Standardized Testing: The Challenge of Knowledge
In grades K-12, students are introduced to the idea of standardized testing. In North Carolina, starting in the third grade, students begin to take the End-of-Grade (EOG) test. At the age of seven or eight, students detrimentally are primed to take standardized tests. Children in grades K-12 are ultimately reliant on their test performance for future pathways in academia. These tests essentially seal the fates for some students and even teachers. Due to the high demand for passing scores, there is heightened stress and tension on parents, students, and teachers to ensure success to pass on to the next grade or even gain acceptance to college. These tests, however, do not showcase the true potential of every student. There are factors such as race, disabilities, and socioeconomic background to consider when using standardized tests to rate a student’s potential. Standardized testing is an inequitable method to determine a student’s academic capabilities and a teacher’s job performance.
The issue of standardized testing and student performance has been prevalent for years. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. NCLB plays a key role in the heightened distribution of tests. However, there was a lot of tension and conflict with the requirements. According to Dolezalek et al., “Under the new law, schools must test in seven grades. NCLB doubled the required amount of testing. NCLB requires this expansion of testing to make schools more accountable for their students’ progress. Schools that receive federal funding must conduct these tests and meet other requirements of the act” (10). This act plays a huge role in the production of more standardized testing in the school systems. Resulting from this act, the rise of a billion-dollar testing industry; students started taking more tests to assess their performance, the school, and the teacher’s work ethic.
The education gap in testing between minority students and white students is vast. Black students have a considerable gap compared to white students when it comes to standardized testing. In her book Filling in the Blanks : Standardized Testing and the Black-White Achievement Gap Arbuthnot explains that this gap is a continuing trend that leads from primary school and on to secondary school. A big factor that contributes to the gap is the demographic of black people in which Arbuthnot states:
Research has shown that on average, Black students tend to go high poverty, high minority schools. Consequently, those schools that have high poverty, high minority students tend to have significantly less funding per pupil in comparison to schools that majority students attend… Consequently, these differences in the relative amounts of funding per pupil has been raised as one of the factors that contributes to the test performance differences of White and Black test takers. (Ch. 4)
Majority of minority communities and schools cannot compete with predominantly white schools who have high resources. This leads to advantages over one another as resources are an essential aspect for a great education. Students who are not exposed to this environment are not on an equal field to test against others. The lack of resources and funds creates a gap which leads to inequitable test performance; and unfairness to students and teachers.
Standardized testing is not a reliable way of measuring a student’s skills. Students with learning disabilities are a prime example of this issue. As they are required to take standardized tests as well. Despite the fact that some students have severe learning disabilities such as ADHD, students are still tested. Standardized testing is unsuitable for students with disabilities because as fairtest asserts:
Barriers to success on standardized exams for SWDs include lack of access to learning the material on the tests. This sometimes results from “restrictive” placements, in which children with disabilities are separated from other students, then not given full access to the mainstream curriculum. Research indicates that states with high school graduation tests are more likely to place SWDs in more restrictive settings. This runs counter to a pillar of special education law, which calls for students to be placed in the “least restrictive environment” possible. Students often do not receive services during test time because teachers are supervising the testing.
Students with learning disabilities feel the pressure of these tests. They begin to develop a mindset that makes them wary of a test. To be put in a restrictive environment is unfair to the students as they have to be prepared for this test. Also, time is taken away from students with disabilities who focus on applicable life skills than that of a test. As well, teachers go out their way to make sure they are capable of taking the test which takes a considerable amount of time. Students in low-poverty areas may not have the resources or appropriate staff for preparation. Due to the stress put on students with learning disabilities to perform well, standardized testing is not fair to assess their capability.
Teaching styles have changed due to the nature of standardized testing. The amount of preparation spent for standardized tests utilizes a considerable amount of time. The time lost preparing for this test could be spent learning applicable schools for students in primary schools. However, there is precious time spent preparing for a test on skills not related to instruction as ncte explains:
Most teachers are expected to spend an increasing amount of time on practice tests or drill sessions to prepare students for tests. Materials and requirements like these de-professionalize teachers, reducing their authority and autonomy in instruction. Instructional time spent on high-level writing skills such as how to use strategies of invention in writing is replaced by how to perform well on the relatively low-level skills required in standardized tests.
Teachers are forced to alter instructional time to prepare for standardized tests. The time spent on learning the methods of the test narrow the curriculum. The academic ability of a student is not fully measured by standardized tests because of the low-level skills required for the test. Student learning is limited in preparation of the test. Then, teachers and educators are put at peril if students scores are below average. All the while having to juggle the responsibility of preparing students for the test and going over regular material. Educators have had to adjust to a system that is not beneficial for them or students when taking standardized tests.
Nevertheless, there are some good aspects to standardized testing. Standardized tests such as the SAT are supposed to be a great predictor of college success. In the article Standardized Testing Measures College Success, Penn quotes Camara saying, “Thousands of validity studies and intense analysis of the SAT reveals that it has helped to reliably predict college success when SAT scores are compared with college freshman grade point averages.” As well, standardized tests should be racially unbiased and give every student an equal opportunity. They are to provide an unfiltered measure of what a student knows. The tests allow schools to be compared and hold teachers accountable. Although these are strong points to be made, the test is extremely flawed. The point still holds true that standardized tests do not fully evaluate the capabilities of every student.
In conclusion, tests will always be an indicator of performance in the school system. However, these tests cannot assess your overall success in college and in life. The tests do not account for somebody having a bad day, students with disabilities, or people who couldn't care less. The high stakes of taking these tests determine important decisions sometimes, yet they truly cannot measure the worth of a student and teacher’s work ethic. Students in low-income areas are at a disadvantage compared to wealthy counterparts. The tests put stress on students because they are high stakes for decisions like college. Also, teachers jobs are put at stake according to student’s performance. The government should look to change the current system or alter some of the requirements put on standardized testing. Student performance on tests has not increased significantly for them to be effective. A new solution should be introduced as in including a testing method inclusive to crafting a whole picture of the student.