Whereas it is easy to admit that prepping for high-stakes tests interferes with teaching, on a yet closer survey of this method, it becomes evident that it is not without merit and it has been proven to bear results as testified by Miss Crawford. In making her argument Nancy ends up creating the overall effect of the archetypal teacher who believes in learning for learning's sake and ergo, teaching. This holistic yet lofty approach biases her teaching philosophy and methodology against prepping for high-stakes tests, while in truth, it is much more realistic to prep for tests as this always proves to show the gaps and weak points in students' knowledge and understanding of concepts.
One is naturally more inclined to the argument put forward by Charlotte Crawford who has aspired to demonstrate and prove the merits of prepping for tests as compared to Nancy who just seems generally against the whole idea of emphasis on tests in teaching. Meanwhile exalting the philosophical implications and trajections of the study, she also asserts that testing is no sure way of determining the proficiency and grasp that students have over a subject. Crawford posits, and realistically so, that prepping for high stakes tests and teaching for them, enhances the teaching process and subsequently the students learning. Further, these tests can focus attention on weaknesses in the curriculum and of its teaching. Besides, it is all but obvious to see that, if teaching was done to prepare students for tests, it would go without saying that students will be far better familiarized with test content and the general outline of the test body(that is, structure)
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is not all too clear who is right between the proponent of prepping for high-stakes tests and the opponent who thinks doing so interferes with learning. On the one hand, Nancy Buells believes that teaching for tests (prepping) is as wrong as using tests to teach concepts, and while she might be right, we can't escape from the fact that teaching is inevitably, as is learning, about tests. The concepts, ideas learned in a classroom are ultimately intended to be applied in solving problems and answering questions in "standardized" tests. Inherently and of itself, there is nothing wrong with the teaching of concepts by use of questions and problems from and that often appear in these standardized tests. It is, therefore, my humble opinion from observation, that prepping for high-stakes tests does not interfere with teaching but rather has the desirable effect of enhancing and bettering the teaching and learning process.
Reference
Who is right? Does prepping for high-stakes tests interfere with teaching? NEA Today (January 2001), p. 11
