Standardized testing faces a lot of criticism. Seymour Bernard Sarason, a former Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Yale University, remarked that “we live in a test-conscious, test-giving culture in which the lives of people are in part determined by their test performance” (Segool et al. 489). Standardized testing has bred a structured education system that encourages “a pedagogy “that is efficient, predictable, and detached from student and teacher interests… schools are often uninteresting and uninspiring places for both teachers and students” (Graham 85). Increased implementation of standardized testing as the main method of evaluation is hurting American schools.
First, standardized testing is detrimental to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Policies like NCLB were intended to reduce the socioeconomic achievement gaps in American schools (Berliner 4). Unfortunately, they have failed to accomplish this fundamental goal. Students from low-income households still face myriad challenges. Notably, children from poor families often lack access to quality food and health, many grow up in turbulent families, they often miss school, and change schools frequently high (Berliner 4). These challenges make them to underperform on standardized tests (Berliner 4). It is very difficult for these students to catch up with their peers from privileged households. Therefore, subjecting them to high-stakes testing is an injustice because high-stakes scores influence important decisions like federal funding for public schools, school graduation, and even employment opportunities. It is clear that high-stakes testing hurt marginalized students not only in school but also after formal education.
Second, standardized testing does not offer an accurate, holistic measure of students’ potential for success. Traditional intelligence tests view intelligence as “a singular faculty that is brought to bear in any problem-solving situation” (Gardner & Walters 4). Considering the linear focus on linguistic and mathematics intelligence, these tests cannot accurately capture student’s potential for success (Morgan 67). Most importantly, they disregard critical skills like creativity, debating, public speaking, and research, as well as higher-order thinking abilities like critical analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creativity (Morgan 67). Rose opines that this approach misses “those considerable intellectual achievements that aren’t easily quantifiable” (23). Such skewed ratings are damaging to students who perform average but have other excellent abilities. Performing “averagely” in class does not necessary predict average performance in future careers. For example, an “average” student can become a successful engineer and the best performers in their profession while those who excel in class may become less successful in their career (Gardner and Walters 761). Therefore, failing to take into account the full potential for success harms students severely.
Third, high-stakes tests exacerbate cheating in schools. Proponents of standardized testing claim schools should be held more accountable for their students’ performance (Morgan 68). This argument is true. But, it is important to acknowledge that increased scrutiny exerts unhealthy pressure on school administrators and teachers. For example, Michelle Rhee, the former Chancellor of Washington D.C. schools, executed a biased reward system that based bonuses and teacher assessment on their students’ test scores (Morgan 69). This system resulted in rampant cheating evidenced by numerous cases of teachers manipulating students’ test scores by correcting wrong answers (Morgan 69). In another example, 35 staff members in public schools in Atlanta were indicted for unscrupulous practices, including inflating test scores, correcting wrong answers, and even exposing students to exam questions prior to actual tests (Morgan 70). Similarly, heightened anxiety associated with high-stakes testing adversely affects how students respond to the tests (Segool et al. 489). It is evident that pressure resulting from high-stakes testing pushes teachers and students to cheat.
Another serious problem of standardized testing is low-quality teaching and learning. In response to the growing pressure to improve their students’ scores, many instructors instruct students to pass the test (Jennings and Marc Bearak 381). Some educators respond to the increased by focusing their instruction “on students closest to meeting the proficiency standards” (Sanders 2). Some deliver inferior teaching that emphasizes drilling and memorization (Morgan 69). Such instruction not only inhibits progress especially in minority students but also contributes to the unethical practices like “lowering proficiency scores, holding students back to prevent them from taking tests, and even falsifying students’ scores” (Rose 20). Moreover, the system undermines the social and cultural dimensions of learning and instruction, consequently producing individuals who are less socially and ethically responsible (Feldmann 5). Despite their potential to improve students’ tests scores, standardized testing creates no opportunities for the learners to hone high-level thinking skill (Rose 19). For example, a certain student was unable to excel at college writing and math entrance exam despite performing excellently in her high school graduation test (Morgan 70). This case illuminates the inability of standardized testing to produce students who are adequately prepared for college and employment.
In conclusion, standardized testing no longer accomplishes the “Texas Miracle” (Wang 394). This method marginalizes minority students, does not offer an accurate, holistic measure of students’ potential for success, exacerbates cheating and corruption, and contributes to poor teaching and learning. All these factors justify the argument that high-stakes tests hurt American schools. Policymakers should consider scrapping out this system or combining it with other evaluations to address the chronic problems discussed in the paper.
Works Cited
Berliner, David C. "Are teachers responsible for low achievement by poor students?." The Education Digest 75.7 (2010): 4.
Feldmann, Doug. "Citizenship Education: Current Perspectives from Teachers in Three States." Educational Research Quarterly 30.4 (2007): 3-15.
Gardner, H., & Walters, J. (1993). A rounded version. Foundations of Cognitive Psychology, 761.
Jennings, Jennifer L., and Jonathan Marc Bearak. "“Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance." Educational Researcher 43.8 (2014): 381-389.
Morgan, Hani. "Relying on high-stakes standardized tests to evaluate schools and teachers: A bad idea." The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 89.2 (2016): 67-72.
Rose, Mike. “School reform fails the test.” The American Scholar 84.1 (2015): 18–30.
Sanders, William L. "Beyond" No Child Left Behind"." (2003).
Graham, M. A. (2009). How the teaching artist can change thedynamics of teaching and learning. Teaching Artist Journal, 7(2), 85–94.
Segool, Natasha K., et al. "HEIGHTENED TEST ANXIETY AMONG YOUNG CHILDREN: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ANXIOUS RESPONSES TO HIGH‐STAKES TESTING." Psychology in the Schools 50.5 (2013): 489-499.
Wang, Hongbo. "The Texas economic model, miracle or mirage? A spatial hedonic analysis." The Annals of Regional Science 56.2 (2016): 393-417.
