Algebra Keystone Exam

Students dread the time of the year when they stop with their course material and begin to prepare for test. Everyone is in agreement that some type of revolution is needed when it comes to education; eliminating standardized test will aid the reform. The need for standardized testing has proven to be ineffective and outdated; some leading educationalist also believe this because the tests do not measure a student’s true potential. This will save money, stop labeling, and alleviate stress in students and teachers.

The Team Pennsylvania Foundation (2011) reported that statewide results of the Keystone exam given to all students revealed that 61% of all students taking the Keystone Algebra 1 assessment scored either below basic or basic, 64% of all students taking the Biology Keystone exam scored basic or below basic, and 49.7% of all students taking the Literature Keystone exam did not meet the state expectation for proficiency. In Pennsylvania, the Keystone exam is the final measure in a series of exams that measure how students progress as measured against state expectations. The simple fact is they are not measuring up (Team Pennsylvania Foundation, 2011). Schools need to develop a system to meet students where they are and provide quality instruction

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT) as a predictor of student performance on the Keystone exam in algebra. There were two guiding questions that lead this research. The first was: To what extent, if any, does the CDT predict student performance on the Algebra Keystone exam of those who are enrolled in a Keystone algebra course? The second question was: To what extent, if any, does the CDT predict student performance in eligible content categories (i.e. numbers and operations, geometry, algebra etc.) when considered independently of the overall scaled score?

The Program of Studies lists five critical areas that must be met in the Algebra I class. The first of the five is linear equations, inequalities, and functions and this area relates to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12 of the Academic Expectations. Nonlinear functions: quadratics, exponential and absolute value are related to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, and 2.12. The third area, proportional reasoning connects to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, while the fourth area sequences relates to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, and 2.12. The last of the areas is probability and it relates to 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13.

In the 1990s, a movement began across the United States whereby individual states began writing academic standards which outlined the academic content students were expected to know and be able to master at the end of each grade level. Subject specific assessments were also designed and implemented in order to measure whether students were meeting those standards (Gibbs, T. & Howley, A., 2000).

The use of standardized testing to measure students’ knowledge is an inaccurate reflection of their capabilities. By being forced to take a test that does not effectively show their abilities, students become overstressed, and the tests themselves do not promote true academic achievement. Rather than learning about subjects in order to gain knowledge, students simply memorize facts and formulas to get a decent test score. Standardized tests are not an appropriate measure of student performance, only benefit certain groups of students, and do not prepare students for the real world.

The purposes of standardized tests are to instruct decision making, establish program eligibility, evaluate course goals, evaluate program goals, and examine external curriculum. When a teacher gives and assesses a standardized test, they gain information about their students that helps them realize what concepts they have learned according to the agenda for the subject at hand. If the assessment is performed in a sensible amount of time and given according to the directions, this purpose should be fulfilled; however, it is a common belief that standardized tests do not work well in establishing where a student stands in a specific curriculum. The test uses a general curriculum that is the basis for the tests

Before the birth of Common Core, Illinois like many other states had its learning standards to identify what students should know and be able to do pertinent to their grade levels. Implementing such standards caused many Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to end up on academic probation, due to low test scores and failure to progress students to proficiency levels in core subjects like reading and math. In fact, Chicago Tonight reports that only 35 percent of eighth graders across the country meet proficiency standards in reading while only 25 percent of high school seniors that took the SAT examination showed college readiness through their test scores.

For many grades and levels, the standards are too progressive. Performance stakes are being raised for students everywhere. Since the year 2007, the standards were introduced and developed

The “Common Core” is a proposed set of newly design methods in academic standards in today’s subjects like Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and English / Language Arts courses. In about forty-eight states, this new academic implementation has replaced the old teaching methods to show a gain in the ability for students to be on the same path in every state. The primary focus for Common Core is to measure a fair and accurate way for student achievement for graduation regardless of the child’s state they live in. Well, at first the adopted Common Core standards demonstrated little to no problems once established however, today it has become widely controversial. This research paper will demonstrate this issue

Thesis: Standardized tests such as the ACT and SAT are not the most accurate way to measure a students aptitude and intelligence, therefore schools should pay more attention to graduation and dropout rates, enrollment into advanced placement classes, as well as extracurricular activities.

Standardized testing has for so long been the determinant of success and progress in many school systems around the world. Students get exposure to standardized tests at one point or the other, and the result from these tests are used to determine if a student can advance to a higher level or not (Moore, 2014). The school system in the United States has in place standardized tests for students who wish to join college and this need to be taken and passed for one to be sure of a college education. Even at lower levels of learning standardized tests remain to be the primary determinants of one’s performances, and in many instances, failure of standardized tests may be the reason why one is retained in the same class for a second consecutive

In School Year I, the statistics for first-year algebra freshman were as follows. Of the almost 1,000 freshman enrolled, about 470 passed. This represented a 56.7% increase over the prior year. Of the 470 who passed semester one and enrolled semester two of first-year algebra, about 300 passed the semester and the state test. Compared to the previous school year, this was a 100% increase in students that passed the same two measures. Overall, in School Year I, 30% of the freshman who enrolled in first-year algebra successfully completed the course and end-of-course exam. This was double the number from the previous year who were not only successful with this course but even more important were then permitted to continue on in their

The use of the CDT begins with students in third grade, evaluating their performance in math and English language arts. The CDT offers assessments in grades 3 through 8 and includes tested categories in mathematics, English language arts, science, biology, composition, reading and algebra 1 along with non-state tested subjects geometry, algebra II, and chemistry. Further, the CDT adjusts the scaled scores for this exam each year, reflecting student performance on the most recent state assessment. This provides many questions when evaluating the use of the CDT in classrooms. The effectiveness of the CDT as a predictive tool should be evaluated against the PSSA for each grade given and for each subject it is given in. Similarly, the components of the CDT should be evaluated as to their effectiveness when evaluating student performance. The CDT should also be evaluated when used to predict student performance on the Keystone literature and biology exams. The corresponding subscale scores should also be measured against the overall state reported assessment sub scores. The Data Recognition Corporation provides meaningful data validating the use of the CDT as an instructional tool, but the information provided is getting progressively more out of date. Changes in the PSSA both in structure and in expectation require the continued analysis of the CDT as an

Current nationwide examination outcomes offer continuing paperwork of the should enhance the concentrate on enhancing student accomplishment in mathematics. The National Evaluation of Educational Development (NAEP) just recently launched the 2005 mathematics ratings which mirrored student accomplishment in the locations of dimension, geometry, information analysis, likelihood and algebra. Country wide, just 30 % of 8th graders were considered competent. Although mirroring a boost from previous evaluations, just 69 % of the 8th graders country wide showed a standard abilities level on the NAEP evaluation (Olson, 2005).