Standardized testing has become a controversial topic in education. Supporters argue that it provides an objective measure of student and school performance, allowing educators to identify struggling students and make data-driven decisions. Impact of Standardized Testing on Education: Critics contend that an overemphasis on standardized testing narrows curriculum, hinders teacher creativity, and creates unnecessary stress for students and educators. In this article, we’ll examine the history and purpose of standardized testing, the pros and cons of its use, and the current debate surrounding it.
History of Standardized Testing
Standardized testing has long been a feature of American education. As early as the mid-19th century, written exams were used to assess student progress and evaluate schools. However, it wasn’t until the early 1900s that standardized tests as we know them today began to take shape.
In the 1920s, standardized intelligence tests gained popularity as a way to identify students for specialized education programs. The first major achievement test was developed in the 1920s to measure college readiness. In the 1940s-1950s, machine scoring made large-scale, standardized testing more feasible.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 required standardized testing as a means of evaluating federally-funded programs aimed at disadvantaged students. This marked the beginning of high-stakes testing tied to school accountability. Since then, policies like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have further increased the use of standardized testing to measure student achievement and school performance.
Purposes of Standardized Testing
Proponents argue that standardized testing serves several important purposes:
- Evaluate student learning: Standardized tests are designed to objectively measure student knowledge and skills. They allow educators to see how students are performing relative to state standards and national norms.
- Assess school performance: Standardized test scores provide data on overall student achievement. This informs school accountability systems and allows comparison across schools.
- Identify achievement gaps: The disaggregated data from standardized tests can highlight achievement gaps between different groups of students defined by ethnicity, income, disability status, and other factors. This enables educators to target interventions.
- Inform instruction: Teachers can use standardized test results to identify concepts students are struggling with and adjust instruction accordingly. The tests help educators determine which students may need remediation or enrichment.
- Measure educational quality: Standardized testing provides metrics that allow comparisons of educational quality across classrooms, schools, districts, and states. Policymakers argue this empowers families to make informed choices.
- Evaluate programs/interventions: Standardized test data enables education leaders to determine which programs and teaching methods are most effective for boosting student achievement.
Pros of Standardized Testing
Proponents argue that the benefits of standardized testing outweigh the limitations. Some of the main arguments in favor include:
- Provides an objective measure of student learning: Standardized tests offer a common metric for evaluating student knowledge. Backers contend they are more objective than course grades which may involve individual teacher biases.
- Improves accountability: Test scores give administrators data to evaluate teacher and school performance. This accountability drives improvement through data-based decision making.
- Allows measurement of achievement gaps: The detailed data provided by standardized testing sheds light on stubborn achievement gaps along demographic lines. This enables policymakers to target resources where needed.
- Facilitates comparisons: Standardized testing provides a uniform yardstick for comparing student achievement across districts and demographic groups. This informs policy decisions.
- Drives curriculum improvement: Proponents argue that testing pushes schools to focus on key standards and improves instructional quality. Teachers use test results to determine concepts requiring more emphasis.
- Provides diagnostic information: Standardized testing helps identify individual student weaknesses. Teachers can then tailor instruction and remediation to meet specific learning needs.
- Offers predictiveness: Standardized tests provide information about students’ readiness for college, advanced courses, and future academic success. This allows more personalized education programs.
Cons of Standardized Testing
Critics point to a number of drawbacks and unintended consequences of relying heavily on standardized testing:
- Narrows the curriculum: Teaching to the test often comes at the expense of subjects not covered on standardized exams like arts, music, and vocational education.
- Stifles teacher creativity: Teachers often feel compelled to closely align instruction with standardized tests. This can inhibit innovative and engaging instructional approaches.
- Inaccurate for certain groups: Test results may underestimate learning for students who lack familiarity with standardized testing formats and language.
- Student stress and anxiety: High-stakes standardized tests put intense pressure on students. For some, this creates impairing test anxiety that lowers performance.
- Doesn’t measure higher-order skills: Standardized tests predominantly focus on rote skills like memorization and procedure. Deep learning like critical analysis, creativity, and synthesis often isn’t evaluated.
- Risk of cheating/gaming the system: The pressure to raise scores increases instances of cheating or manipulating data used for accountability. This distorts results.
- Unfair teacher evaluation: Teachers argue using standardized test scores to evaluate performance is unfair since scores are influenced by many student and school factors beyond the teacher’s control.
- Diverts resources from learning: The money and time spent on testing preparation and administration diverts scarce resources from teaching and enrichment programming.
Ongoing Debate and Alternatives
The debate about the appropriate role of standardized testing shows no signs of abating. Critics argue the overemphasis on testing promoted by policies like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was misguided. However, eliminating standardized testing altogether risks losing an objective measure of student learning. Several alternatives aim to improve the current system:
- Focus on growth instead of attainment: Measuring learning growth for individual students and subgroups provides a richer picture than raw attainment scores. It offers a fairer metric for diverse student populations.
- Test subjectively instead of yearly: Less frequent standardized testing (e.g. every 3-4 years) reduces stress and narrowing of curriculum. More periodic assessments allow a focus on growth between testing cycles.
- Include project/performance measures: Incorporating portfolios, projects, presentations, and other performance tasks creates a more holistic evaluation of student skills beyond rote test-taking ability.
- Use sampling instead of universal testing: Testing a representative sample of students rather than every student reduces time spent on testing while still providing useful school- and district-level data.
- Weigh tests less in teacher evaluation: Basing only a small percentage of teacher evaluations on students’ learning growth helps mitigate issues with using test scores to measure teacher performance.
The tensions surrounding standardized testing arise because assessment always involves tradeoffs between depth and breadth, subjective and objective measures, and pressure versus support. Ongoing reforms aim to strike a better balance between the competing priorities.
Sstandardized testing occupies a contentious space in education reform. It provides important data that can drive accountability and improvement. But an overemphasis on high-stakes testing has also skewed instruction in counterproductive ways. Ongoing efforts aim to improve the balance by reducing testing stress while still utilizing data to enhance teaching and learning. Regular assessment remains vital, but must be strategic and holistic versus merely punitive.
FAQs
Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about standardized testing and its impact on education:
What are the main standardized tests students take?
The most common standardized tests U.S. students take are:
- SAT and ACT – These college entrance exams are taken mostly by high school juniors and seniors. All colleges and universities use scores from one or both tests as an admissions criterion.
- State assessments – These yearly tests evaluate proficiency in math, English/language arts, and sometimes other subjects. Results are used for school accountability.
- Advanced Placement (AP) exams – AP tests assess mastery of college-level course content. More than 1,000 colleges grant credit or placement for high AP scores.
- NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) – Known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” NAEP tests a national sample of students in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade to provide a benchmark of U.S. student achievement.
When did standardized testing originate in schools?
Versions of standardized testing date back to the mid-1800s when written essays and tests were used to assess student progress. However, widespread standardized testing tied to school accountability did not begin until legislation like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965.
Does the frequency of standardized testing affect academic performance?
Research shows that decreasing the frequency of standardized testing is associated with improved academic achievement. The pressure of yearly standardized testing appears to have a negative effect on actual learning. Less frequent testing generally leads to higher scores.
Do teacher evaluations based on test scores improve instruction?
Using student standardized test results to evaluate teachers does not appear to improve teaching effectiveness or student achievement according to multiple studies. Basing as little as 10% of teacher evaluations on growth in test scores, however, does not seem to have a negative impact on teacher performance.
Does basing school funding on test results improve outcomes?
Research shows that policies linking school funding to standardized test performance do not substantively improve student achievement. The negative stress from high-stakes testing often outweighs any benefits from the increased accountability and resources.
How accurately do standardized tests measure student learning?
Standardized tests best assess rote skills like memorization, basic application, and procedural knowledge. However, they are less accurate at measuring higher-order skills like critical thinking, creativity, and synthesis. Testing is just one imperfect measure that should be balanced with other assessments.