A Future for Standardized Testing
Standardized Testing. It might seem like a new controversy arising in the education field with continued pressure from people across the country for reform but the truth is, these tests have been debated since their creation decades ago. In a society that loves research and concrete evidence, we’ve become increasingly obsessed with putting a number on our children’s intelligence. But is our obsession with this data helping or hurting students? Are we really maximizing a student’s potential for learning by slapping a multiple-choice test in front of them and expecting them to communicate their understanding through a shaded bubble? Many are beginning to ask these deeper questions as the first generations of No Child Left Behind students enter college and the workforce and as we are finally experience the product of standardized testing.
History of Standardized Testing
So you might be asking, where did all of this testing come from? Who’s idea was it? Well, it turns out standardized testing was around long before No Child Left Behind, even dating back to ancient China! In 1905, French psychologist Alfred Binet developed the first standard test of intelligence, aspects of which are still part of the modern IQ test. Binet’s style of testing intelligence inspired the Army Mental Tests in the U.S. which helped assign serviceman jobs beginning in World War I (Fletcher, 2009). The Army Mental Test was also the origin of the multiple-choice format, developed by Arthur S. Otis. This was the first test where multiple-choice questions comprised the majority of the exam and allowed for people to be sorted and ranked based on their score (“Testing in American Schools,” 1992). It essentially was the beginning of putting numbers to one’s intelligence. However it wasn’t until 1926 that the concept of standardized testing was adopted in the education field with the creation of the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) by the College Board, a non-profit organization (Fletcher 2009). The format of the SAT gained popularity across the country, originally only administered to scholarship applicants but grew to include testing all prospective college students, eventually becoming a requirement for acceptance into a university beginning in 1960 at the University of California (“History of SAT”). Standardized testing crept its way into primary schools during the mid to late 80’s with individual states adopting their own forms of achievement tests for elementary children. In 1987, the Indiana Department of Education contracted CBT/McGraw Hill to administer the first standardized test for elementary school children in the state called the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress, more commonly known as the ISTEP. It was first administered to grades 1,2,3,6,8, and 9 until 1995 when grades 1 and 2 were dropped from the test (“ISTEP Program Manual,” 2011). It wasn’t until 2001 with the infamous No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the acceptance of state mandated standards that this test and similar tests in states across the country became such prevalent aspects of the education system. Today, the results from these tests determine teacher’s salaries, funding for schools, and schools credibility due to the pressure from NCLB for schools to perform.
Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing
It’s almost impossible to browse educational news now without running into an article related to standardized testing. You hear a lot of negative things about it and you wonder if you’re really getting the whole picture. So then what are the pros of using standardized testing in elementary classrooms? Well many argue it’s the simplest way to measure and compare students’ abilities because it assigns a tangible number to a student’s achievement that can easily be compared to another child’s number as opposed to trying to compare qualitative data. Other supporters of standardized testing say that it is a fair and unbiased form of assessment because each child is being tested over the same material and therefore learning at an equal standard.
The multiple-choice tests can also be graded by computers, eliminating human bias in the grading process (“Standardized Tests,” 2014). This can be beneficial because it holds students to a particular standard, ensuring that each child is receiving the same quality of education. Similarly, supporters argue that standardized tests are non-discriminatory because they aim to make content equal for all races and ethnicities. However this is hardly the case as shown in the info graphic which shows that white students are the majority of SAT test takers and they just so happen to be some of the most successful on the tests. On the opposite end we have several factors to consider when thinking of the cons of standardized testing. One you might not automatically think of is the effect of absent students on standardized testing scores. A report published by Michael A. Gottfried from Loyola Marymount University found that schools with high rates of unexcused absences had significantly lower test scores than schools with fewer unexcused absences and that students with peers having high numbers of unexcused absences had lower test scores (Gottfried, 2011). For tests that supposedly promote equality and fairness, many argue there is something wrong here. It can’t be fair for children with proper attendance to have their test scores effected by students with poor attendance because teachers are having to catch up the students falling behind, unable to move forward with the students who are on track. Another critical drawback of heavy standardized testing in elementary schools is the lack of character and creativity involved with multiple-choice format.
In an journal by Olaf Jorgenson, he argues that creativity is stamped out by standardized testing, not only on the test itself, but also in the way teachers are teaching due to sticking to the standards instead of allowing more authentic, explorative learning (Jorgenson, 2012).
However one of the most prevalent arguments against standardized testing is the fact that teacher’s salaries are correlated to the performance of their students. Originally this might have been a good idea, giving more money to teachers who seemed to be great teachers because their students test scores were high but in reality, high test scores doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good or bad teacher and basing an adult’s salary on the performance of a child, seems a bit unfair. This pressure to have students perform well on standardized tests creates a kind of teaching method referred to as “teaching to the test” in which teachers closely follow standards and seldom deviate from them for fear of wasting time on information that students might not be tested over.
American Society and Standardized Tests
Alright, so we’ve heard the pros and cons of standardized testing. The big question we have to ask ourselves now is what kind of people are we raising when basing our education system on highly regulated, impersonal examinations? Are we raising the kind of unique, authentic thinkers a well-functioning society needs? Elementary schools are vital places in society not only for developing the minds of future generations, but also for instilling healthy learning habitats an individual will carry with them and use for the rest of their lives. The article “What We Lose in Winning the Test Score Race,” discusses what society is losing out on and what we will lose out on when continuing to base our education system off of standardized testing such as creativity in the learning experience (Jorgenson, 2012). Because these multiple-choice tests basically eliminate personality and creativity in order to provide an equal form of assessment, it has in turn pushed schools to abandon such aspects of education in order to focus on the performance of students on testing. Placing such a heavy importance on one large summative assessment has led to high testing anxiety for children. A report published by a group of psychology professors found that children experienced higher testing anxiety on high-stakes assessments such as ISTEP than on lower-stakes testing such as more informal classroom testing (Segool & Carlson & Goforth & von der Embse & Barterian, 2013). This begs the question of whether or not our current idea of mass assessment is beneficial for students if it is causing higher anxiety among younger children. So again, are we creating a healthy education system for the future of our country when we cause children high testing anxiety and eliminate creativity from the curriculum through “drill and kill” lessons? We have to really start to think about how we are presenting learning and education to children when considering standardized tests and the methods teachers use to prepare their students for these exams because we want children to want to learn and be excited about it. This is the kind of future generation we want to be producing because we want well rounded, educated members of society.
What the Future Holds
You might be frustrated at this point. You’ve heard critiques of standardized testing for years now, most prominently from educators. So if teachers themselves have been seriously questioning these tests, why are they still so prevalent in our education system? Well it has a lot to do with politics. Ever since NCLB, standardized tests have become and intricate part of the American education system to the point where it would be hard to transition away from them because they are so deeply rooted in the structure of the system through political agendas, funding, and salaries for faculty. However recently, educators and lawmakers alike are calling for change in standardized testing as they continue to rule to education system. New York State Representative, Steve Israel, along with thirteen Long Island superintendents have come together and announced that they will be proposing legislation to cut the number of standardized tests in the state in half in the coming years. This act, Tackling Excessive Standardized Testing, or TEST, aims to not only cut the amount of standardized tests students are taking, but also to reevaluate the purpose of standardized testing and how they benefit children (Smith, 2014). Even teachers themselves are taking a strong stand against standardized testing in a small but growing group of educators attempting to cause change in standardized testing policies.
In April of this year, three teachers at a New York City public school refused to administer standardized tests for the year, claiming they “can no longer implement policies that seek to transform the broad promises of public education into a narrow obsession with the ranking and sorting of children” (Strauss, 2014).
These teachers are part of a growing movement amongst teachers, administrators, lawmakers, parents, and students alike to stand up for quality education, speaking out against the era of “teaching to the test” and promoting more authentic methods for teaching and learning.
With the growing support against standardized testing, an education system with such heavy emphasis on standardized testing may become extinct in fifteen to twenty years. The American education system has a long history of ups and downs, a swinging pendulum on the spectrum of the best way to teach and assess students. We are in a time when reform is creeping its way into the minds of out society as we continue the long debate over standardized testing. There is solid evidence on both ends of this debate for and against these tests and whether or not they are beneficial for our education system and it will be a long process to reshaping the way we view and use standardized tests.
Photo Credit
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947019,00.htm
http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/24/threatened-for-a-test-protes
http://www.aliem.com/author/stella-yiu
http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/cartoons-on-testing
Works Cited
Fletcher, D. (2009, December 11). A Brief History of Standardized Testing. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947019,00.html\
Gottfried, M.A. (2011). Absent Peers in Elementary Years: The Negative Classroom Effects of Unexcused Absences on Standardized Testing Outcomes. Teaching College Record, 113 (8).
History of the SAT: A Timeline. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/where/timeline.htm
Indiana Department of Education, Office of Student Assessment. (2011). 2011–2012 ISTEP Program Manual. Retrieved from Indiana Department of Education website: http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/assessment/2011-12-istep-program-manual11-30-11final-kc_1.pdf
Jorgensen, O. (2012). What We Lose in Winning the Test Score Race. Principle.
Segool, N.K., Carlson, J.S., Goforth, A. N., von der Embse, N., & Barterian, J.A. (2013). Heightened Test Anxiety among Young Children: Elementary School Students' Anxious Responses to High-Stakes Testing. Psychology In the Schools.
Smith, G. (2014). Standardized Testing Remains Bone of Contention Nationwide. Education News. Retrieved from http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/standardized-testing-remains-bone-of-contention-nationwide/
Standardized Tests: Pros and Cons. (2014, July 1). Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://standardizedtests.procon.org/
Strauss, V. (2014, April 4). Teachers refuse to administer standardized tests. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/04/teachers-refuse-to-administer-standardized-tests/
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-519 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992).
