with Rupert voiced by Wallace Shawn , a custody lawyer seemingly convinced that Wednesday is not Gomez and Morticia's biological daughter, and the enigmatic scientist, Cyrus Strange voiced by Bill Hader , who takes an interest in Wednesday's potentially terrifying work.

With the exception of Javon Walton replacing Finn Wolfhard, the voice cast returns for the sequel and they're mostly capable here. Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron embody a lot of Gomez and Morticia's obsessively sincere dynamic it legitimately makes me think they'd be good in live-action and Nick Kroll delivers a bounty of one-liners that are sure to get a laugh here and there. But the real focus is on Wednesday, who very quickly becomes the center of the film's narrative and it's where I become the most conflicted.

The choice to tease Wednesday's "true" connections to the other Addams is admittedly intriguing, especially for how eclectic their backstories are and the film's choice to frame those questions around Wednesday and Morticia's estranged bond. It's not a lot, but there is some subtext about how children can potentially view the adoption process and how parents choose to frame their relationships with their children. The animation isn't particularly great, but like the first film, I admire how the character designs all feel uniquely bizarre, again ripped right out of Charles Addams original comic strips and getting moments to be themselves. In addition, while the humor is completely inconsistent, I counted at least half a dozen jokes I cracked up at, most of them leaning into the morbid side of the Addams' personalities and one weirdly placed joke at a gas station don't ask, I can't explain it.

Getting back to that original Wednesday narrative though, I found myself getting increasingly bored by it as the movie went on. For as cliched as the movie's story was, it at least felt like an Addams Family movie, with stakes that consistently affected the entire family. But between Wednesday's forays into Captain Kirk-esque monologues, Fester's subplot with the fallout from Wednesday's experiment, and occasionally shifting back to the house under the protection of Grandmama voiced by Bette Midler , the movie feels incredibly disjointed. When the film does finally line up its story after over an hour of setup, it feels too little too late, all in the service of a big obligatory action sequence that is supposed to act as the emotional climax and falls completely flat.

It's not that a minute movie can't support these characters, but rather that it chooses to take them away from situational, self-aware comedy moments to make it feel more important. We love the Addams because they're weird, they don't quite fit in, but they're so sincere and loving that you can't help but get attached to them and the film loses interest in that appeal relatively quickly. There's a joke where Thing is trying to stay awake and has a cup of coffee in the camper.

It's the most disturbing part of the movie, I haven't stopped thinking about it, and now that image is in your head too, you're welcome. Like its predecessor, I'm probably being way too kind to it considering how utterly unimpressive it can feel, grinding to a halt to make its stakes more theatrical on several occasions. That being said, I can't deny the characters are fun when they get the chance to be, there are some decent jokes, and for a potential Halloween watch, it's a family movie on several levels.

Its always nice to see the Addams pop up on the big screen in whatever capacity they might, but my enjoyment of this movie comes with an abundance of unnecessary caveats. The music world is a fast evolving and ever changing landscape of influence. Over the last 20 years, we've seen the influx of home recording technology paired with the rise of streaming, making way for new independent artists and communities to flourish. This is the positive side of the streaming coin, different kinds of music can exist in the same spaces in much more fluid ways. Aesthetic and musical styles are merging and taking on new life in the 21st century. Trends in the music industry can be most easily followed by exploring instagram, TikTok and other social media platforms to see what people are wearing and listening to.

Let's take a look at a few style and artistic trends influencing the world of music. Hip-hop is having a big moment right now. With powerful new releases from Kanye West, Drake and Lil Nas X flooding the airwaves, they're unique brand of style is also taking an influence. Just take a look at the most recent Met Gala pictures to get an idea of what we're talking about here. Mens jewelry is taking the fashion and music industry by storm with so many influential artists expressing their unique craft through their style.

To see their thoughts and solutions on the matter and how they handled the problem all this time. Their first thought was to agree with me on how they do measure educational quality unfairly. And their reasons behind this is that most student are not very good test takes they find in very stressful and nerve-racking to have one test measure what is the potential of the student. It also uses a significant amount of money that could be better used to improve other areas of our education system. Standardized testing is a detrimental and inaccurate way to assess the learning process of a child. Meredith Broussard, an assistant professor at the Arthur L. This makes those schools at a disadvantage, seemingly setting these kids, who have no other way to get the information, up to fail.

The essay portion of the ACT has had some issues recently that could be similar to ones other standardized tests have. In James S. Their results were calibrated into how the machine determines a grade, which meant every test was graded according to these perfect student ideals. Some students may excel in the classroom yet not perform well on a standardized test because they're not use to the format given to them. Family strife, mental and physical health issues, and language barriers can all affect a student's test score.

Some opponents of testing argue that low-performing schools are unfairly targeted by politicians who use academic performance as an excuse to further their own agendas. I believe that in my own classroom I would do my best to teach to the test but also do it in fun creative ways that would not only be challenging but give students ways to be confident that they will pass the test.

The test themselves are also poor determinants of achievement because they only cover a small range of subjects, and even those topics cannot be fully examined through a multiple choice quiz. Some of the issues that arise are difficult to avoid. Even the goals of education that can be tested must be measured using a very small sample of questions to represent all of the behaviors that are in each goal.

Standardized tests are considered to be reliable and objective measures of student achievement. However they fail to take into consideration the narrowed topic scope of the subject or how a multiple choice test allows a child to have at 25 percent chance at getting every question right. This means that a student does not need to be able to actually solve many problems, they just have to guess what answers are probably wrong.

Students become so overwhelmed with their limited time that they are unable to accurately complete the test like they would if they were not timed. Likewise, due to recent studies college entrance exams are found to be biased to the general student population. They struggled more with morphemes, correctly identifying them 27 percent of the time. Furthermore, low math scores on standardized testing are becoming more frequent due to the fact that it is not a requirement for most Bachelor of Education programs.

Teacher education programs require students to take courses related to educational law, child development and the theories of education.

Web hosting by