Should public schools continue standardized testing?
The United States government implemented the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), signed into law on January 8, 2002 by President George W. Bush (US Government Printing Office, 2002). This Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. In order to receive federal school funding, states must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard. Each state develops its own standards (US Government Printing Office, 2002). Since the creation of this act, various debates challenge the practical use of the standardized tests. The debate presented for this paper is an argument, “Should public schools continue standardized testing?” The favorable arguments are that the standardized tests are fair, backed by parents, improves the quality of the curriculum, and the usage of standardized tests outside of the public education system. The arguments against standardized testing are stereotyping poor performing students, testing anxiety, low morale with teachers, and basing teacher evaluations on student performance. Additionally, ethical, moral and legal issues are identified in relation to standardized testing and their effects on high-stakes testing. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the given arguments, both for and against standardized testing from different sources and to conclude with a consensus of the arguments with the authors of this paper.
A survey conducted by Public Agenda of 600 public middle and high schools found that as for the tests themselves, 53 percent of teenagers say that most of the tests they take consist of only multiple choice questions; 44 percent say their test include writing and explaining their answers. 79 percent of the students say they think standardized test questions are generally fair (Johnson & Duffett, 2002). Students, particularly elementary or middle school grades would have a hard time concluding a test’s fairness. They have nothing to base their conclusion on and compare the test to all the standardized tests they have taken.
In an AP-NORC poll survey, 75 percent of parents say standardized tests are a solid measure of their children’s abilities, and 69 percent say such exams are a good measure of the schools’ quality (Elliott & Agiesta, 2013). Basing a school’s quality on the results of the test is a misleading comparison. If a teacher “teaches the test” and students score well, it shows that the students know how to take the test while not testing their knowledge on the subjects. As shown above, two separate studies provided data from the student and parent’s perspective. It would only be fair also to include the educator's perspective on testing.
Educators were posed the question, “What is the effect of testing on curriculum and instruction?” According to interviewees, test results acknowledge that students are below their grade levels in math and reading. This is prompting teachers and administrators to improve the quality of the curriculum to match their student’s grade level (Yeh, 2005). Another misleading comparison is when teachers align the curriculum to match the students’ current knowledge level which reflects in higher scores. Teaching students at their current knowledge level, they are able to understand the material, yet it impedes the expansion of student’s subject knowledge or critical thinking skills, only reemphasizing what the student already knows.
Since the NCLBA implementation, critics for and against standardized testing argue their sides, however, standardized tests have been in use prior to the NCLBA to ensure professionals have the necessary knowledge and skills. Physicians, lawyers, accountants, financial planners, real-estate brokers, and pilots all take high stakes tests (McAdams, 2002). These tests ensure that professionals have the knowledge necessary to serve the public well (McAdams, 2002). A factor to consider in these professional standardized tests is that they are given to individuals who received higher education and specialized classes years above public middle and high school grade levels. These tests prove that individual professionals have a defined knowledge on their particular career level. Public school standardized testing is carried on a broad, generalized primary educational study level. Having considered some arguments that support standardized testing, and the analysis on the data provided, an examination of the arguments that are against testing would provide a better understanding prior to a consensus.
In an interview, students stated that they go to “ghetto” school because that is what students at other schools said (Boaler, 2003). Some states have used a standardized test as a way to rate schools based on scores within their districts. The statement above was given by students that attended a school that achieved a 3 out of 10 rating based on the Academic Performance Index (Boaler, 2003) used within that state. The adage that if you repeatedly hear something, eventually you believe it is true applies in this case. However, that ranking was based on a standardized test which does not give an accurate picture of how that school is performing. Researches that conducted surveys and interviews at that school agreed that it has one of the most professional and dedicated mathematics departments they have ever seen (Boaler, 2003). The cases provided come from a creditable source as this study was conducted as part of a multi-year research project funded by the National Science Foundation, which examined three high school math programs. Each of the schools studied had various socioeconomic differences that were determining factors in the results. If students have a perception that they go to a ghetto school, imagine how their confidence and stress levels are affected.
One survey conducted in North Carolina found that 61% of teachers perceived that their students felt more anxiety and less confidence due to testing (Osburn, Stegman, Suitt, Ritter, 2004; Jones, Jones, & Hardin, 1999). This survey also concluded that 48.5% of teachers indicated a negative impact on students’ “love of learning” (Jones, Jones, & Hardin, 1999). This statement dwells into ethical considerations discussed later. Teachers perceived that students’ wellbeing is challenged by the importance of high-stakes testing, it would be understanding that teachers’ wellbeing are impacted as well.
Data has supported that students’ are demoralized by the pressures added from standardized testing. Available data also shows that hard working mathematic teachers have, understandably, been demoralized as a teacher quoted in an interview stated “They told us we had been considered an “underperforming” school because of our API scores…I left that meeting in tears because I have never in my lifetime worked as hard as I work here to help students learn…” (Boaler, 2003). Furthermore, pressure to produce high test scores and threats to job security have led teachers to report a diminished sense of professional worth and feeling of disempowerment and alienation (Blazer & Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 2011). In North Carolina, 77 percent of elementary school teachers stated that their morale was lower since the introduction of high-stakes testing and over 76 percent reported that their jobs were more stressful (Blazer & Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 2011; Jones et al, 1999). The amount of data and studies conducted on this argument can confirm this being valid as adults have an understanding with identifying work performance impacting stressors. As identified in surveys and research, elevated stress is tied to jobs security.
We cannot force students to learn, or teach them intellect and basing teacher evaluations on the performance of a student will not portray an accurate review of teacher abilities. Evaluating teachers on students’ standardized test scores is at the heart of President Obama’s “Race to the Top” grant program (Welsh, 2013). Virginia has raised the testing stakes higher and set forth seven standards for all Virginia teachers. The model calls for 40 percent of teachers’ evaluation to be based on student academic progress (Virginia Department of Education, 2012). Teacher evaluations being rated by their student’s academic success on a standardized test does not capture the actual performance of a teacher. That type of evaluation only shows how well the teacher taught the test. Fluctuations in student academic progress will occur each year and unethical practices of manipulating class loads will occur with teachers obsessed with making money more than the personal satisfaction of educating youths. They would persuade students that have a history of low performance on tests to drop that particular class so their evaluation would not be affected by poor results. An effective evaluation system would base the student’s academic improvement over the course of a year versus how well the student takes a test.
Other ethical errors with standardized testing occur during the development of test questions. Three factors that contribute to students’ scores on standardized achievement tests: (1) what’s taught in school, (2) a student’s native intellectual ability, and (3) a student’s out-of-school learning (Popham, 1999). Focusing on the student’s out-of-school learning, or “street smarts,” socioeconomic factors affect how a student interprets a test question. If a general science standardized test question presented states “A plant’s fruit always contains seeds. Which of the items below is not a fruit?” (Popham, 1999). To fully understand this question, a student must first understand the meaning of what fruit is. Then the student must then rely on their “street smarts” to eliminate any possible answers by associating what they already know about fruit and their own experiences with fruit. If one of the answers is a fruit they never seen before, because their family could never afford to buy it, the student will have difficulty in making a determination (Popham, 1999). These types of questions on high-stake tests automatically place a student from a poor family at a disadvantage. According to Popham (1999) One of the chief reasons that children’s socioeconomic status is so highly correlated with standardized test scores is that many items on standardized achievement tests really focus on assessing knowledge and/or skills learned outside of school—knowledge and/or skills more likely to be learned in some socioeconomic settings than in others (para. 2). Additionally, problems are compounded when a student does not have full command of the English language.
English as a second language (ESL) students are automatically at a disadvantage. During an interview, a student from Nicaragua stated “he couldn’t understand what the teachers were saying.” (Boaler, 2003). ESL students have a hard time comprehending test questions due to the language syntax and semantics use. By not having an understanding of the contextual use in a question, difficulties ascertaining the correct response is impossible.
Continuance of standardized testing will not improve the education quality in public schools. Teachers that teach the test or administrators that develop school curriculum around tests are creating cookie-cutter educated students. Of the arguments presented, those which are against testing that focuses on the student and teacher demoralization, erroneous evaluations based on a test score, and rebuttal on the fairness of tests as perceived by students highlight the consensus of the team. The persuasive arguments that stood out for the team was those of a valued based persuasive arguments. The discussion of teacher evaluations being tied to student standardized testing results reaches our core values of believing and how money is a huge motivator for someone to succeed. We should not use our education system, and the education of children to drive how a teacher is paid, but base the teacher’s pay on how well they develop student understanding.
References
Aydeniz, M., & Southerland, S. A. (2012). A National Survey of Middle and High School Science Teachers' Responses to Standardized Testing: Is Science Being Devalued in Schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 233-257.
Blazer, C., & Miami-Dade County Public Schools, R. (2011). Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Information Capsule. Research Services, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 1008. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED536512
Boaler, J. (2003). When Learning No Longer Matters: Standardized Testing and the Creation of Inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502-506.
Elliott, P., & Agiesta, J. (2013, August 17). AP-NORC Poll: Parents back high-stakes testing. Retrieved from http://ww.apnorc.org/news-media/Pages/News+Media/ap-norc-poll-parents-back-high-stakes-testing.aspx
Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2002, March 6). Public Agenda Reality Check 2002. Education Week, 21(25), 1-8.
Jones, M., Jones, B. D., & Hardin, B. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.
McAdams, D. R. (2002, Summer). Enemy of the Good. Educationnext, 2(2), para. 4.
Osburn, M. Z., Stegman, C., Suitt, L. D., & Ritter, G. (2004). Parents' Perceptions of Standardized Testing: Its Relationship and Effect on Student Achievement. Journal Of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 4(1), 75-95.
Popham, W. J. (1999, March). Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. Using Standards and Assessments, 56(6), 8-15. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don't-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx
US Government Printing Office. (2002, January 8). 107th Congress Public Law 110. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/html/PLAW-107publ110.htm
Virginia Department of Education. (2012). 2011 Board of Education Teacher Performance Standards & Evaluation Criteria. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/performance_evaluation/teacher/
Welsh, P. (2013, June 4). Grading teachers on test scores: Column. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/04/patrick-welsh-on-standardize-tests-and-teacher-evaluations/2390143/
Yeh, S. S. (2005). Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(43). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n43.2005