Month: February 2019

The very fact that there will be a standardized test changes the way in which we are learning new material. Often, studies find that testing created to be high stakes leads to the narrowing of instruction and classroom curriculum. Especially when tests influence major changes and decisions in a student’s life, such as promotion, teachers choose to teach to the test.

Teaching to the test is the practice of teaching students only the material they will be tested on, withholding extra information not vital to high scores. Studies found that the pressure upon teachers to improve their students test scores resulted in some educators neglecting materials not included on the test. This means that students are no longer learn through long term projects, reading physical chapter books, solving higher order problems, computer programs, etc. Teachers are teaching students by giving worksheets with questions formatted identically to the standardized tests. Some Maryland schools were found redesigning course objectives and restructuring course content all in an effort to improve their students’ test scores.

Teachers are becoming increasingly stressed by the emphasis placed on standardized tests. The stress can even extend towards the families of teachers. Educators have so many things to do that many forget to prioritize their personal family lives. Legislation such as the “No child Left Behind Act” has made the importance of testing even more pertinent in the lives of both students and teachers. In some cases, student performance is linked to the salaries or their teachers and the job stability of educators, determining which teachers will continue to teach and which ones will be fired.

Teachers often feel a lack of control because of the increasing significance of standardized testing in the classroom. This exponentially increases the stress levels of educators. Their own personal careers, salaries, and livelihoods may be determined by how well their pupils perform on a single exam, one day of the year, at a single time.

Test scores can be affected by a great number of variables. How well students slept the night before, what kind of breakfast they ate, how anxious students are, how hot or cold they feel in the testing room, etc. are out of the teachers’ control. Yet, these factors have a say in how well students perform on standardized tests, determining the fate of the educators.

I remember that when I was in middle school, some students would purposefully do poorly on standardized tests because they simply did not care. The test had no effect on them, so they didn’t even bother putting in any effort when taking the exams. Yet, teachers’ careers and salaries were at stake. Why would the government allow a bunch of obnoxious kids determine the success of hardworking Americans, who selflessly chose to educate the minds of future generations?

The self- image of educators is negatively affected by low test scores. Combined with the high pressure for their students to perform well on the tests, teachers end up providing questionable test preparation. This in turn increases the feelings of guilt and stress for teachers. Educators are torn between what will benefit the student as a whole and what will be most likely to aid in the successful completion of the standardized test.

If students do increasingly better on their standardized tests, a question arises- are students improving their broader learning or are the higher scores a result of teaching to the test? The stronger the pressure for teachers to improve their students’ test scores, the more likely teachers are to resort to questionable measure to do so. The pressure put upon teachers is created by parents, school administrators, and other teachers. Interestingly, educators teaching in schools with increasing test scores feel the most pressure in comparison to schools with stagnant or decreasing test scores.

With all of these issues and problems created for teachers, are standardized tests even worth the trouble? Maybe schools should get back to simply educating students and preparing them for life once they become adults. There must be other ways to encourage learning besides high stakes testing. Curriculums designed to the test hinder students’ learning possibilities. One resolution for high stakes testing is to make the tests not count, but then another issue is brought about. If the tests don’t count for anything, can we really trust children to take them seriously?

 

Sources:

https://cresst.org/wp-content/uploads/TECH334.pdf

http://www.nea.org/tools/fighting-stress-teaching-to-Test.html

Teachers already know which students excel in reading and writing and which ones struggle. They know who understands mathematics in a snap and who has a hard time tackling the many different concepts. If we were to give a class of students a standardized test, what would we find? We would find out exactly what the teacher could have reported her/ himself. Is finding out that students perform on a bell curve really that surprising? Would the money spent giving out standardized tests be better spent helping to give schools the resources needed for them to give their students the resources most likely to help aid in their education?

Studies show that states spend over $1.7 billion every year on standardized testing. After looking at spending data for forty five different states, it was determined that they spent over $669 million each year on primary assessment contracts. With the introduction of Common Core, little information has been kept up to date concerning the costs of assessment systems set in place throughout the United States. There is a clear lack of transparency in the pricing of assessments. This hinders the ability of states to make informed decisions regarding the testing systems chosen.

One option to fix this issue is for larger states, or multiple states, as a group, ban together to encourage test makers to share information about their pricing models. In a perfect world, test makers would make the formula which is used to create the price of assessment contracts freely available to view. This would allow states to know for sure if they are making financially responsible decisions. A consortia could foster opportunity to appreciate a surplus of savings.

The cost per student varies greatly among different states. In New York, the cost is $7 per student, in Oregon it’s $13, in Georgia $14, Delaware $73, Massachusetts $64, Hawaii $105, and District of Columbia $114. 89% of the total cost is accounted for by six vendors. New York City based Pearson Education makes the most amount of money accounting for 39 percent of revenue. They are followed by New York based- McGraw- Hill Education with 14 percent, and then Minnesota based- Maple Grove at 13 percent.

Some researchers say that instead of standardized tests, teachers should publish grade distributions. Grades portray progress of learning and the formation of skills. Evaluation reports can be published locally and expert verification of national and state reports can have legislators to supervise the publication.

There are a few issues with this system. Grades are subjective when compared to one another. Some classes are harder than others and some teachers make certain classes more difficult than others. Teachers also grade differently. For example, last semester I had a teacher who would give her students 10/10 for participation as long as you showed up to class and stayed in your seat without falling asleep. This semester, one of my teachers only gives 9/10 as the maximum grade because according to him, “There is always room for improvement.” Teachers have a great variety of standards and grade in particular ways. There is not a mainstream grading rubric for the A to F grading scale.

There are usually four main factors causing variation in teachers’ grading. These are the composition of students, the abilities of the teacher, the rigor and equity of the teacher, and lastly the teacher’s concept of achievement.  If we were to require the publication of grades, that would mean that there would be extremely high stakes and intense pressure, which is likely to lead to lying, faked grades, and adjusted results.

Schools with high standardized test scores are widely regarded as successful. These kinds of schools often have affluent and compliant students and families. The test scores are often something these “successful” schools like to show off to make themselves appear superior to other competing schools in the area. It makes the school appear competitive. However, when teachers are observed in the classroom, it is obvious that there is great room for improvement. Good test scores often give subpar teachers a pat on the back that they do not deserve. Some may even say that good scores prevent improvements and progress for students and teachers. Why would they spend time and money improving their curriculum implementation when the school received the highest standardized test scores in the state?

Standardized testing is a billion dollar industry paid for by tax payers. There are better ways to spend such large sums of money. Many school buildings are in desperate need of repairs, students use the same dated textbooks that their parents used, and the class sizes in most schools are way too large for efficient learning. We need to think twice about how tax money is being spent by the school systems.

 

Sources:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/strength-in-numbers-state-spending-on-k-12-assessment-systems/

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/07/09/36jouriles.h33.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/standardized-testing-costs_n_2213932.html