Emphasis on high-stakes, standardized
testing in the United States, dates back to the mid-1800s and parallels what
was happening in England during this period. At that time, decision makers used
high-stakes testing for purposes of accountability and “the stakes were much
higher for teachers than for students…. Indeed…there were no repercussions at
all for students” (Wiliam, 2010, p. 109). Wiliam went on to note that in the
United States between 1910 and 1940, the norm was for students to attend school
until they were 18, and it was “inappropriate to assess students against
standards intended for the small proportion going on to higher education” (p.
109). In terms of 21st-century school accountability, a research
study conducted by Stranahan, H. A. Borg, and Borg (2009) concluded that schools ought to be held accountable for the
quality of the education they provide, whereas the school’s performance grade is
best determined by how much students’ test scores improved over time and not
based on the aggregate level of student scores in a year. This conclusion is
contrary in theory to the guidelines outlined in the Federal No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB).
Through
current research, Amrein and Berliner (2003) found that the importance placed
on high-stakes testing denies students’ “opportunities to direct their own
learning as they “become less
intrinsically motivated to learn and less likely to engage in critical thinking”
(p. 32). Moreover, in a recent Texas study, McNeil, Coppola, Radigan, and
Heilig (2008) found that too often in-class curriculum takes the form of
standardized test drills that “drifts towards ensuring that students can answer
the questions that will appear on the tests…. This narrower, more rigid
curriculum affects students and their motivation to complete school” (p. 28).
These authors found that “teaching to the test” had a negative effect on
students’ desire to complete school. In addition, a lack of motivation often led
to students repeating a grade because of poor standardized test results. The
authors concluded that as a result, “students who are required to repeat a
grade lose face in front of their parents, community, and peers” (McNeil,
Coppola, Radigan, & Heilig, 2008, p. 30). In a recent study by Williams
(2003), she concluded that high-stakes testing erodes students’ enthusiasm for
learning, and that motivational assessment strategies, based on predominantly
formative and relevant lessons, were more effective and meaningful. In
addition, high-stakes testing de-personalizes the learning process by placing the
primary “focus on standards, accountability, and assessment rather than
providing a multicultural education” (University of Phoenix, 2012, “Week Eight
Lecture Notes,” p. 1).
According
to Gunzenhauser (2003), “the default philosophy underlying high-stakes testing
is a philosophy of education in which tests designed to be part of a system of
accountability drive the curriculum, limit instructional innovation, and keep
educators from establishing their own priorities and vision” (p. 52), which
inevitably results in conflicts regarding these tests’ effectiveness as
assessment tools. Gunzenhauser went on to warn school communities not “to
settle for the default philosophy of education associated with high-stakes
testing” (p. 58). Another significant drawback of placing too much importance
on standardized test results is that various studies have shown questions on
these tests are inherently bias. Freedle (2006) found that questions on both
the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)
were “racially biased in terms of mean correct responses because they make the
false assumption that all examinees have had equal opportunity to learn the
concepts and materials used in the test” (p. 187). In addition, Freedle noted
multiple examples of ethnic bias in the SAT in terms of vocabulary, which led
to “false conclusions regarding racial and ethnic differences” (p. 187). The
author concluded that these particular standardized “test results influence
racial theories of genetic superiority and inferiority… [and that these] tests
can distort the true ability of large groups of disadvantaged students” (p.
225). Ultimately, such biased results and their interpretation negatively influence
the educational and career choices students have who are affected by these
standardized tests. In other recent research, Boaler (2003) noted in a
localized study that standardized testing caused barriers for many California
math students by disrupting the classroom learning process because teachers were
mandated to “teach to the test.”
Even
though many private/prep schools, colleges, universities, and graduate schools
use standardized test scores for placement purposes, unless these institutions
place less emphasis on standardized testing, allowing admission decisions to be
based more on personal attributes rather than impersonal test scores, the
injustice of the current system will remain. In terms of high-stakes testing
determining school performance, decision makers need to re-evaluate the accountability
criteria used to measure such assessments, placing more emphasis on classroom
effectiveness and the learning process, while de-emphasizing grades and test results.
To
address the needs of 21st-century learners, there needs to be
measurable changes made to the way in which the current educational system
assesses student progress and achievement. High-stakes, standardized testing
needs to be de-emphasized in our schools, allowing the learning process to be
the priority, rather than relying on the impersonal, and often times
inaccurate, interpretation of test results. This represents an educational
change in policy and practice that would promote a better and more effective
learning experience for the 21st-century student.
References
Amrein,
A. T., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on
student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership 60(3), 32-38. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds
Boaler,
J. (2003). When learning no longer matters: Standardized testing and the
creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502-506. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds
Freedle, R. (2006). How and why
standardized tests systematically underestimate African-Americans’ true verbal
ability and what to do about it: Towards the promotion of two new theories with
practical applications. St. John’s Law
Review 80(1), 183-226. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds
McNeil, L. M., Coppola, E.,
Radigan, J., & Heilig, J. V. (2008). Avoidable losses: High-stakes
accountability and the dropout crisis.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3), 1-45. Retrieved from http://Epaa.asu.edu
Stranahan,
H. A., Borg, J. R., & Borg, M. O. (2009). School grades based on
standardized test scores: Are they fair? Journal of Academic & Business
Ethics, 1, 38-56. Retrieved
from https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds
Wiliam, D. (2010).
Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist 45(2), 107-122. doi:10.1080/00461521003703060
Williams,
N. M. (2003). Thinking outside the bubble. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 82-83. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds
