Standardized Testing: Help or Hindrance?
Barbara L. Hartmann
March 7, 2005
For Fast Track to Teaching
I have discovered many prejudices to Standardized Testing over the years, including my own. I had a poor experience in grade school over a test that had tracked me into a learning level that was too low. That was in the 60’s when many of these tests were not well written or well given and some educators felt they were more important than judging the students with other day to day classroom measures. It was also a time when parents (according to my mother) took the word of professionals with out question or second opinions. From the beginning standardized testing has been controversial and now even more so with federal interest in the ability of local schools to teach students. This makes the question broader; we are not just focusing on individual student’s ability to achieve the ability of the school to teach. It is the same question do standardized tests help education?
Phi Delta kappa/Gallup Poll, 2004 of the Public’s Attitudes Towards the Public Schools showed many attitudes the public had about standardized testing. Public School parents did not agree by 70% that one statewide test is fair picture of whether or not a school needs improvement. Only 14% of these parents would transfer their students out of a school identified, as needs improvement. 77% thought it was not possible to determine if a student is proficient in Math and English based on one test. (Rose and Gallup, 2004) The Parents of students in public schools also have some reservations about standardized testing. The magic test does not exist in these parent’s eyes.
How do educators use standardized tests? They use them to diagnose intelligence and learning disabilities, compare students and schools to other populations, to determine educational and curriculum needs, select groups of students to be tracked together, provide student motivation, for college entrance exams, and to give feed back to students, teachers, parents and the public on academic achievement. Does one test work for different reasons or different students? No, a variety of tests are needed for different needs, grade levels and special needs children. (Smith, 2000). It is unfortunate that not all schools have the ability to choose the best test for each situation. This might be because of restrictions, many schools have to use a certain test because the state mandates it. This mandated test may not have the flexibility to test a bright special needs child or a child whose primary language is not English for example (Zehr, 2003). The school district may not be able to afford a different test. These tests are very expensive and to by an additional test for a special student may be out of the question. Finally, the school district might not have available personnel trained in testing and don’t know what they are doing and choose the wrong test for the situation or have to pay an expert to do the testing which costs money (Omaha World Harold, 2004).
The general public is not aware that the diagnostic testing includes more that an I.Q. test. The wide variety of special needs testing can now include medical tests for vision and hearing, speech and reading tests and even coordination tests. Unless you have worked with a bright child who has a learning disability it is not always evident why these tests are needed. If a child can learn but just needs a different kind of help then they will be able to learn and not be left behind. Diagnostic tests usually need specialists to give them. A specialist such as a Medical Doctor, Psychologist, Speech Therapist or Nurse or perhaps a teacher who has had special training in recognizing a reading disability is necessary. These specialists take time and money. However, if the child is not left behind and can go on to be a working citizen the effort is worth it (Rothstein, 2005).
If the students are from the standard white middle class American environment the educators have little problem with the results of these tests. It has been determined that for years black urban children did poorly on standardized tests because the tests were written for the schema of the white middle class student. Many black communities in the United States have argued that standardized tests are not fairly written for children in their communities’ and urged test makers to change tests to make them fairer. Test makers are still struggling to make tests fair (Stepto, 2004).
In Los Angeles the Spanish-speaking children scored unbelievably low on a standardized reading test (Toppo, 2004). The Hispanic immigration to the United States has also had trouble with the standardized testing because English is the second language of the student. It is not only the literacy of the child in English that may be the problem but also the literacy in Spanish. Many of these new immigrants are not literate in writing in Spanish or the Indian language that may be the true first language. When a child cannot read well enough in English to take the usual tests offered by the school system they will fail no matter what the subject is. This can be devastating to a school system trying to meet the “No child left behind laws” especially if English immersion prejudice is in the local area (Zehr, 2004).
These points about standardized testing are as important with diagnostic testing as they are with achievement and aptitude tests. The results may determine weather the student is allowed to pass on to the next grade, graduate or go to college and also if the teacher keeps her job or if the school receives negative sanctions for low scores. The stakes are very high and the stress students and educators feel is enormous (Toppo, 2004).
“Vivian Fling loved school so much she’d go when she was sick. So when she had twin daughters of her own, she hoped they would feel the same way. And she got her wish, at least through most of first grade. But by second grade, she started to panic. I knew the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test was coming up and they just had to be ready.” This example shows how even parents get crazy over the standardized test in primary grades! The pressure to have the “perfect” child and the hope of Ivy League schools appears very young these days (Schindehette, Rozsa, Harmel, Frey, Inez, Bresnahan, 2004). Teachers and administrators have also felt the stress because the importance of these test on money for the schools and jobs for the teachers. Cheating has become prevalent not only by students but by teachers and administrators hoping to raise the test scores. A recent investigation in New York accused dozens of teachers and principals of cheating, other similar occurrences have happened in other areas of the country. A teacher may not cheat outright but instead not teach the curriculum in its ordinary manor and instead have the children memorize the test. Many instances of teaching the test instead of the regular curriculum have also become common as a result of high stakes testing (Perez, 2002).
One might ask, “What is wrong with teaching to the test?” Usually testing tests only the lower order of what educators call thinking. Even the retarded student can memorize facts but could he apply them to a problem and solve the problem? Testing does not test higher thinking skills well and it is difficult to write a test that does (Rothstein, 2005). The new Act and Sat are trying to improve this area of testing by adding writing portions and considering areas of logic out side the math portion. Many Colleges have moved away from the Act and Sat towards the individual colleges own entrance activities. These activities may have a standardized test but they also have essays, and more emphasis on interview and other activities the child participates in school and the community. These colleges understand that knowing the whole person, not just a list of grades and a test score may make a better match for their school (Greene, 2004).
Teaching to the test and taking the test takes time away from the regular classroom work. Teachers have to spend time on testing skills instead of on subject matter. Often the remedial students who lower the test scores take much of the teacher’s time, trying to get these remedial students up to grade level. Thus less time is spent on the above average or gifted student (Smith, 2000).
State and federal laws now seek to gauge the number of students who reach “proficiency” mark on one standardized test or another. What exactly is “Proficiency”? Is proficiency a percentile ranking? Is it a percentile with in a state or country in a specific age group? What if that age group has never performed well in a specific area? These are all tricky questions. Tests have to be designed to answer question as well as understand what the student knows. The results have to be reported in a way the information can be understood and used by teachers, students and government agencies. The information in the United States needs to be comparable from state to state for the “No child left behind” regulations so that the whole nation is on track (Rothstein, 2005).
If quality information from testing is used as a tool or guideline for improvement then one sees benefit. The feed back for the teachers and school systems can help them develop new curriculum that will help children become better students. Weakness in resources can be identified, teaching practices can be improved, higher academic standards can be applied when identified and remedial areas that need improvement are recognized (Smith,2000).
When Standardized tests are used correctly I believe they are a good thing. However, like any tool if it is abused or used incorrectly only damage will follow. Any carpenter will tell you the job is easy if you have the right tool. It is the tools, the tests and the way they are given that need special attention and constant improvement. It is important for students, parents and schools to be held accountable notice I said all three! It is unfortunate that specific guidelines have been set for schools in “no child left behind” laws that have little room for specific problems that a particular area of our country may have. That is what I see as the problem at this point. Test makers and teachers have strived to make changes in testing so the tests are fairer to all the students. This is an ongoing process that will never completely end. Frankly, some of these “no child left behind” laws are backward or unenforceable. The schools who score low are probably the schools who need more resources not less, so threatening to cut funds to that school is stupid. I am from Nebraska, in this state we have a school district around Valentine that is 70 miles across with no private schools. How can they close a rural school like that if they test low, well they can’t, unenforceable. I have to agree with Mary Smith and Patricia Fey, the testing is good when the information is used for feed back and improvement.
Postscript
I wrote a similar thesis paper 25 years ago (high school and no I no longer have the paper) and I had the opposite summary. Then the emphasis was pegging students into specific categories, for example: college prep track, vocational arts or I don’t care if they graduate at all. There was little or Special Education at this time either. The schools were not held accountable for the scores of the students. It was about that time Creighton University had a big scandal about a varsity basketball player they had accepted who could not read at the junior high level. I believe that was about the time the public took interest in what children were learning is school and how it was affecting the economic world.
References
Glissman, Bob (Feb. 26, 2005) The High Cost of Testing Omaha World Harold, pg. 1
Greene, Howard and Greene, Matthew (Dec.2004) Standardized Testing: Help or
Hindrance? www.universitybusiness.com, pg25-26
Perez laurie (2002) Standardized Tests: Do they Ultimately Help or Hurt,
http://www.nd.edu.~frswrite/issues/2002/perez.shtml
Roothstein, Richard (2005) The Limits of Testing, American School Board Journal, Feb.
2005 pg. 34-37
Rose, Lowell C. and Gallup, Alec M. (2004) The 36th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup
Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, Phi Delta Kappan, Sept.
2004, pg. 41-49
Schindehette, Susan, Rozsa, Lori, Harmel, Kristin, Frey, Hennilfer, Russell, Inez,
Bresnahan, Angela, Stressed (2004)By The Tests, People, 11/1/2004, Vol. 62, Issue
18 pg. 22-24
Smith, Mary and Fey, Patricia, (Nov 2000) Validity and Accountability in High Stakes
Testing, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 51, pg334-344
Steptoe, Sonja (2004) Closing The Gap, Time, Vol. 164 Issue 22, pg. 54
Toppo, Gregg (Oct. 12, 2004) An answer to Standardized Tests Psychometric Craft
Questions, Seek Solutions, USA Today, pg. 7
Zehr, Mary Ann (2004) Tests of Youngest English-Learners Spark Controversy,
Education Week, Vol. 24, Issue 12, page 36-38