Ideology in my Controversy

In the blog post below, I will be using the sources I analyzed in the previous posts to contemplate the different aspects of my controversy which compose its ideology and standpoints. This will be done with the use of multiple questions provided by Writing Public Lives, which particularly focus on the structure of the debate and what makes up either side of the argument. 

Lewisnm, Tim "No More Tests" 5/30/15 via flickr
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

The standardized testing controversy has been an ongoing debate since the late 90's. The use of standardized test was a common practice for several years before the controversy flared upon the application of the No Child Left Behind Act. As one of its policies, this act implemented the nationwide common practice of government issued standardized testing in all districts.

In this debate, the two most prominent sides that oppose one another are school district administrations and government supervisors, who support standardized testing, and students and large numbers of teachers, who oppose the use of standardized tests. There are many educationalists and teachers who are particularly outspoken about standardized testing and their position on it, specifically in the mid-west and north eastern states.

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, is a particularly notable name in the position of standardized testing. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has a rather neutral stance on the standardized testing debate but strongly opposed No Child Left Behind and is willing to make the necessary changes to the school system to adapt it to a more modern state. Sen. Patty Murray is a particularly outspoken congresswoman for standardized testing and argues passionately that the tests are necessary for the understanding of student progress.

 (Note: most of the names previously and more can be found in this Harvard Political View article. If you're interested in the political arguments of this debate, it is an incredibly insightful resource) 

The more commonly accepted view is that against standardized testing, to varying degrees, has greater numbers then the opposition, and are mostly students and teacher unions. They hold the support of parents and general public. There is a clear power difference to the administrations and state/national government which support the tests. This group dictates funding and implementation of policy, clearly holding power over the opposition. 

Both groups value statistics and evidence of student response to tests, though how the responses are interpreted veries between the groups. Those for testing look to the statistics the test themselves provide and how it allows for the progress and change of the school system for the better of the students wherever there was a weak point. Those against testing look the the statistics of students responses and personal performances away from the test, feeling that the tests neglect too much of the students to be worth continuing in their current fashion. 

Both groups acknowledge the tests as generally beneficial, as well as how constructive they've been for the school system up to now. The groups respect each other due to this common understanding and due to the fact that the debate has no true extremes. There is always valid weak points to the testing, as well as a clear benefit. It is the debate of how to address those issues that is driving the conflict.    

The fluidity of the argument makes it difficult for many to even chose a side after hearing the opposition. It is a respectable debate in my field which has maintained my interest for over two years. The mix of logical argument along with moral obligation to students makes it a complex topic that offers extensive debate.