Standardized Tests
Walk into any elementary school classroom and you will see students and teachers diligently working on a form of preparation for standardized testing. Standardized testing is a hot topic in every public school across America. When most teachers, parents, and students hear “standardized tests” they tend to think that same daunting thoughts as Louis C.K. There seems to be pressure on everyone for success in standardized testing.
Many believe that standardized test are not a bad thing, but they have simply been misused. Misuse such as an easy way for states to assess students. The misuse has led to the common stress that students, teachers, and schools are feeling.
“Okay class, it is very important that we pay attention. You will see what we are learning today on the ISTEP.”
A day in the life of a teacher mostly consists of endless test prep for standardized tests. Find that hard to believe? Laura Wormald, an Indiana teacher, confessed that in her classroom they spend 120 out of 182 days on Indiana state standardized testing (Wormald, 2014). Many teachers are feeling guilt for putting so much pressure on their students relating to the standardized tests. Teachers want to keep their students’ calm in this process, but find it difficult as most of the curriculum surrounds standardized testing. Many things ride on the standardized tests, including the jobs of teachers. In a frenzy to save their job and the success of their students’, teachers continue to push their students to do well. Many call this modernized obsession “teaching to the test”.
Though many question why schools are falling into the habit of “teaching to the test”, Indiana Department of Education explains what standardized tests mean to schools.
Indiana lawmakers passed Public Law 221 in 1999, two years before No Child Left Behind took effect. The law gave the state authority to intervene in schools that failed to meet benchmark accountability standards. That meant assigning all schools a rating so the Department of Education could monitor their progress.
Today all Indiana public schools receive a letter grade in accordance with the state’s NCLB waiver. These letter grades are calculated from scores on standardized tests (The Ultimate Guide To Indiana’s Standardized Tests, 2014).
Generally, the main goal behind standardized tests is to assess students, teachers, and their school. If a school receives a bad rating they then become at risk of losing their funding, or worst case scenario, the school being shut down. If a teacher’s students do not score well on the tests, they are at risk of losing their job.
While standardized testing can be seen as highly intense with a lot at risk, many find it to have improved the school system as a whole. Through the development of rigorous standardized testing a new accountability system has developed. Before No Child Left Behind, students were given standardized tests and were told they were really no big deal. This resulted in students aimlessly filling in bubbles just to get it out of the way. The tests would be collected, scored, and given to the schools to use as data. The tests were truly not a big deal, pointless by all means. With new testing standards, researchers find that students are being held more accountable for their learning and teachers are being forced to reach outside their comfort zone. The results of standardized tests directly influences the accountability system.
Patricia Deubel suggests that the results of standardized serve as quality and valuable information for teachers.
“Standardized tests can’t possibly measure all that we value for students to know and be able to do. But, if you can set aside NCLB for a moment, there is a valuable place for them. If results inform instruction and tell the teacher that a student does not have basic skills in some area deemed essential, isn’t that important to know for intervention to be provided?” (Deubel, 2008).
How are teachers to be held accountable if they do not know the level of ability each student has? Deubel suggests that standardized tests allows for both teachers and students to see where they are academically. Now that all students are required to take a test determining their knowledge, teachers have more accountability to help students in struggling areas.
Questions often linger if standardized tests truly measure the abilities of our students. Many researcher criticize that filling in a bubble and giving a short response does not truly display a student’s full ability. Sure, some students can have various skills and recite facts, but do they understand the deeper meaning of the material that they are learning?
“The tests may describe certain aspects of reading achievement (these are mainly cognitive accomplishments), but they fall short of the rich knowledge and understanding that marks successful readers, teachers of reading, and reading programs” (Afflerbach, 2002).
Though students may know some certain aspects of reading for the tests, they lack in the deeper meaning of reading, the “rich knowledge”. Students are missing out on the skills that allows them to be a truly great reader. But they do have the skills to take a truly important standardized test.
Many believe that standardized test are not a bad thing, but they have simply been misused. The misuse has led to the common stress that students, teachers, and schools are feeling.
While it is common that most teachers feel pressure towards standardized tests, one teacher voices that she felt no pressure towards the matter. Why so? Nan Youngerman chalks it up to the combinations of leadership from the Board of Education in setting clear priorities about the relationship between testing and learning, the vision of the superintendent of schools, active support from teachers and administrators, and involvement of students and the community. As most districts respond to state and federal mandates by imposing them on schools and teachers, Youngerman’s district interprets the mandates through a vision. As everyone is a part of the vision, educators are able to think through mandates to determine what they mean for teaching and learning in their district. Perhaps standardized testing is not as daunting as most schools interpret it to be. Youngerman suggests if school districts respond to the mandates with less defense, their teachers and students will in return feel less pressure (Youngerman, 2002).
Despite how positively a district may take on standardized tests, many find them to be highly biased and unfair to some students. Critics often point out that test questions are designed around a set knowledge and skill base that children of a privileged background would be likely to possess, almost as if the tests target specific students. Researchers suggest that the knowledge that most privileged students build outside of the classroom gives them an advantage on standardized tests. So what does this mean for students who are less privileged? Researchers point out that standardized test consist of mastering temporary facts and skills. These tests are likely to be emphasized in schools with a higher percent of minorities, which will result in a poorer quality of teaching and learning (Kohn, 2000). Not only does this alleged discrimination result in lower test results, but it withholds the academic potential of less privileged students.
Now challenge yourself to be put in the position of a third grader. You are young, anxious, and are constantly being told about the importance of ISTEP. Your teacher, your mom, your dad, almost every adult you encounter is preaching that you need to do well on this test. There is a lot of time, preparation, and pressure leading up to the actual test days. Here you can find a test from the Language Arts section of ISTEP for third graders. Think like an eight year and complete this test. From this view point what are your thoughts? Is it overwhelming? Do you feel like there is high pressure? Do you find the situation to reasonable? You decide for yourself.
Whether standardized testing is something that teachers and students cringe at in your school, or is something that gives no one grief, we are going to see it in our schools for a long time.
Sources
“The Ultimate Guide To Indiana’s Standardized Tests.” (n.d.) State Impact RSS. N.p., Retrieved from http://indianapublicmedia.org/stateimpact/tag/assessments/
Wormald, L. 5 Feb. 2014. “Do You Truly Understand Indiana’s Standardized Tests?” Living Life As A Journey. Retrieved from http://laurawormald.com/2014/02/05/do-you-truly-understand-indianas-standardized-tests/
Youngerman, N. (2002). When vision, not test scores, set school priorities. Language Arts, Vol. 79, No. 3, Teaching [a) to b) about c) against d) all of the above] the Test
Deubel, P. (2008). Accountability, yes. Teaching to the test, no. The Journal
Kohn, A., (2002). Poor teaching for poor kids.. Language Arts, Vol. 79, No. 3, Teaching [a) to b) about c) against d) all of the above]the Test.
Afflerbach, P. (2002). The road to folly and redemption: Perspectives on the legitimacy of high- stakes testing. Reading Research Quarterly.
