RUNNING HEAD: STANDARIZED TESTING
Copper Link
Northern Arizona University
Standardized Testing: Restrict or Expand
Abstract
Probably no other educational topic generates as much conversation as testing. Some people argue that tests play an essential role in advancing educational reform, while others argue that tests inhibit the most needed reforms. It is the official mandate of the state legislature that beginning with students of the class of 2008 (today's fifth-graders) all students must meet the state standards tested by the WASL or fail to receive their certificate of mastery (to be phased in) or their high school diploma. Like talk about many other educational issues, the talk about testing either supports it or rejects it for better alternative assessments.
Restrict
A current problem in today’s education system is American public schools administering more than 100 million standardized exams each year, including IQ, achievement, screening, and readiness tests. A standardized test is one that is administered under standardized or controlled conditions that specify where, when, how, and for how long children may respond to the questions or "prompts." These tests don't generally involve any theory based papers/projects or documentation works, though a few institutions also include essay papers in grading candidates. Generally, the student is provided four or five options per question and he/she is expected to choose one correct answer amongst the five options. In certain cases, there may be more than one correct answer. Much of the time and the money devoted to testing is misspent (Fair Test 2007). Multiple-choice questions cannot measure thinking skills, creativity, the ability to solve real problems, or the social skills we would like our children to have. Furthermore, many exams are biased racially, culturally, linguistically, and by class and gender. Some people believe by imposing standards on students’ minds we are, in effect, depriving them of their fundamental intellectual freedom by applying one standard set of knowledge.
Despite their problems, standardized tests continue to put forth a great influence on schools. It is common knowledge among teachers that test scores drive the curriculum. Basically, some teachers teach only to the test. No teacher wants his/her students to perform poorly on a standardized test nor does the administrator. If your school is an “excelling school,” your administrator expects to stay an “excelling school,” or become “highly excelling.” My principal has high expectations because we are a charter school surrounded by a large and (not so bad) district so we have to compete for our student enrollment. It doesn’t help with the newspaper posting statewide scores using headlines such as “Number One Rated District in Maricopa County,” or “Maricopa County Schools Score Lowest in State.” Educators know one thing for certain: No matter how good their grades, students are at a disadvantage in school if they do not score well on standardized tests. SAT scores declined during the 1970’s and 1980’s because more students aspired to go to college and took the tests, not because of performance factors. There has been an upward trend in the 1990’s and into the 2000’s. The Department of Education statistics show improvement in areas such dropout rates and in the number of high school students taking advanced courses and Advanced Placement examinations. Standardized tests undervalue the "sensitive interaction between teachers and their students in the complex, social system of the classroom” (Murray 2007).
National testing has become a national obsession. Take the example of George Bush, who in the 1990’s encouraged the education community to develop “New World Standards” in each of the five core subject areas (Nelson, Palonsky & McCarthy, 2010). Following George Bush, in 1997 in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton urged states to adopt higher standards and make sure testing programs ensured standards were met, and then along came George W. Bush. During his presidency the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed, otherwise known as No Child Left Behind. With this act states were required to establish standards for all students in math and language arts. They felt this would comprehensively measure “adequate yearly progress” in meeting the state standards. It‘s been suggested that the test-makers were the only people who benefited from this legislation. Recent polls by the Gallup Organization suggest that the public has become dissatisfied with increased reliance on standardized testing (Rose & Gallop, 2007). Teachers of poor and minority children report that they spend more time teaching to the test and are more likely to rely on data from the standardized tests, than do teachers of children from moderate- and high- income families (Garcia & Pearson, 1994). The negative consequences of testing are likely to fall hardest on the economically disadvantaged. Not to mention how much anxiety is caused the kids taking these tests. For students with special needs, Federal law only permits 3% of all students to be exempted because of disabilities, and these students are required to take an alternate assessment, which can be simple or dizzyingly convoluted.
How does standardized test measure accountability? How come we do not let teachers, parents, and administrators select appropriate content based upon our students’ interests, experiences, goals, and needs? Teachers are expected to teach this way, but why do we use a standardized test to measure the opposite? There are many ways to assess besides using a standardized test. Not all students learn the same, just as not every teacher teaches the same. We have learned through current literature that students should be encouraged to demonstrate their ability through written, oral, or informal observations. Testing alone cannot convey to anyone adequate information about individual achievement and ability. A national study by Barton and Coley (1994) reported that the most common testing programs in elementary schools use group-administered paper-pencil tests consisting of primarily multiple-choice questions. There is so much more out there beside a test containing multiple-choice questions. To make students repeat a grade or deny them diplomas on the basis of a single exam is unconscionable – yet about half the states, at this writing, are either doing so or planning to do so (Kohn 2001).
Americans support public education. However, most Americans are not satisfied with the current quality of schooling. Talented teachers have abandoned the profession after having been turned into glorified test-prep technicians. Low-income teenagers have been forced out of school by do-or-die graduation exams. Countless inventive learning activities have been eliminated in favor of prefabricated lessons pegged to numbingly specific state standards (Kohn, 2010). Finally, what’s the purpose of demanding that every kid in every school in every state must be able to do the same thing in the same year, with teachers pressured to “align” their instruction to a master curriculum and a standardized test? No test is good enough to serve as the sole or primary basis for important educational decisions. Better methods of evaluating student needs and progress already exist. Good observational checklists used by trained teachers are more helpful than any screening test. Assessment based on student performance on real learning tasks is more useful and accurate for measuring achievement - and provides more information - than multiple-choice achievement tests. School personnel must not, however, limit assessment to such tests or allow the tests to dominate assessment of young children
Expand
According to research conducted by (Hart & Winston, 2005), only 11 percent of Americans say that their schools are working well today. A solid majority of Americans support reforms that include developing higher standards and holding students accountable for learning through regular assessments. Research, also done by Hart and Winston (2005), finds that standardized tests may not be popular among everyone, but several decades of opinion research indicates that the public is comfortable with the assistance standardized tests make to the quality of education. Today standardized testing programs provide the yardstick society uses to chart the progress and shortcomings of education (Nelson et al., 2010). Standardized testing should not only be viewed as a report card but as part of an assessment system that permits schools to make decisions about curriculum and assessments.
Supporters of standardized tests believe that these tests are highly accountable and reliable as they judge the candidates on a common platform across states and nations. The reason given by the supporters of this testing methodology is the disparity in the educational patterns and curriculum throughout the United States. For instance, a teacher in Massachusetts has a different teaching style based on the syllabus, whereas, a teacher in Texas has another style. If individual assessment is provided for the students, it may lead to large differences in the grades and percentages. That is why a common exam like standardized testing is considered a better option. Despite their biases, inaccuracies, limited ability to measure achievement or ability, and other flaws, schools use standardized tests to determine if children are ready for school, track them into instructional groups; diagnose for learning disability, retardation and other handicaps; and decide whether to promote, retain in grade, or graduate many students. Another advantage of standardized testing is that the results can be generalized and repeated, which shows a degree of validity and reliability. One of the values of assessment is in showing where teaching needs to be changed in order to better suit the subject matter.
The results of standardized testing can be used to show in what areas educators do well and what areas are less developed. Similar to its effect on curriculum, standardized testing can serve as a guideline to individual educators who need to change their methods in order to better focus on what should be learned. Also, standardized tests can be seen as a mandate by the state or federal government to a school in order to concentrate in certain areas. If the math section of a state test required for graduation adds a new section, local curriculums will change in order to compensate. In this way, tests become messages between governments and school systems meant to communicate what lawmakers believe should be learned and require more attention. With greater importance given to a standardized test, the power of that test over students and educators increases. These tests, used to make decisions directly related to the test-taker, are referred to as "high-stakes." Remediation exams, exit exams, and entrance exams carry a lot of influence with them.
Long ago, reformers cared about making education available to children of all classes and races. By the 1990’s a higher percentage of students were completing high school than ever before. The current generation of reformers is no longer concerned with availability, but now with the quality of our schools. Schools need quantifiable measures of student performance and documentation of teacher quality if they want to maintain the public’s support (Sacks 2000).
Policy makers need objective in order to guide their decision-making. There is not one-way to collect sufficient data, but data from a well-designed standardized test is critical to school outcomes. Without this data schools cannot make appropriate decisions about the curriculum quality or the quality of specific programs.
Standardized testing is part of the scientific base that supports the art of teaching (Nelson et al., 2010). Earlier it was stated that standardized tests have a negative connotation. People have heard that these tests are biased or unfair, but Nelson, et al. (2010), states that standardized tests are designed to promote fairness and a level playing field. Sireci’s (2005) research found that when students take the ACT or SAT the content and conditions for test-takers are always and everywhere the same. Charles Murray (2007) of the American Enterprise Institute writes: “For most high school students who want to attend an elite college, the SAT is more than a test. It is one of life’s landmarks.” People argue that testing is an essential element in creating a rational curriculum. These tests help test educators find out if a specific program is working the way it was designed to work. When it’s time for taxpayers to foot the bill for a new program, they should be informed of the anticipated effects and how the results will be measured. Hart and Winston (2005) find that the public views education reform proposals as incomplete without the means to hold the teachers and administrators accountable. In one international study that looked at the effects of dropping and reintroducing standardized tests in 29 industrialized countries, academic standards declined, students studied less, and curricula became incoherent.
In 1969 the federal government financed an assessment program known as National Assessment of Educational Process. This test has been administered since 1983 and since been a national representation and continuing assessment of what America’s students need to know and can do in various content areas. NAEP reports national test results for students in grades four, eight, and twelve in both public and private schools, nationwide. This data is reported for individual states and reports averages for student specific group populations. Besides collecting data from individual states, NAEP also collects demographic data from test-takers such as their race, gender, and the level of parental education. This data is used to examine student scores in the context of student learning and home environments. One is not trying to say the NAEP is the best program, but a contributor to assess and understand student’s subject matter knowledge using high-quality data. One can argue that no other forms of assessment can compete with standardized. Individually administered standardized tests can serve important purposes when they are selected. Assessment-driven reform is needed to counter declining trends in SAT and ACT scores and the mediocre performance of U.S. students in international rankings such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), proponents argue. Assessment-driven reform can have a powerful influence on school curriculum and reform, if tests are carefully designed to be consistent with the kinds of learning desired in the classroom and if there is a tight connection between cognitive learning theories, the curriculum, classroom activities and assessment items (Hills 1992). In a nationwide survey by the National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, a majority of teachers supported their state content and skills. More than one half reported that their state- mandated test be based on a curriculum that all teachers should follow.
The following story is from a teacher in Arizona, who describes how he’s feeling and thinking on the first day of administering the AIMS test. Spencer (2008) walks down the hall with a large stack of test booklets and mentally rehearses the rules. I am an alter boy - a mere pawn who, if all goes well, can fly under the radar. Here in Arizona, AIMS testing is the Holy Week of Arizona’s education, where students spend a total of eight hours taking a grueling standardized test. Every part of this system resembles a religious rite. A week ahead of time, we sit through a sermon about how important these tests are. Any small infraction will lead to a virtual Hell called School Improvement. From Mt. Sinai (otherwise known as Capitol Hill) we receive instructions about the punishments and rewards assigned by No Child Left Behind. On a more local level, we receive a set of commandments entitled, “Test Administration Directions.” This sixty-six-page document explains everything a teacher can and cannot do, as well as precise directions of what to say.
There are assortments of rules that I must follow. For one, I cannot have anything about reading or writing on my walls. I cannot let a student touch another student’s test booklet, as this is a taboo that what make the test booklet impure. I must make sure that I do not read the test or the answers of students. After I have agreed to these rules, I have to sign a covenant- some sort of contract that says that if I screw up, I can lose my job.
We instruct the students a week before how this test is “very important” and we give them another set of rules regarding what they need to do at home: eat healthy, get a good night’s sleep, review what you have learned. The entire process resembles a ritual: I line up at the office to receive and count the test booklets. I must keep the booklets with me wherever I go. It's their first communion into a religion of the American Dream, where Heaven is defined as a large house in the suburbs and an SUV and kids who earn shiny plastic trophies and a shiny plastic trophy wife to go with it.
When the bell rings, I distribute snack foods for the students, followed by attendance. Class must remain absolutely silent as the procession begins. I read the purple instruction booklet with the sincerity and severity of a priest, reciting each line of the liturgy with absolute accuracy. Any delineation can lead to “invalid” test scores. Students, for their part, work hard on the test and some of them genuinely believe that they are being judged. Here, the religion will rank them, set them into the categories of Super-Holy (Exceeds), Holy (Meets), Approaching Holy (Approaches) and Outcast (Falls Far Below).
Let's face it; standardized tests are a fact of life. They remain a mainstay in most districts largely because of the comparative information they provide - information that too often is used in isolation to judge school, classroom, and individual performance. Ideally, standardized tests would be only one part of the overall assessment system. But until that day, we must make sure our students have the skills they need to ace standardized tests.
References
Barton, P.E., and Coley, R.J. (1994). Testing in America’s schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Fair Test (2007). “The Testing Explosion.” (www.fairtest.org/testing-expolsion).
Hart, P.D., and Winston, D. (2005). “Ready for the Real World? Americans Speak on High School Reform.” Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved June 12, 2010, from http://www.ets.org
Hills, T. W. (1993). Assessment in context: Teachers and children at work. Young Children, 48(5), 20-28.
Kohn, A. (2001). “Fighting the Tests. A Practical Guide to Rescuing Our Schools.” Phi Delta Kappa.
Murray, C. (2007). “Abolish the SAT.” The American. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august.
Nelson, Palonsky & McCarthy (2010). Critical Issues in Education. New York: McGraw- Hill Publishing.
Rose, L.C. & Gallup, A.M. (2007). “The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitude Toward the Public Schools.,” 33-45.
Sacks, P. (2000). Standardized Minds: The High Price of Americas Testing. Culture and What We Can Do to Change It. Da Capo Press: January 6, 2000.
Sireci, S.G. (2005). “The Most Frequently Unasked Questions About Testing,” in Defending Standardized Testing, ed. R.P. Phelps. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.