Conclusion

The Avengers have concluded our blog “Standardized Failure” after four weeks of posting an opposing view to administering standardized tests. Overall, we found a few general themes that support our argument against standardized testing:

o   They do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field

• Standardized tests measure test taking ability

o   Teaching to the test leaves deficiencies in a child’s knowledge and performance later in life

• It lends more toward memorization than application of critical skills

o   Failed standardized tests lead to grade retention

• It increases a student’s chance of dropping out
• Lowers his or her probability of obtaining a successful career in the future
• Failing a test will more than likely lead a student to criminality

o   Standardized tests put students who are minorities or lower class at a disadvantage

• Many students who take these tests speak English as a second language
• Students from affluent families have more resources to their advantage
  

  Created by Adam Zyglis

Here is an alternative that could possibly replace standardized testing:

o   Authentic or Performance Testing

• Structured around doing rather than bubbling in answers
• Ask students to make a product or complete a task, performance or exhibition

If you are interested in learning more about our position on standardized testing, we advise you to start with these posts:

• Standardized Testing Leads to Increased Grade Retention
• Calling for Change
• Accommodate, Don’t Discriminate
• New York Defends Standardized Tests for Students as Movement Against Them Builds

We appreciate your support over these past four weeks and would like for our followers to continue pushing against standardized testing.

“Accommodate, Don’t Discriminate”

Standardized tests are aimed to be inclusive and non-discriminatory. They have a goal of making sure the content is equivalent for all students. If we use different tests for certain groups of people, such as minorities or people with disabilities, we are creating an unfairness.

As former Washington, DC public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee stated, “You can’t separate them [students with disabilities and students without disabilities], and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it.” With this, Rhee was arguing for an “accommodate, don’t discriminate” approach.

http://worklife.columbia.edu/files_worklife/public/Pros_and_Cons_of_Standardized_Testing_1.pdf

However, creating a separate test/standard of measure is not discriminating, but actually accommodating. For example, people with poor vision wear glasses, the blind use Braille, and the hard-of-hearing use cochlear implants. These are accommodations for people with special needs. If there was not a Braille system in place, we would be discriminating against those with special needs. Just how we accommodate for people in everyday life, we should accommodate for students in school and when testing.

Students with disabilities perform poorly on current standardized tests when compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Creating a different standard of measure for students with disabilities is accommodating their needs. Not doing so creates a bias by not recognizing their needs. Most of the time, students with disabilities are not being taught the same material as their non-disabled counterparts. With so much reliance on test scores and a lack of exposure to certain subject, students with disabilities face many barriers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/why-opt-out-standardized-tests_n_5078209.html

Another group standardized testing discriminates towards is English language learners. These students have to take a test, sometimes high-stakes, before they’ve even had the chance to master English. This can cause confusion and a lack of understanding during the test. An excelling student can be mislabeled as failing due to their test scores. If the test is high-stakes and the student does not perform well, they can face many consequences, including being moved to a remedial class, repeating a grade, or not graduating.

Though standardized tests are created to be equal, they fail to recognize that everyone is not equal. This “standard” cannot measure every person’s intellect.

High-Stakes Standardized Testing

Source: introf10sou.wikispaces.com

This blog lists some of the problems with high-stakes standardized tests, or those in which the results are used to determine possible benefits or punishments. They include, but are not limited to, teachers focusing only on subject areas that will be on the test, cancellation of art programs, the pressure placed on educators to produce good results, and disadvantages for English language learners.

Those Students Standardized Testing Doesn’t Consider

Source: tcdailyplanet.net

As the accompanying article discusses, standardized tests do not take into account all the people who have to take them. Everyone is different and everyone learns in different ways. One of the populations standardized tests do not consider is students with special needs. As mentioned in the article, an excelling student can be incorrectly categorized as failing. And for the parents of these students, these tests feel like “one more slap in the face” by restating what they already know.

Standardized Testing And Teachers

Source: indianahistory.org

The above comic supports the accompanying article, which discusses the debate of standardized testing. According to the article, standardized tests are associated with teacher and school performance, leading to the possibility of teachers getting fired and schools closing. For this reason, teachers focus on testing, rather than teaching. They prepare students for taking tests, rather than teach the material of the class, ultimately hindering the students for the future.

Is Standardized Testing Fair?

Source: campusexplorer.com

This visual shows different facts pertaining to standardized testing. It discusses the question of whether standardized testing is fair. As stated above, standardized tests are created in a way that is constant, no matter who is taking it. However, as the statistics listed show, there are many factors, external and internal, that affect a person’s ability to do well on a standardized test.

Calling for Change

Resistant to standardized testing is happening all over the country with parents, students, teachers and supporters of the movement calling for massive reforms. One Washington Post article has a list of reasons why it’s time to change the standardized test format. Among the reasons are those that create a divide among students based on their class and race.

Upper Manhattan Parents Leading Effort to Opt Kids Out of State Testing

It’s no secret that students who come from affluent families have more resources to their advantage and therefore it is who has more money that succeeds on these tests. Even measuring intelligence is trickier because of the varying ways students learn and the fact that many students taking these tests speak English as a second language. Teachers are forced to teach the material on the test leaving students with great memorization skills and actual knowledge to use later in life.

Some students are better equipped to take the exams than others and not necessarily because of how hard they study but by factors out of their control like finances.

 

Then there’s a matter of what students lose because so much funding has to go into standardized testing. Cuts to the arts and even sports programs are being made, extracurricular activities in general, meant to foster students learning and passions are being lost in favor of more testing expenses. Students are found crying, vomiting and the like because of stress and have no outlet to take this stress out on.   Those in favor of standardized testing have to know all these abuses and frankly, the scores we get from testing do not outweigh the suffering it causes. It’s time to start testing in ways that foster learning. It’s time to test in a way that doesn’t favor the rich; it’s time to start testing in a way that isn’t really testing at all but rather project based.

One possible alternative is “authentic” or “performance” testing. This is a testing which is structured around “doing” rather than “bubbling.” The fact is students aren’t going to build a career on filling in circles, they will be doing various actions in their field. Authentic/performance based testing is described as an assessment that “asks students to demonstrate their learning by making a product or by doing a task, performance, or exhibition to show what they know and can do.” This is a type of testing I can get behind because 1) it’s not about stressing a student, it’s allowing them to use what they’ve learn to create in a way that makes sense to them and 2) it’s not really “Testing” in a conventional sense, it’s more about the students than the scores and answers.

If we want our children to have good futures, we need to stop ruining the present for them and allow them to kids. Childhood shouldn’t be about fear and failure, futures shouldn’t be determined by how well a teacher can teach to the test. The nation is calling for change, the question now is will those in power listen?

New York defends standardized tests for students as movement against them builds

“[Standardized testing is] one of many tools that should be used to measure student growth and help inform instruction,” State Education Department spokesman, Dennis Tompkins.

Source: http://www.takepart.com

Given the amount of opposition New York has faced, it’s natural they would defend standardized testing. Dennis Tompkins believes standardized testing is key to the success of students but one has to ask, how can a standardized test accurately measure student growth if teachers are simply teaching to the test and not teaching to increase students’ knowledge? According to an Education.com article, teachers become pressured by the government to teach students with the goal to raise test scores. Another point to be made is how can a standardized test measure a student’s growth properly if a student isn’t a good test-taker? The pressures placed on testing not only affects the teachers, but also the students who take the test.

How can an education system expect a student to effectively take a test when they are aware of the importance that is placed on the exam. Last year, prior to implementing a tougher exam, New York Education Commissioner John King also emphasized the importance of standardized tests to classroom instruction.

Shot by: Susan Watts

“The reason we’re changing the assessments is so that they reflect what good instruction against the common core should look like,” King said. “The result probably will be a significant drop in student proficiency.” The last few words of this statement are cringeworthy, shouldn’t a drop in student proficiency be a red flag?

He goes on to say that these test grades do not reflect badly upon the schools, but rather it means that the bar is being set higher. After implementing the exams, the state’s passing rate went from 70 percent to 30 percent.That in itself indicates the bar is being set so high that failure is becoming the norm.

Students who opt out the New York State exams are not penalized and every student is only evaluated on his or her schoolwork. But, this raises another question, why implement a standardized test if you do not plan on using the results for anything? This is a waste of valuable teaching time. According to The Washington Post, students could spend anywhere from 60 to more than 110 hours annually preparing for standardized testing. That time could be used to teach students subjects that they can apply to their lives and not for a standardized examination.

The fact is, kids aren’t meant to be cooped up for hours studying for tests that have little significance on what they actually learn. If test grades are reflecting failure then that’s a sign something is wrong, change has to happen. If we want to measure a children’s growth, standardized testing is clearly not the way to go. To Tompkins and King, and all those that think like them, it’s time for a new measurement, perhaps one that treats kids like kids instead of scores.

Standardized Testing Leads to Increased Grade Retention

Many states employ test-based retention policies that prevent students from promoting to the next grade if they do not test at least proficient on state standardized exams. Not only does retaining a student because of standardized testing affect them emotionally, but it also hinders their academic career. According to research, retained students drop out more often than other students. The reason for this is that older students in lower grades have low self-confidence and become outcasts in school. A couple key states that implement these policies are Chicago and Baltimore.

Created by Veff Parker

Chicago reported having its highest-grade retention rate since implementing test-based retention policies in 1996. A study found that students who were retained for not scoring proficient on the standardized test continued to do poorly. In fact, students who struggled in the year that they repeated, had higher rates of special education placement and had no advantage over the students who were promoted. The 6^th grade students in the study had lower achievement growth due to being held back a year. Baltimore reported that more than 25 percent of its students would be retained this year mostly because of standardized testing.Because a high percentage of retained students dropout, they are less likely to enroll in a university and have lower education and employment status. These individuals tend to be paid less than those who aren’t retained.

Created by Dan Vasconcellos

With a lower achievement growth, students who were subjected to grade retention have a high chance of being delinquent. Studies mention a two-year achievement gap between youth who commit crime and those who don’t. Once students fall behind and separate themselves from other students, they begin skipping class and become involved in behaviors that lead to their suspension. Such behaviors are not only key indicators of juvenile delinquency, but also are linked to future criminality in adulthood. This could be a diect indicator for why Chicago and Baltimore are known for having high crime rates.

What started out as an attempt to make sure students had an equal chance at academic promotion, resulted in a policy that heightened dropout rates, lowered a student’s chance of career success and increased the chance of criminality within a student.

Picture Depicts Difference Between Learning and Testing

Created by Peggy Monahan

The picture above visually represents the difference between teaching students for the sake of their education and teaching students for an exam. Teaching for the sake of a student’s education will leave them will knowledge on several topics and the opportunity to be creative. On the other end, teaching for an exam will leave students with the memory of filling in answers on their answer sheets.