Standardized Testing (DRAFT)

MAIN POINTS:

1. individuality

2. limiting teachers

3. not applicable to real life (isolated way of learning)

For more than 50 years, students have endured the standardized test, a way of mass assessment that has proved as both a weapon and a tool. Standardized testing is the most widely used way of analyzing student performance, even though many students, teachers, and parents disagree on whether or not standardized testing is helpful or hurtful. From the beginning, standardized testing has been about testing the knowledge of a large group of people on the same subject. While well intended and effective in certain respects, standardized testing overall has degraded the education system and repressed student individuality, having the complete opposite of the intended effect.

The first records of standardized testing are found in China, where examinations were given to people applying for government jobs testing their knowledge on Confucian philosophy and poetry. Testing tactics since then have been tweaked to fit the 21st century ideal of knowledge and skills, but the core of this method of assessment is still fundamentally the same.

In ancient China, there was a great value on Confucianism, so prospective employees were tested on that. Similarly, in modern times in the US, students are tested on a set of information that we deem important or necessary. But who is to say what is essential for everyone to learn and know?

The Texas Education Agency, or TEA, is just one example of a state agency that mandates testing and creates standards for what students should learn and know. For example, TEKS, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, set curriculum standards by subject, which are tested at the end of the year, to make sure schools are being held accountable for what students learn. But we have to ask, is it ethical or even logical to test all students, who each hold diverse backgrounds and ranges of cognitive development, on the exact same material?

According to fairtest.org, “A nine-year study by the National Research Council (2011) concluded that the emphasis on testing yielded little learning progress but caused significant harm”.

"It puts kids on a standard that they have to be equal to a number, and that their self-worth is valued based on a number. It doesn't necessarily accurately measure what you've learned and your knowledge. There's kids who have test anxiety and other stuff like that." Ry

"Kids don't get to think as creatively if they're subject to a system where they have to each learn the same exact thing." Ry

"There's a lot of schools that have no testing policies, and it turned out that when they actually had to test their skills in an actual working environment, they do a lot better than kids who have been subject to a testing system for their whole life." Ry

"The majority of kids would have more freedom to actually learn the things that they want to learn and not just what was going to be tested." Ry

Areli Zarate:

"I hate it. I had to take them when I was in school, and they really don't show the intelligence of the students."

"We need to find a way to assess students. Standardized testing is not the way."

"It costs more stress to the students than it should, I feel like the state doesn't have it together, and the students have to suffer through it. Plus, you are treating every student the same. They all have different abilities. I'm not good at math, but that doesn't mean I'm dumb. And according to the STAAR test, I might be."

"The reason I picked Spanish is because we don't have any testing, and we could come up with anything for the students. Where I do have colleagues that are stressing because the schools are pushing them, and because the district is pushing the schools."

"You're only testing core subjects, and some students are talented in other ways. It just limits the way the student is tested, and it doesn't show creativity, they don't show understanding. It's just basically A, B, C, or D."

Kasi Moreno:

"I think of sitting in a room in solitude with no talking whatsoever. Unnecessary, also."

"I don't think it's necessary in the way that we do it, like I understand we have to mark progression, and 'have you learned enough in this year to go on to next year?', but I don't think that how we do it is necessary because there's different ways that people learn. Some people don't test well and can't focus on small black words on a white sheet of paper. It just straightens our eyes. That's how I get, because I get bored, so I do so bad on tests."

"Scaring students into working harder in class so they don't fail."

"I think that ST causes a lot of unnecessary testing anxiety, and that kind of thing will carry with somebody even in the workplace. Because there is no test in the real world, the only places that you can really get a grade is at school. It just puts so much unnecessary pressure on this one test and you're focusing more on passing than trying to learn."

"Instead of giving [teachers] guidelines, its more like rules. I've had teachers say 'We would do that if we had more time, but we have to go over all these TEKS'. I feel like I would learn what I'm in this class to learn from doing what seems interesting, not from doing a bunch of worksheets."

"The teachers go into the year planning out their year. It traps you, and you just end up getting stuck instead of moving on when the students are ready so they won't have to go to tutoring after school and miss practice, or miss the clubs they're really passionate about."

"I think the way we're doing it is really outdated."

Holbrook:

It's incredibly expensive for taxpayers. I could think of many, many better uses for the money.

They don't take into account growth. For example, if a student scored 30% one year and 50% the next, but the passing standard is 65%, that growth doesn't matter.

TEA can't really oversee the companies they hire to write and score these tests, so problems abound.

The accountability mandates of standardized testing are not fully funded, so schools often do not have the resources they need to meet the state & federal mandates.

Standardized tests do not take into account the whole student. I know many very talented students who don't do well on such tests. These tests can devalue their abilities and even make them feel unappreciated or "stupid."

Many schools & even districts focus on tested subjects to the detriment of others. There are many elementary school students who are getting little to no instruction in science, for example, because it isn't tested. Later on, that's a problem.

I think it makes kids hate reading.

There's a tremendous waste of time with all the benchmark testing.

Yes, especially at schools that are worried about accountability consequences. I think teachers try very hard to make sure they are giving their students a relevant curriculum. However, some teachers at some schools are mandated to focus on the test, or feel pressured to. If you're teaching a tested subject, and that test has real consequences for students (like graduation), you have an obligation to make sure students are prepared.

That said, we try our best here at AHS not to let the tests be the sole driving force.

I think it can be harmful. It takes away focus on individual growth and puts that focus on a standard. For some students, that standard may be too easy. For others, it may seem impossibly hard.

Assessment is important. There are a variety of ways to assess, however, besides a test. Teachers can get valuable information from all sorts of formal & informal assessments - projects, presentations, class discussions, essays, for example.

I don't think we should fully do away with all standardized tests. We should definitely give fewer. I think we should rethink our system of punishment, though, and stop wasting so much money. For example, states could require that all high school students take the ACT. This would give the states and schools and students and parents valuable information they could use to determine strengths and areas for growth. However, they wouldn't require a certain score for graduation, because that's not how the ACT works. It wouldn't punish students.

Chandler:

it does take away from the actual beauty of learning, and really just appreciating what you’re learning.

You don’t have time to really understand a lot of what you’re learning. A lot of it just just soaking information up to just spit it back out. Nothing’s really ingrained, it’s just flat surface learning.

I’ve heard a lot of teachers throughout the years say, “Oh, I wish I could teach this or I’d really love to talk about this book or talk about this thing in history”, but they can’t. It’s not their fault because they’re put up to a certain standard as well as us, so they’re the ones being rushed and put into little boxes of standardized testing.