Standardized testing has long been a controversial issue in the world of education and yet, rather interestingly, “published tests, such as the college entrance exams and IQ tests, are creations of the 20th century” (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 521). While high stakes, state-mandated testing has surely been embraced by some and rejected by others, it is clear that the policies of the United States and even the world as a whole have emphasized a need for standardized testing. According to the authors of Foundations of American Education: Perspectives on Education in a Changing World, “the nationwide movement toward standards, performance, and a variety of assessment strategies is a good one” because, among other reasons, “the goals of teaching and learning are made clear” (Johnson et. al, 2008, p. 380-81). Establishing standards-based curriculums for subject areas is certainly important for this reason, but standard-based curriculums do not justify establishing standardized tests. The words that seem to be most revealing in the aforementioned claim are “a variety of assessment strategies” because they are essentially at odds with the very nature of standardized testing.
Within classrooms, teachers who are mindful of the importance of differentiation and thus differentiating content, process, and product presumably make use of a variety of assessment strategies in order to measure each student’s learning. In my first year of teaching, I worked to differentiate instruction and to provide a variety of assessments that could conceivably measure each student’s learning development. After administering questionnaires and getting to know how my students think, I knew that I would have to differentiate in order to maximize the learning experience for all of my students. Yet, in light of the fact that most educators recognize that students do not learn in the same ways or at the same rates and know that emphasis must be placed on teaching strategies that will cater to individual differences, one cannot help but view standardized testing as a one-size-fits-all form of testing. Standardized testing, in its very form, does not account for students’ individual differences and different ways and rates of learning even though it supposedly measures the acquisition and application of specific content and skills in different subject areas. In essence, although both differentiation and standardized testing have been given emphasis in the New York public school system, they seemingly promote different, and perhaps even opposite, methods of learning and teaching.
Among the many difficulties that standardized testing poses for educators and students, students’ unique ways of thinking and opportunities for individual growth in learning are undoubtedly hindered by standardized testing. Rather than promoting differences in learning as effective educators often try to do so as to expose students to different learning patterns and perspectives, high-stakes, state-mandated testing unfairly assumes that students from different cultures and different background share similar ways of thinking and similar life experiences and skills. In “The lessons of high stakes testing,” Lisa Abrams and George Madaus conclude that “In every setting where a high-stakes test operates, the exam content eventually defines the curriculum” (Abrams & Madaus, 2003, p. 32). This is particularly revealing because it suggests that curriculum is, at least in part, not shaped by students’ backgrounds, interests, and experiences but rather by the content and skill sets that appear on standardized tests. In a sense, a teacher’s instruction time and curriculum also potentially loses some of its individuality and uniqueness on account of the enormous value that is placed on high-stakes testing.
We, as educators, constantly work to access the prior knowledge of our students and then when our students are obligated to take standardized tests, they often struggle to connect their prior knowledge to the content on the examinations because their life experiences are different. One major cause of the achievement gap that still exists between wealthy, mostly white school districts and poor, mostly minority school districts is that high-stakes, state-mandated tests may be testing poor students on material that they have not had a sufficient opportunity to learn (Kossan, 2000). Anita Woolfolk notes that “when so much rides on the results of a test, you would assume that the test actually measured what had been taught” (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 541), but when teachers are trying to access their students’ diverse backgrounds in order to develop their learning in meaningful ways, standardized tests do not seemingly cover the life experiences and prior knowledge that many inner city students in New York have for example. With the idea that standardized testing hinders uniqueness and individuality, it also has the debilitating effect of decreasing student motivation, which many teachers industriously work to build up throughout an academic year. Despite the argument that standardized testing allows teachers to measure students’ mastery of standards and skills in different subject areas, in “High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student Learning,” a study of 18 states with high-stakes testing found in all but one analysis that “student learning is indeterminate, remains at the same level it was before the policy was implemented, or actually goes down when high-stakes testing policies are instituted.” The study also found numerous reports of “unintended consequences associated with high-stakes testing policies” including “increased drop-out rates, teachers' and schools' cheating on exams, [and] teachers' defection from the profession” (Amrein & Berliner, 2002).
Furthermore, standardized testing places different burdens on educators when thinking about the ideas of school progress and classroom instruction. Rather than debate whether or not teachers should prepare students for high-stakes, state-mandated tests since these tests are a reality and it would be considered a disservice if teachers provided no form of test preparation to students, the question that arises is: How should teachers prepare students for standardized tests?
Before considering this question, I must reference an assembly on student achievement that I attended during the 2007-2008 school year. During a faculty assembly in the school in which I teach, I was given a few information sheets with many numbers and the words, “Adequate Yearly Progress.” As I listened intently throughout the faculty assembly to my principal, I learned that in order for a school to achieve “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) there must be an increase in the number of students who are passing standardized tests, and particularly the Regents. According to the New York Department of Education, “under NCLB, AYP is determined based on each school’s progress toward meeting the state proficiency level for all students in English language arts, mathematics, science and/or high school graduation rate.” Additionally, “schools are held accountable for the achievement of students of different races and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency and low-income students.” According to NCLB standards, public schools in New York City that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress are categorized as “Schools in Need of Improvement” (SINI) (New York City Department of Education, 2007).
Immediately upon learning that a school’s AYP is directly linked to student achievement on standardized testing, I was put in a difficult position. On one hand, I do not agree with standardized testing because it essentially goes against the idea that students learn and process material in different ways and it also puts students such as English Language Learners at obvious disadvantages. On the other hand, I realize that I will be at least partially held accountable for my students’ achievement on standardized tests and thus I must figure out how to prepare students for such tests. Considering that my school’s wellbeing and even my image as a teacher in part depends upon student achievement on standardized testing, the reality is that I am still trying to determine what is the best way to prepare my students for standardized testing considering that it is a reality that does not seem to be going away any time soon. Whether I should be teaching directly to the test, teaching test-taking techniques, following the prescribed curriculum, which incorporates teaching skills and content in context, or doing something else still plagues me primarily because I have not yet fully come to accept the reality of standardized testing.
References
Abrams, I.M., & Madaus, G.F. (2003). The lessons of high stakes testing. Educational Leadership, 61 (32), 32.
Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 32. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.
Johnson, J. A., D. Musial, G. E. Hall, D. M. Gollnick, & V. L. Dupuis. (2008). Foundations ofAmerican education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson, 380-81.
Kossan, P. (2000, November 27). By trying too much too quick, AIMS missed mark. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1127aims27.html
Woolfolk, Anita. (2007). Educational psychology. Boston: Pearson, 521, 541.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment