Standardized Testing - An American Travesty

Standardized tests have become a staple in classroom across America, finding themselves on the desks of students of all ages, in forty-nine out of fifty states. There has been some strong opposition surrounding these tests over the years and yet their use has not ceased. In fact, we seem to be a country obsessed with standardized testing. As a society we are placing far too much weight upon unrealistic and unreliable tests. Our children are being unfairly judged and their academic careers altered, twisted and manipulated in order to "make the grade". Our teachers are teaching to test and what's worse is our children are no longer learning for the sake of knowledge. We are robbing our children of the likelihood that they will grow to love and embrace learning. They are being tested and drilled to the point of absurdity. We must explore both the problems and solutions to a country's unhealthy obsession with an outdated and destructive method of measurement - the standardized test.

Peter Sacks equates our country's reliance upon these tests as such, "Like a drug addict who knows he should quite, America is hooked. We are a nation of standardized-testing junkies." It seems as though we, as a population, are accepting the use of these testing methods without fully understanding the ramifications of their use.

Our children are being programmed to rehearse through out the year in order to successfully perform come test time. I saw first hand this year how truly important these marks are to a school. I witnessed my eight year old daughter trudge through the door, day after day speaking of drills and worksheets and vocabulary words, all in order to do well on these important tests she would be taking. Her eyes began to look tired after several days of preparation and she complained of headaches. She had not had recess for over a week. Practice sheets filled her backpack at a preposterous rate.

Finally came the day the notice arrived. It asked parents to allow for the child a quite place to study, a goodnight sleep and a nutritious breakfast. The notice stressed in no uncertain terms that these tests were imperative to the school and student. It continued on to state that we must do everything possible to help our children attain high marks. Realizing our particular school had been deemed a "school in need" three years in a row, their pleas were understandable, although mildly desperate in nature and tone. The question must be begged, how far will a school go in order to get these high marks they so desire? This leads us to the first of many evils we will encounter in dealing with these methods of assessment.

(1). CHEATING

Shamefully, we are seeing event after event of dishonest and unethical behavior surrounding these exams. According to Shapiro, "Teachers are cheating. But they are not the only ones. Scandals are breaking out in California, Chicago, New York, Maryland, Georgia, and other places we don't know about." Suspect activity has been reported across the country; everything from teachers whispering hints, nudging and coaxing, right down to filling in the answer bubbles themselves. Additionally, Shapiro suggests that teachers advise students at the final two minute mark to fill in "B" for all unanswered questions. Lastly, teachers will at the expense of their students, stop teaching weeks in advance in order to fill the days with practice sheets. Newsweek even confirmed these suspicions and allegations with extensive evidence showing that indeed teachers were "helping" their students.

So, why would teachers so blatantly coach and advise their students in this manner? Why would they risk loosing their jobs? What does this conduct show? Most importantly what kind of example are we setting for the young minds of America, of whom we are supposedly trying to benefit? These answers lie deep within the next problem.

(2) MONEY

Governor Jeb Bush begs this question, "What's wrong about paying good teachers more for doing a better job?" This question, according to Whoriskey, is regarding a pay-for-performance program in which Florida's teachers are rewarded directly for student's high marks. The standardized test scores actually correlate directly with a teacher's pay. Compliments of this program, high standardized test scores will equate to raises and bonuses for the teachers whom obtain them. According to last year's scores, these bonuses which go to both teachers and staff could amount in some cases to over a thousand dollars annually. Other states have programs in which educators have gotten upwards of two thousand dollars or more directly in bonuses for high test scores.

These pay-for-performance type programs are popping up across the nation. Principle's salaries have long been based off test performance. A teacher that can obtain high scores is an asset to the school and pay will follow accordingly. All sources of income, including grants, federal and state funding correlate with these scores. This is a very dangerous game to play with our children's education. In this high stakes game of money, pride and status, lost is the teacher whom evokes imagination and a passion for knowledge. The highest rewarded teachers are those whom can teach a child to test - plain and simple. In order to gain respect, keep their job and earn a pay check; teachers are forced to stop cultivating minds and in turn coach, chant, sing, drill and train their students in the art of test taking.

(3) UNRELIABILITY

The creating of standardized testing has become big business. Between the years of 1955 and 1970 sales have grown from five million dollars to twenty-five million dollars. In 1990 we saw it grow to $130 million and in 2000 sales hit an impressive high of $234 million. However these numbers pale in comparison to a 1993 Boston College study, in which they estimated that the amount of money spent on k-12 standardized testing realistically may be as high as $1.5 billion dollars a year. These are quite baffling numbers for a simple test to gauge our children's academic performance. (Gluckman)

So, what happens to companies that see success and large profits, only to decide to grow accordingly? They transform and adapt to the environment surrounding them. This is the story of the standardized test. According to Gluckman, the standardized test originated in Iowa at a data processing firm. It was produced by the National Computer Systems, also known as the NCS. The company grew as it received contracts from the growing number of states that were embracing customized tests. NSC grew from a $35 million dollar industry in 1980 into a $630 million dollar industry in 1999. As it grew it became multinational. Additional players, such as Riverside publishing, CTB/McGraw-Hill and Harcourt came in to the business of testing. They too were able to find success and earnings in this growing market of testing programs.

The challenge with growth is that standards once set high, may be altered or lowered under new leadership. Originally tests were authored by what Gluckman calls scholars of psychometrics (the study of psychological and educational assessment). These tests were created under university sponsorship and these tests were well written and concise. So, who is in charge of creating today's standardized tests? Instead of the highly educational panel of experts you might expect; it would be more likely an anonymous employee of the publishing company whom created the test. The legitimate fear is that of a less reliable sub-standard test.

These fears of unreliability came true when a testing error occurred in the grading of some 9,000 students in New York City. This error was made by CTB/McGraw Hill and it cost principles, district superintendents and a school chancellor their jobs. Additionally those 9,000 children were ordered in error to attend summer school. This is not an isolated incident. Across the country there have been accounts of rampant errors affecting students' academic careers. In the year 2000 students in Minnesota, who deserved diplomas, were denied complements of testing errors. Furthermore, we have students in Massachusetts taking the MCAS test in which the students themselves found errors in numerous questions.

According to Gluckman million of students and educators depend on these test results and yet, there is absolutely no federal regulations in place - none. The Boston College Study pointed out, in regards to the nonexistence of regulations, "While our society requires product warning labels on...personal deodorants and food coloring, no warning labels are federally required on test instruments that may determine whether someone gains employment or is classified as mentally retarded." Remember, these fundamentally critical tests created by and put forth by cinema and publishing companies will open or shut more doors than we can imagine. Are we really ready to put our children's future in such incapable hands?

(4) BIAS

It seems reasonable, even logical that one test would work for all students. The very name "standardized" equates to equal and consistent. All the children in the state are filling in the same circles and answering the same multiple choice questions and yet there is sound evidence of bias. The bulk of these tests were created for middle income Caucasian students. The tests these students are taking, more often than not are created by Caucasian middle class males. How this becomes a problem becomes evident in the following example by Kagan; in which a seven-year-old is asked, "What should you do if you were sent to buy a loaf of bread and the grocer said he didn't have any more?" The only answer in which full credit is given is, "I would go to another store." This I Q question is assuming that the child is in a middle class family and is in either a suburban or urban location. It also assumes that there is another store near by and within walking distance of where the child lives. The question is assuming that it a safe enough environment in which a child should be. Kagan states, "Recently I examined a set of protocols gathered on poor black children living in a large Eastern city and found that many of them answered the question by saying they would "go home" - a perfectly reasonable, even intelligent, answer for which they were not given credit."

The test questions may be bias in nature; however, it appears that the favoritism towards middle class Caucasian students does not end there. The same publishing companies that produce these standardized tests used by the state are also helping with test preparation for the students. This comes in the form of workbooks, worksheets, pep rallies, kits, jokes, skits and of course the practice tests. Some of these companies who produce the actual tests boast how similar their practice tests are to the "real thing." Furthermore, this preparation material cost money - money that some school's budgets simply can not handle. For a consistent and uniform test; a standardized test that is; it appears a bit crooked. If we are doing this for the benefit of the student, we must not exclude those individuals whom would benefit most. Additionally, do we really want what modest budget these schools actually do have being wasted frivolously on test preparation material? Would it not be better spent on something to enrich a child education such as computers, science books, calculators or lab equipment?

(5) WASTED RESOURCES

This leads us to our last standardized testing evil - wasted resources. I speak not only of the wasted money, but more of wasted enthusiasm, talent, skill, capability and intellect. Good teachers are leaving behind their passion and calling because they no long feel as though they are educating and cultivating minds. It seems as though teachers as well are disappointed in where America's testing habits are going. In fact according to a 1994 Educational Policy on standardized testing, in one sample just three percent of teachers agreed the tests were generally good, "whereas seventy-seven percent felt that tests are bad and not worth the money spent on them."(Sacks)

Lastly, our children's time, energy, ability, intellect, brilliance and individuality are being misspent. According to Sacks those students whom score the highest on SATs are those who have embraced the surface approach (remembering information from having written it) and the achieving approach (concern of grades). However, those using a deep approach (learning for knowledge and self) more often scored lower. This leads to the approving and praising of those whom can simply memorize, while condemning those whom truly embrace learning and observation. Unfortunately, we are exceedingly limiting our children's educational growth and potential.

When a student is given appropriate opportunity to express their knowledge of a subject we see amazing, yet untapped potential. Perrone shows us a remarkable example of this in which a city wide test asked the following multiple choice question, "Which of the following trees can be found growing along the streets of our city? a) Redwood, b) Palm, c) Rubber, d) Maple." To this question there is only one correct answer. However, on an alternative test the teachers asked this question, "Name some trees that grow along the streets of New York." The results given by the thirty 3^rd graders were astonishing. All together they had named seventy-three different species of trees!

A child's schooling needs to be one of exploring educational possibilities, involving debating, music, puzzles, reading, writing, researching, discussions, experiments, hands on projects and the deciphering of the world around them. In the rush to prepare for the state exams, many of these valuable teaching tools will be dismissed and replaced by shallow surface learning drills, where the best memorizers will reap the rewards of a high score and praise.

I thumb through the pages of preparation kits schools can buy. One book is called "Toby, the Terrific Test Taking Toucan", another goes by the title "Tyler Tames the Testing Tiger." They boast of improving memorization, following directions, organization, dealing with anxiety, staying on task, working quietly, completing tasks on time and prioritizing. It is heartrending to realize our children are being trained to test, not taught to gain knowledge.

We can not altogether ignore the progress of our children's education. We must understand our children's strengths and weaknesses. We must have goals that a child is to meet and standards to adhere to. However, a mandatory standardized test is far from the solution. The massively high stakes of a single test need to be spread over a larger assessment of the child's reading, writing and true proficiency in all subject areas. Sacks writes, "Preoccupied with winning the standardized-testing game for the sake of kudos from parents, the press, and state legislators, schools have often neglected reforms that would promote deeper, more active ways of thinking and learning than are typically captured by multiple-choice tests...". It is due time to explore greater choices in assessing American students and to put an end to America's unhealthy obsession with the standardized test.

Works Cited

Gluckman, Amy. "Testing...Testing...One, Two, Three - The Commercial Side of the

Standardized-Testing Boom." Dollars & Sense Issue 23902 JAN 2002 04 DEC 2006 http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0102gluckman.html

Shapiro, Dr. Mark H. (2001, March 29). Irreverent Commentary on the State of

Education in America Today. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from The Irascible Professor Website: http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-3-29-01.htm

Whoriskey, Peter. "Fla. To Link Teacher Pay To Students' Test Scores - Critics Worry

About Fairness." The Washington Post. 21 MAR 2006 04 DEC 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp~dyn/content/article/2006/03/21AR2006032101545_3.html

White, D. F., Billings, J. S. (2005). Standardized Testing - Meritocracy's Crooked

Yardstick. In P. Coryell, S. P. Weir & A. Leung (Eds.), The Well Crafted Argument - A Guide and Reader (2^nd ed., pp.384-395). Boston, New York: Coryell.

White, D. F., Billings, J. S. (2005). The Magical Aura of the IQ. In P. Coryell, S. P. Weir

& A. Leung (Eds.), The Well Crafted Argument - A Guide and Reader (2^nd ed.,

pp.403-407). Boston, New York: Coryell.

Perrone, Vito. "ACEI Position Paper on Standardized Testing." ACEI. 1991.

Association for Childhood Education 06 Dec 2006 http://.acei.org/onstandard.htm#question