exceptionalGeek only

6

Standardized Testing

Standardized tests can be defined as any form of test that is administered and “scored in a standard and consistent manner”, that makes it possible to compare the performance of individual and group of students. Standardized testing was first used in China to select candidates for the province bureaucracy. The UK adopted this form of testing in the early 19th century, and it spread from the UK to Europe and then America. Its spread was fueled by the industrial revolution.

Standardized testing involves different types of testing. Some of the most common are “aptitude tests”, “achievement tests”, “college-admission tests”, “international comparison tests”, and “psychological tests”. Achievement test is a type of tests that is intended to assess the knowledge and skills that students have learned in school and determine their academic progress. They can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the instructors and the schools. (Education Glossary, 2015).

There have been debates about standardized testing. Some are against the system while others are for the system. Standardized testing is responsible for narrowing of the education standard and curriculum. It reduces the growth of the students and does not focus on the social sciences, arts and talents of the students and thus it is a major killer of the student’s educational growth in terms of arts and social sciences. This does not help the student develop as an individual as much effort is put into passing the tests rather than build character of an individual. In this paper, we will look into the advantages and disadvantages of standardized tests.

Pro and Cons of Standardized Tests

The debate on the standardized tests ranges on several key issues. Some of these issues of contention are: firstly, the numerical scores on a standardized testing accurate, objective and useful evidence of performance? Secondly, are the standardized tests fair to all students? The other one is the use of standardized tests providing valuable information to improve instructional quality? Then do the advantages of standardized testing outweigh the costs or time spent in taking the tests? Lastly, do standardized tests focus too narrowly on few academic subjects?

The benefit of the standardized tests is that the tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Policymakers use the test to determine whether the laws and policies are working or not and to compare educational performance within the state. Multiple-choice tests are graded by machine, and thus, they are not subject to bias or subjectivity. Also, standardized tests are inclusive because their content is equal for all students. Using alternate tests for the minorities would be unfair and alienating them, according to former Washington DC, schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. Thus, the use of standardized tests to assess the students is an equal measure of all students (ProCon.org, 2015). More importantly, standardized testing is not narrowing the curriculum but rather focusing on essential basic skills that students need to know. According to a peer-reviewed study, Education Policy Analysis Archives, issued on October 28, 2005, teachers in Minnesota districts argued that standardized testing has a positive impact on the quality of the curriculum.

Moreover, according to a study in the October 28, 2005, issue of Education Policy Analysis Archives, increased testing does not force teachers to encourage “drill and kill” role learning. Teachers understand that isolated drills are unacceptable, and teachers found engaging in such acts are sanctioned. Research shows that drilling students do not produce test score gains. Six, standardized testing indicates a positive effect on student achievement. Based on research by scholar Richard P. Phelps, 93% of studies on student testing suggest that the use of large-scale and standardized testing is crucial for the students’ performance.

Even though standardized tests are beneficial, there are problems: students’ achievement has not improved. According to the statistics, the US slipped from 18 to 31st place in math on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), carried out in 2009. This drop happened after the passing of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002. A National Research Council report on May 26, 2011, found that there was no evidence to suggest that test-based incentive programs were working (Popham, 2014).

Undoubtedly, the standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory to students with special needs and non-English speakers. The non-English students have to master the language to take the tests in English but in most cases they do take the tests before mastering the language. Special education students receive few accommodations as part of their Individualized Education Plans as they sit for the same tests as other children (Columbia University, 2015).

Standardized tests are unfair also because they measure a small portion of the student’s knowledge. Standardized tests cannot measure an individual’s creativity, critical thinking, resilience, persistence, curiosity, reliability, enthusiasm, leadership, self-awareness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, honesty, integrity, motivation, endurance. The late Gerald W. Bracey, Ph.D. did find that these qualities could not be measured by standardized tests.

In addition, standardized testing only evaluates individual performances of the student instead of the overall annual growth of the student. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) focuses on the students’ proficiency at the time of testing. The students and teachers have both put in many efforts to ensure that the students’ performance over the course of the year has improved and thus, it will be a great disservice to gauge the student if they fail to score proficiently. Most prefer this method and prefer assessment to be done within the course of the year instead of a single test yearly.

Psychologically, standardized testing can create a lot of stress and anxiety to both educators and students. The tests place an enormous amount of stress on both of them; teachers and students, as teachers are responsible for ensuring the students are prepared for the tests while the students have stress especially when there is something meaningful tied to the tests. Stress and anxiety can have negative health repercussions on the students and teachers alike, and these feelings of negativity can be directed towards the school and learn (Columbia University, 2015).

Especially, the NCLB tests are narrowing the curriculum which block students’ growth from all-around. A 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that 44% of school districts since 2001, had reduced the time spent on science, arts, and social studies by approximately 145 minutes per work so that teachers can focus more on reading and math. A survey conducted in 2007 indicated that 75% of those involved in teaching cited the change in teaching methods to the standardized tests.

It has been stated that students can be taught how to ace their tests but does not prepare them for adult lives. China is at the top of the PISA rankings after displacing Finland. Jiang Xueqin, the deputy principal of Peking University High School, reiterated that the Chinese schools were good at preparing the students for the tests. However, they do fail to prepare the students for higher education and the knowledge economy. It is evident that some of the skills acquired by teaching and preparing for the standardized tests may not be beneficial to the students in the life ahead (Columbia University, 2015).

The argument for or against standardized tests is valid to both sides are the proponents and opponents do bring out strong points to validate their stand. However, standardized testing is affecting the students’ growth. By narrowing the curriculum the student is at a disadvantage of realizing their potential outside of the core subjects. Teachers again are accused of teaching the exam to students and this does not help the student either as they cannot learn what is essential for their knowledge as the tests’ importance is all about passing and getting good grades. A different method should be structured to replace the standardizing method as it has failed in its goal at developing the education sector.

References

Columbia University Office of Work/Life. (2015). Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing. New York: Columbia University.

Education Glossary. (2015, December 11). Standardized Test. Retrieved from Education Glossary: http://edglossary.org/standardized-test/

Popham, W. J. (2014). Why Standardized Tests do not Measure Educational Quality. Retrieved from Educational Leadership: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don't-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx