Amit Hasan

Professor Conroy

English 101: Section E

4^th November, 2019

Are Standardized Tests in Public Schools

 the Best Way to Assess Students’ Learning in the United States?

          

Students in public schools in the United States are commonly assessed on their learning through standardized testing. Depending on the states, there are different types and formats of tests for certain subjects because each state has its own systems, techniques, and expectations for the goals that students should be able to achieve. Administrators of education, test makers, and teachers are all dependent on the performances of the students since they are responsible for helping and improving ways for students to learn the required information for certain subjects.

In the United States, testing of students was established 160 years ago. In 2001, the No Child Left Behind education reform expanded the state-mandated standardized testing to assess school performances of students. Students from grades 3-12 in public schools are required to take and pass standardized tests/Regents’ exams, in math, English, social studies, and science subjects in order to be promoted to the next grade. Other exams such as the SAT and ACT play a big part for college admissions for public high school students applying for elite or in state universities. There are so many types of tests and so many expectations from students which is why some people feel like standardized tests are important while other people think it is not an effective or fair way to assess students. Various studies done by experts and professionals in the field of standardized testing, will help answer if standardized tests are the best way to assess students’ learning or if there are other more effective ways to assess students’ learning in public schools in the United States.

“Standardized tests: wristwatch or dipstick?” by Michael J. Higgins, analyzes if standardized tests are serving the purpose of improving education for students in public schools run by the government. In the article it states, “About 30 percent of high-school graduates are semi-literate, with only 6 percent reading at a world-class level […] high-school students ranking below average in math and science” (Higgins, 2). This statistic shows how poorly high school students are performing on math, science, and especially reading tests and how behind students are compared to other students internationally. It states in the article, “63% of seniors cannot perform the simple fourth-grade multiplication […] and 9 out of 10 cannot say how much money they would earn in interest even with a calculator” (Higgins, 2). This explains how more than majority of high school students cannot perform basic math problems because they are either focused on studying for tests in other subjects while other students do not review basic math lessons necessary in class, leading them to forget the important materials in the subject. In the article it states, due the poor performance of high schools in preparing students for college is a main reason why the United States has dropped from first to fifth in percentage of young adults who have a college degree (Higgins, 2). This highlights a bigger problem for students in high school since they are not well prepared for college, and this leads to a lot of students dropping out and not pursuing a career in their certain field of interests, which limits their future and career options. This article provides negative effects of standardized tests by explaining the poor performances by high school students compared to other students internationally, and how the lack of preparation is limiting their future plans and careers, due the main focus being on performing well on standardized tests rather than learning and mastering important materials in each subject.

“How Standardized Tests Shape- and Limit- Student Learning” by the National Council of Teachers of English, describes how teaching in the classroom has been affected by standardized testing and what these effects can lead to in the future. It states in the article, “One study found that teachers lose between 60 to 110 hours of instructional time in a year because of testing and the institutional tasks that surround it” ( NCTE, 1). This shows how large the numbers of hours teachers lose during class time due to testing procedures and preparations which also effects how many students miss out on important material that were planned to be taught by teachers in the first place. It also states in the article, “These tests encourage teachers to emphasize a test-based approach that focuses on the application of a fixed set of rules […] limiting rhetorical dimensions such as audiences and purposes of writing” (NCTE, 2). This explains that students must be taught writing with a fixed set of rules rather than being creative with their writing with rhetorical analysis and this is due the increasing reliance of standardized tests on machine scoring. It states in the article, “For example, the scores of poor and minority students are often lower than those of middle-class whites, and these results can lead to failure to graduate, particularly when these students attend under-resourced schools” (NCTE, 2). This analyzes another important factor of the ineffectiveness of standardized testing because it does not take into account of the background of students and does not provide a fair platform for certain students, poor and minority students, to perform well. This source provides negative effects of standardized testing because it provides the limitation in classroom teachings as well as the effectiveness and the fairness of these tests taken by so many different types of students all over the nation.

“The Testing Culture and the Persistence of High Stakes Testing Reforms” by Michele S. Moses and Michael J. Nanna escribes the policy context for high stakes examinations and the concerns about equality of educational opportunity. As it states in the article, “Some students are ignored because they have little hope of passing an exam […] while others are receiving more than their share of attention because they are on the cusp of passing the exam (Moses and Nanna, 57). This explains a major problem some students face while preparing for the examinations because if the teachers themselves are not giving the attention and time the students need, then some students are left with no choice but to perform poorly. This does not affect the schools or teachers but rather the students because they do not receive opportunities to improve their scores and receive promotion to the next grade or graduation. It also states in the article, “The number of private high schools and tutoring services aimed at helping students prepare for high stakes tests is on the rise” (Moses and Nanna, 61). This explains that many students rely on private schools and tutoring services to pass the examinations which signifies that teachers in schools are not effective and unreliable to help students pass the same exams the teachers themselves are teaching. It states in the article, “The issue is that the use of high stakes testing is related to political ideology and the exercise of political will and power instead of being driven primarily by the best interests of students” (Moses and Nanna, 63). Since the government controls the education system and requires mandatory high stakes tests, the motive is about the nation being identified as intelligent by other nations rather than understanding and creating a system where the students themselves are learning and gaining benefits for themselves in education. This source includes both negative and positive effects on standardized testing but eventually counter argues against the positive effects. This allows to understand that the nation needs the government to improve the standardized testing systems to help allow as many students as possible to perform well and be able to learn more effectively.

“Standardized Testing: Fair or Not?” by Dr. John Poulsen and Kurtis Hewson describes how the history and current realities of standardized testing can help understand how to improve teaching and learning from the results of standardized tests. In the article it states, “Students with reading problems can get “readers” to read the questions […] may give them an advantage or disadvantage other students do not have” (Poulsen and Hewson, 354). This describes that some student with certain needs are allowed to have questions read to them, but this can both help and hurt students since the reading could be giving hints to students or making it harder for students on purpose. This does not give all students the same environment to take these tests because some students get more time to finish the test as well as get reading instruction from proctors which is not consistent with students in all states. It also states in the article, “There are other forms of standardized testing […] essay writing. This form of testing currently has the disadvantage of needing markers to assess the essays” (Poulsen and Hewson, 356). This illustrates another problem because the essay portions of the test are graded by markers and even though they are trained, the grading can be unreliable because of the biases of the markers as compared to a scantron which one has one answer scanned by machines. Finally, the article states, “The testing conditions may cause students to perform poorly […] poor lighting that caused headaches in students, or the room was too cold and did no allow certain students to focus” (Poulsen and Hewson, 373). Another problem is the environmental factor which includes the testing room because there are various different situations that can cause certain students to lose focus. This article provides negative effects of how the standardized are processed and graded and this highlights many inconsistent and unreliable factors which can affects students negatively as well as their score. This provides many different ways that certain factors of standardized testing and scores of students that can be improved.

“Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools” by Lyndsey Layton highlights the pressure that students face from standardized testing and how the nation and local governments plan on improving the situation. As it states in the article, “The heaviest testing load falls on the nation’s eighth-graders, who spend an average of 25.3 hours during the school year taking standardized tests […] with the average pre-K class giving 4.1 standardized tests” (Layton). This explains the time and pressure students go through for just one grade and how even pre-K students take standardized tests which makes learning feel like an obligation rather than it being fun and meaningful for students to be excited about. It also states in the article, “The U.S. Department of Education offered a mea culpa of sorts, issuing a 10-page “action plan” […] to reduce redundant and low-quality testing” (Layton). This explains a step taken by the national government to limit low-quality testing, but it has not been implemented yet since each state has their own testing systems and guidelines. Another statement in the article is, “The agency is recommending that states cap the amount of time devoted to test-taking to no more than 2 percent of class time” (Layton). This is not an effective plan because there was a similar proposal to replace the No Child Left Behind Act, which is still pending and there is nothing being done to change the tests itself so limiting the numbers of hour spent on preparing for the test will not improve how student perform. This source provides negative effects of standardized testing but also provides on how these negative effects are being dealt by the government. Since the actions taken by the government mentioned in the article are not strong or effective, this shows how there must be more things done to improve the situation for the students’ learning of the entire nation.

“Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?” by ProCon.org includes both positive and negative arguments if standardized tests improve education in America. One positive argument in the article states, “93% of studies on student testing found a “positive effect” on student achievement […] according to a research completed in 2011 by testing scholar Richard P. Phelps” (ProCon.org). This statistic shows that standardized have a huge positive impact on student achievement which leads to higher grades and more opportunities in the future for students. Another positive argument in the article state, “The US department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that “if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards […] students will master the materials and probably much more.”” (ProCon.org). This explains that the government believes that it depends on the teachers to help students learn the materials and perform at a high level if the teachers cover the subject matter of the standards. On the other hand, one negative argument in the article states, “A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institutions found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary[…]caused by fluctuation that were not correlated with long-term changes in learning…”(ProCon.org). This explains that score improvements are temporary and inconsistent and do not help students with long-term learning which makes standardized tests ineffective and unreliable to measure student performances. Another negative argument in the article states, “A national 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that since 2001, 44% of school districts reduced the time spent on science and social studies by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math” (ProCon.org). This explains how the standardized tests are affecting the curriculum by narrowing the time spent on other important subjects that students are also required to know for school. The negative arguments were stronger because they not only included statistics but showed specific connections to negative effects of standardized testing on students.

“The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing” by Bryan Nixon describes both benefits and drawbacks of standardized tests. One benefit described in the article states, “We’re also able to use a student’s historical assessment data to monitor thier progress and uncover any challenges they may need to overcome” (Nixon). This explains that standardized tests are an important and effective way to evaluate progress of students since all the scores of the students are available to teachers and students themselves. On the other hand, a negative argument in the article states, “In fact, researchers have found that high standardized scores have little correlation with memory, attention, and processing speed” (Nixon). This drawback explains that while some students may master the standardized tests by memorizing and multiple-choice test taking, it does not allow to understand a student’s ability in other aspects of learning. The negative argument is stronger because it provides an explanation to show the ineffectiveness of standardized tests and its limitations to measure a student’s ability in all aspects of learning rather than one.

An interview with James Popham, a professor at the University of California who is a former test maker and an expert on educational testing, conducted by John Tulenko, describes many drawbacks of standardized testing and the effects they have on students and teachers. As Popham states, “Currently, in only 14 of our 50 states are teachers required to take a course in educational testing […] most educators know very little more about testing than what they remember when they were students themselves” (Popham). The number of teachers who are trained for the standardized tests is very low and this is a major drawback because the material on the standardized are constantly changing and the teachers are responsible to teach students the most effective ways to score as much points possible. Since teaching strategy varies from teacher to teacher, this explains why some students score lower than other students in the same school, which is an inconsistent method to prepare students. Popham also states, “[…] the classroom becomes a drill factory, where relentless pressure, practice on test items, may raise test scores–but may end up having children hate school” (Popham). This explains how students are affected negatively by tests since the classroom because a place that emphasizes testing rather than a fun place to learn new and meaningful things that makes them excited about school. Popham describes standardized tests as an “unnecessary pressure” for students and teachers and scores labeled with students should not be taken too seriously as an indicator of students’ ability to learn and succeed.

These various sources which includes studies by experts as well as an interview with an expert provides many positive and negative effects of standardized testing. The negative effects overshadow the positive effects because most of the positive effects are not connected with how these tests help improve students’ performances and learning. The main negative effects included in many different studies included the inconsistent and unreliable testing and grading conditions. Another drawback that was highlighted in most studies was the effect it has on teachers and how teachers also face the pressure of preparing students to do their best. Many teachers have different techniques to prepare their students and they are also responsible to make up lessons that students learn in their regular classes which doesn’t allow teachers enough time to help the students. The final common drawback discussed in multiple studies was the motivation of students to come to school and learn because the drills required for standardized testing is demotivating and does not allow an exciting environment for students to learn new things. To answer the main questions, the problem is not with the idea of testing but rather how it is functioned and what needs to be done to prepare for it is the main problem. The Department of Education, tests makers, and teacher need to try their best to create a better environment for all students and create better test taking strategies to not only help but also motivate students to try their best. Finally, students should be encouraged to keep their enthusiasm for learning rather than focusing on a test score which does not decide their future, success, and ability to learn.

In conclusion, these expert studies and interview has helped answer the question, if standardized tests are the best way to assess student learning. The problem is not with the test but rather the approach and how it is functioned is what needs to improve. Better environment and teaching techniques need to be established in order for students to perform well and be able to learn more at the same time. The change needs to start at the top with the government creating more effective and fair laws as well as teachers who try their best to help students learn and motivate the m to their best. This question not only demands many things to change but also allows everyone, including students, to understand the main purpose of education rather than linking test scores to their future, success, and ability to learn.

Works Cited Page

Dr. Poulsen, John & Kurtis Hewson. “Standardized Testing: Fair or Not?”. University of Lethbridge, 2012, https://www.uleth.ca/teachingcentre/standardized-testing-fair-or-not

Higgins, Michael J. “Standardized tests: wristwatch or dipstick?”. SAGE, Sage Journals, May      2009,             https://journals-sagepub-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/doi/10.7227/RIE.81.1

Layton Lyndsey. “Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools”.        The Washington Post, Fred Ryan, Oct. 2015,       https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/study-says-standardized-testing-is-over   whelming-nations-public-schools/2015/10/24/8a22092c-79ae-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_           story.html

Moses Michelle S. & Michael J. Nanna. “The Testing Culture and the Persistence of High            Stakes Testing Reforms”. Education and Culture, 2007, 23(1), pp. 55-72. Posted with      permission of the publisher,             https://www.colorado.edu/education/sites/default/files/attached-files/Moses_TheTesting            Culture_0.pdf

National Council of Teachers of English. “How Standardized Tests Shape- and Limit-      Student Learning”. NCTE, Lu Ann McNabb, 2014,                      https://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CC/0242-nov2014/CC0242            PolicyStandardized.pdf

Nixon, Bryan. “The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing”. Whitby, Whitby School,                   https://www.whitbyschool.org/passionforlearning/the-pros-and-cons-of-standardized-test  ing

Popham, James. “Interview: James Popham”. pbs.org, John Tulenko, Apr. 2001,               https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/interviews/popham.html

ProCon.org. “Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?”. Pros and Cons of             Current Issues, ProCon.org, May 2019, https://standardizedtests.procon.org/