About Standardized Testing

Standardized testing has been around since the 1800s and was commonly used in the school system in the 1900s. Standardized training was attractive to colleges and companies who saw it as a simple method to determine successful applicants during interview sessions. The Bush administration introduced the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, which forced all states to use standardized testing (Parkway et al., 14). The Act resulted in the systematic adoption of standardized examinations, which contributed to greater scrutiny of the testing method. Many opponents argue that standardized assessments are ineffective indicators of educational success because they neglect consistency. Despite the many criticisms, most critics do not attack the methodology but instead attack the uses of the method. For instance, they claim that it is inappropriate to use the approach to judge the performance of teachers and schools. Other people, however, consider standard testing to a fair and equitable testing method. Most criticisms of Standard tests cite the USA declining PISA rankings (Program for International Student Assessment from 2002). Finland was a case study that was mostly cited by the critics since they claimed that Finland was topping the PISA rankings because it did not use standardized tests. In 2009 however, “China beat Finland in PISA rankings” (Breakspear, 6) despite China being a notorious user of standardized tests. It, therefore, appears that standardized testing can be an effective assessment tool if properly used. The use of the standardized test in assessing student knowledge is effective and only fails in the USA education system due to inappropriate use and the lack of proper complementary measures.

The reliability measure of standard tests makes them the appropriate measure of student achievement. For policymakers, tests are important to determine areas that are in need of educational improvement. For Colleges, tests are important to ensure that intelligent students get enrolled without the influence of aspects such as the financial backgrounds. In that aspect, a standard measure is needed to eliminate bias in the assessment of students. If the tests were not standardized, the institutions and more so teacher would have more influence on the test scores of their students. That would result in teachers and institutions to make biased scores that reflect positively o them (Ballou, Dale & Springer, 82). The institution would manipulate test results to reflect positively on them. Furthermore, it would be difficult to compare the performance of different institutions since each institution will have an independent assessment approach. The manipulation and varied assessment basis necessitate the need for a standardized test. In an economic environment that moves towards standardization, a standardized test is the most reliable. The employers in the market expect to obtain a workforce that is competitive, and the only way to determine their competitiveness is by providing a standard test. The standard assessment basis provides a reasonable measure for a required skill. The standard tests get developed by a single body across the states. Though the questions for the tests are not identical, the level of knowledge tested is identical. A benchmark expectation is provided for students of different grade levels across the 50 States (Phelps, 16). Those standard tests that are graded by machines also eliminate human bias when grading the marks. Humans essentially possess some level of bias when grading students. The standard tests are reliable since they provide a measurement threshold and eliminate biases.

Standardized tests are inclusive and eliminate any form of discrimination on all students. There are those that argue that different groups of students are better off graded by different systems (Trujillo, Tina & Woulfin, 274). The suggestion is in itself discriminatory. If for socioeconomic reasons the African American group is given different standards of measurement from the white group, a form of discrimination emerges. The two segments will lack any level of equality since one of the groups will be marginalized. Concerning offering knowledge and skills, the two groups will be exposed to different skills and knowledge that is based on the type of test chosen. The emphasis of teaching will be based on the knowledge that is absent in either group. In the long run, there will be the increased disparity between the two groups since they will have pursued different teaching techniques. The process that started with the intent of eliminating discrimination will have instead increased discrimination. To the contrary, a standardized test ensures that the two groups are exposed to the same teaching material. The poor performance in one social group is not an indication of a failure in the testing mechanism but an indication of failure in the social policies. The assessment should be considered as an indication of the weaknesses of the minority group rather than an indication of the failure in standard tests. The University of California, due to affirmative action, lowered their entry grades for African Americans between 1981 and 1990. The extra students that were enrolled increased the graduation rate of African American students to 62 percent from a mere 32 percent (Gawthrop, 27-28). From that scenario, it emerges that the problem is not with the standardized test, but the problem is with the social system. Since the African American population was exposed to conditions similar to their white counterparts, their performance improved. The standardized tests exposed the quality gap but did not create the quality gap. The standardized tests are therefore inclusive, and instead of creating the discrimination alluded to by critics, it only exposes the existing discrimination.

The standardized tests create accountability in the education system. The standardized tests enable policymakers to compare the performance of different schools. The comparison enables the society to determine the educators and schools that are underperforming (Kubiszyn, Tom & Borich, 132). The teachers and schools have a responsibility to equip students with useful knowledge and skills properly. The assessment tests provided are an indication to the extent in which the teachers and schools have achieved their goal. The scores under the standardized test approach are a public record, and the underperforming institutions have to be thoroughly examined. The problems could lie in the teachers, institution, funding or the socioeconomic dynamics. The standardized tests are not a determinant of the issue but are an indication of an existing issue. The use of the test will prompt scrutiny and hence the determination of the underlying problem. That prompts accountability on the parts of the teachers and the institutions since the tests can easily identify them when they are slagging. If the poor performance is linked to the teachers, then the teacher will be forced to improve or risk losing their jobs (Jensen et al., 103). For schools, they have to improve or face the risk of being taken by the state or even becoming closed. The assessment essentially indicates a school that has an issue so that those parties failing in their tasks are held accountable.

The standardized tests help in evaluating the learning metric as well as identify the progress of the students. The use of standard tests helps the institutions to assess the quality of their programs. Effective programs will often be observed from the high scores in standard tests. The comparison provided in standard tests can help a school identify areas of weakness in its curriculum. The schools identify areas in which they have to input more time and resources. The effective use of resources and time will be increased when concentrated on areas of weakness. If schools lacked standard tests, then each school will exist with an illusion that it is the best in the region. A standard of comparing performance increases the competitiveness of the schools and thus increases the quality of education provided in each school. The standard tests also provide a progress measurement basis for students. The individual students can determine their progress in the education system by observing their changes in different levels of standard tests. The different grade level changes also help the institution in identifying the best teaching techniques. In essence, standard tests provide the relevant data to optimize performance in schools as well as help students optimize their learning. The tests provide data that is analytical and help in improving different levels. Some disparity in performance might emanate from different school teaching different levels of knowledge at different grades. When such disparities are identified, the schools can work on harmonizing their teaching timetable. The standard tests are therefore beneficial since they provide data in performance and progress measurement that is useful in improving teaching in schools.

Standardized tests are efficient since they focus on specific skills and essential content. The standard tests provide the specific framework that eliminates some skills that can be considered non-essential. The skills taught are those that are required by the industry employers and other stakeholders of the education system. It is imprudent to waste time teaching some skills that might lack significance in the child’s future at the expense of ignoring the essential skills that are needed by the employers. The standard test framework provides the content that is most important and thus eliminating the chance of time wastage. Perhaps after teaching the essential skills, the teacher can then teach the non-essential skills. The standard test framework helps the teacher in prioritizing their teaching and thus simplifying their jobs. This approach helps equip the students with relevant, marketable skills and avoid irrelevant or outdated skills. It is important to note that this approach is not narrowing the curriculum. The standard framework in no way eliminates the need to teach other skills. The test frameworks only assist in focusing the teaching efforts. It has to be considered that the framework is developed by relevant stakeholders of the education system encompassing the colleges and the employers. The focus created by these relevant stakeholder reduces the quantity of material to be learned and instead increases the quality of education. The schools have the flexibility to increase the content, and the standardized test framework only provides a guideline for them to base their teachings. The quality curriculum derived from the framework increases the achievement level of the students and increases their relevance in the contemporary society. The focus improves efficiency as well as quality and eliminates the strain of irrelevant materials being taught.

The opponents of standardized tests site its inflexibility as a major weakness. There are those students that are said to develop anxiety or have some unfamiliarity with the test format and thus end up performing poorly despite being exemplary in class (Johnson, Shaun & Tim, 29). There are other issues such as health issues, family issues and some language barriers that might compromise the performance of a student in the standard tests. It is because of the inability of the standard tests failing to consider such elements that critics deem it as an inadequate measure of performance. The arguments against standard tests on those grounds might seem valid but are very inaccurate. The standard test only assesses performance and is not responsible for improving performance. The issues highlighted can be traced to the school, teachers, parents, and community and are not directly linked to the tests. The anxiety of the students and the inability to c0omprehend the format should be blamed on the teachers and schools for inadequately preparing their candidates for the test. The aspects of health and family issues are beyond the control of any assessment framework. These issues can be said to lie more on the side of the school rather than on the format. The standard test cannot incorporate all those elements since it is difficult and might compromise the reliability of the tests. The standard tests can only expose the existence of such issues but cannot control the existence of the issues. It is upon the school and community members to solve such issues. Those extreme cases can be considered outside the standard test framework. I consider that it is impossible to incorporate all those issues in a single test. The critics should employ complementary tests to the standard tests instead of expecting that a single test will address all the issues mentioned.

There are those that consider that standardized test result to be time wastage and cannot measure true progress. The standardized test tends to influence teachers to teach based on the material that will be examined. The instructional time by the teachers is thus limited to material that has the potential of being in the test. The critics claim that time is wasted through the monotonous teaching of the test material. The teachers instead of teaching more content, spend more time in preparing for tests. It is said that some schools even assign a quarter of the teaching time in tests preparations. The test preparation time would have been instead used to teach the students on other meaningful subjects. This approach is however not considered to be ethical. The extra drills for tests are to be blamed on the teachers and not on the test systems. The school administrators are to ensure that quality education is provided and that their employees avoid test drills. The tests are also said to provide a test for a single period and not a given term. Though this might be reasonable, the schools have the flexibility of assessing performance outside the standard tests to determine the progress of the students. Furthermore, the standard tests are conducted at different grade levels and can provide the progressive development of the student. If the teachers want to determine the continuous progress of the students, they can opt to have the maximum number of standardized tests in their schools.

The critics further claim that standard test result to high-stress levels on students. Some studies have indeed indicated that the young students are more likely to succumb to the pressure from standardized tests than the older students. The stress is not limited to the students but also affects the teachers (Ravitch, 49). The teachers are at the risk of being fired if their school performs poorly. The administrators also risk losing their jobs in the schools continued poor performance. The schools are required to show progress annually or risk facing some unpleasant consequences. For those schools that lack progress over time, they might be handed to a private performing party, and they can be taken over by the state or even face closure. The circumstances are indeed stressful, and one can be tempted to pity them. However, the performance jitters are a part of the modern economy. In the job market, the stress of meeting some standards and goals are a common thing. The pressure to meet the employers’ goals are common. Even the politicians face the pressure to deliver to their constituents. The world is full of stressful scenarios, and the mere excuse of stress should not be used to justify the elimination of standard tests. In fact, the stress from standard tests can be regarded as the preparation to the stress students are to meet in their future careers. The standard tests can, therefore, be said to be the best test necessary to equip the students in their relevant careers. The only compromise that can be adopted is the increment of the age bracket that has to sit for the standard tests. It is quite horrible to subject very tender brains to the pressures of life when they are yet to develop adequate stamina. Other than the age, the standard tests are the best tools for assessing performance. The teachers are expected to have the necessary qualities to tolerate the performance anxiety. It is clear that the stress issue is but a mere pretext for those teachers that are unwilling to work.

The failures of students are influenced by many factors outside the sphere of standard tests such as the social expectations factor. Students can easily adapt to the societal expectations and perform poorly. According to Gawthrop, the minority groups tend to accept the social expectations and perform poorly compared to their white counterparts (Gawthrop, 27). According to a test conducted, the two tests were administered to a group of white students and African American students. In the first test in which the students were informed that the test was assessing their intelligence, the white students performed better than the African Americans. In the second test, similar questions were asked, but they were told that it was just a random test. In that test, the African Americans performed better than the white students. It is clear that in the first test, the poor performance was because the African American students succumbed to the societal expectation of the superiority of the white students in intelligence. One can, therefore, consider that the reason that the poor performance occurs in minority groups is not as a result of the inefficiencies of the standardized test but due to the influence of social expectations.

The use of standardized tests has altered the nature of teaching. The teachers have had to adopt extra roles in the attempt to meet the requirements of standardized tests. The teachers have to incorporate the testing need to their normal teaching duties. The teachers are expected to gather relevant data and organize it as it relates to the standardized tests. The teachers also need to group the students according to their performance in standard tests. Furthermore, the teachers have to integrate their curriculum to serve the standardized tests. For some teachers, they might need more time or remedial classes to improve the performance of some of their week students. Essentially, the critics argue that the administration role the teachers have on standardized tests minimize the time available for them to instruct their students. The argument is sound, but these roles will have been no different given other testing approaches. It is apparent that alternative assessment approaches will require administrative hours from the teachers. The quality of the method should be the determinant of the viability of the testing approach and not the role the teachers play. The assessment tests are not expected to be helping teachers; they are a way of making them accountable to the government and other stakeholders (William, 111). The costs of running the tests to make the teachers and institutions accountable are lesser than the costs of leaving the teachers and institutions with an inefficient accountability tool.

Research has indicated that indeed standard testing has its shortfalls. The single use of standard tests is likely to result in the existence of its weaknesses. The other factors have to be incorporated in the use of standard tests to ensure that the education system is more productive. One factor that has been deemed to be critical to academic performance is that of parental involvement. Standardized tests have little influence in testing or influencing parental involvement. However, ”the success of the student highly depends on the involvement of the parents” (Parkay, 203). These are factors that need to be addressed independently by the school. When the scores are low, the schools need to assess the influence of such factors in the low grades of the student instead of trying to chastise the efficiency of the standardized test system.

There are other approaches that need to be considered in assessment testing. The independent use of standard test might provide inaccurate results, but its elimination might have far worse consequences. In areas in which the standard tests are inefficient, it will be prudent to employ alternative measurement approaches. An example is the use of social and emotional skill surveys to measure the intangible elements absent in standardized tests.

Despite the increased criticism of standard tests, the universities and employers have increased their reliance on the tests. The tests tend to measure the likelihood of the students to succeed in college or their field of employment. The assessment is not accurate in determining past academic performance but determine the likelihood of a person to excel. The college entry positions and the employment vacancies are scarce, and the standard test is a quicker and easier way to eliminate competition. The reason for the ineffectiveness of standardized testing in the USA is the inappropriate use as well as lack of complementary tests. The schools need to adopt complementary tests like sampling and social and emotional skill survey to compensate for the weaknesses of standardized tests (Meier, Deborah & Knoester, 67). The government needs to invest more in finding complementary measures to the standardized tests to improve the education system.

Works Cited

Ballou, Dale, and Matthew G. Springer. ”Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems.“ Educational Researcher 44.2 (2015): 77-86.

Breakspear, Simon. ”The policy impact of PISA: An exploration of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance.“ OECD Education Working Papers 71 (2012): 0_1.

Gawthrop, J. ”Measuring student achievement: A study of standardized testing and its effect on student learning.“ (2014).

Jensen, Joseph N., et al. ”Understanding Author Academic Disciplinary Background to Direct a More Effective Use of Standardized Testing Within the School Community.“ NASSP Bulletin 101.2 (2017): 90-116.

Johnson, Shaun, and Tim Slekar. ”United Opt Out National and the resistance of high-stakes standardized testing.“ Digital networking for school reform: The online grassroots efforts of parent and teacher activists. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2014. 23-35.

Meier, Deborah, and Matthew Knoester. Beyond testing: Seven assessments of students and schools more effective than standardized tests. Teachers College Press, 2017.

Parkay, Forrest W., Eric J. Anctil, and Glen Hass. Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs. Prentice Hall, 2014.

Phelps, Richard. Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. Routledge, 2017.

Kubiszyn, Tom, and Gary Borich. Educational testing and measurement. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, 2015.

Ravitch, Diane. The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books, 2016.

Trujillo, Tina M., and Sarah L. Woulfin. ”Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based accountability: A qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary’s instructional practices.“ American Educational Research Journal 51.2 (2014): 253-293.

William, Dylan. ”Standardized testing and school accountability.“ Educational Psychologist 45.2 (2010): 107-122.