Standardized testing, or tests that are given uniformly across a given age and/or educational population are considered one of the standard measurements both of student’s capability and synthesis of material as well as a school’s ability to convey that information to its students. These tests differ depending on the location of the school in question, but are all very similar in that they tend to measure the same metrics, though in slightly different ways. Students are subjected to standardized testing as early as kindergarten in some states, and while those tests are relatively simplistic, they still are seen as useful measures for the student and school. Such testing is given in the same form across the cohort, and graded in the same way regardless of the student taking it. It is said to be a “non-discriminatory” method of testing, because there is no variability in question, nor bias in test-givers that might shape the results of the test. However, it has consistently been shown that standardized testing are not only a highly ineffective metric for measuring student’s and teacher’s ability, but they are actually highly biased against a variety of types of students, causing their performance to appear much lower than their actual ability. This failure of standardized testing makes it a negative method of assessing students, and a complete inaccurate way to determine any information about a student save their ability to effectively take tests.
In Kohn’s essay “Standardized Testing and its Victims,” one of the most fundamental failures of standardized testing is pointed out, namely that it is non-instructional elements that account for the majority of the difference in scores between students (Kohn, 2000). That is, it hinges primarily on factors outside of the classroom, and the way in which the student is actually taught. In fact, the way the student learns is much more instrumental in their performance. If they are a written/verbal learner, they are much more likely to respond well to traditional education, because that is the manner in which most schools are taught. If they respond well to reading or verbal lecturing, they are more likely to retain the information taught them and be able to apply it to the test. This is not just because they have learned the information more thoroughly, but because they can apply the information to a test that is presented in a manner they understand. In other words, they are not more intelligent than other students, they simply think in the same manner as the test writers. On the other hand, a more physical learner, one who processes in a kinesthetic manner, may have difficulty sitting still and learning in a traditional classroom, which means that he or she may score more poorly on the test, because it was not presented in a way he or she learns. The learning style of the student matters as much as the teaching style of the teacher, especially when it comes to a test that is presented in very traditional manner.
When it comes to outside factors influencing testing, there are others that have dramatic effect. For example, the 2011 study “Low Aerobic Fitness and Obesity Are Associated With Lower Standardized Test Scores in Children” showed that students that had less physical fitness scored poorly on standardized tests compared to students with higher physical fitness levels. Part of this is biological—students with lower BMIs scored better, while students with higher BMIs scored more poorly. That can be described as partially a genetic different, however, it is also a difference in experiences and circumstance. The study measured how quickly students ran a mile, and compared the times to the scores on standardized tests. In addition to lower BMI scoring higher, more rapid times scored higher. This indicates that students given more physical activity tend to respond better to standardized testing. However, how much of this is the responsibility of the school as opposed to of the parent and the family’s circumstances? For example. Individuals of lower socioeconomic classes may not have time or ability to provide highly nutritious meals for their children, leading to higher BMI. Similarly, individuals whose families must work long hours may not have time to participate in extracurricular activities such as sports. As such, they might not be as physically fit. This leads to lower performance on standardized tests by students with a lower socioeconomic status, or busier parents, or any number of factors. The standardized test failed the student, not because the student is not intelligent, but because of non-classroom related circumstances outside of the student’s control.
There is also the matter of the fact that standardized tests are exactly that—standardized. They do not take into account the different levels of ability of given students, or the means by which student’s process information. For example, a student with autism might be highly intelligent, but unable to process the test in the given environment (for example a quiet room filled with other children all taking the test). Were that same test given in another environment, the student might score much more highly, and more accurately reflect his or her “intelligence” level. Koegle, Koegle & Smith (1997) explored this in their study. They evaluated the ways in which tests were administered to children with autism and attempted to relate their responses to test taking methods to a way of offering the test that better related to learning styles. IN doing so, they were able to show that regulating the method of test taking produced vastly different results. Children with autism are by no means unique in this, though they can be seen as an excellent test case because in many situations their responses are more exaggerated than neurotypical students (Koegle, Keogel, & Smith, 1997). It seems that this study clear shows that even if a standardized test is well written, standardized testing is flawed because it is standardized. It does not respond to the needs of the student, and thus cannot effectively analyze their actual ability.
Related to this is the fact that standardized tests were not originally designed as a measure of intelligence or education for a given, individual child. To quote Kohn “The Stanford, Metropolitan, and California Achievement Tests (SAT, MAT, and CAT), as well as the Iowa and Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS and CTBS), are designed so that only about half the test-takers will respond correctly to most items. The main objective of these tests is to rank, not to rate; to spread out the scores, not to gauge the quality of a given student or school.” (Koehn, 2007). This clearly isslutrates the fact that standardized tests were designed as a measure for school’s general range, not individual teaching and/or teacher’s and/or student’s performances. It is frequently forgot that standardized tests are designed to create a range of scores, and that one individual scoring less than perfectly does not indicate their lack of intelligence so much as where they fall on a spectrum.
Finally, there is a strange dichotomy in the way one must teach to prepare a child for a standardized test. According to Newman, Brik, and Nagaoka (2001), students given more intellectually stimulating material tend to respond better on standardized tests. Individuals that are provided with material that engages their reasoning centers, and their problem solving capacities tend to do better on tests in later grades (from 3rd grade and up). However, according to Oakland and Weilert (1971), younger children respond better to standardized tests if they are taught how to take the test itself. That is, if they are given test-taking strategies and methods that show them how to respond to a test itself. This is highly contradictory, and sends teachers incredibly mixed messages. Is it wise to teach “to the test”? To teach students how to pass a standardize test by teaching them the words and structures used in questions? Or, on the other hand, will performance be best enhanced by giving the student intellectually stimulating work that expands their problem solving ability but might not provide them with the tools necessary to understand a word problem as presented on a standardized test?
This leads to another point made by Kohn, namely that standardized testing measures superficial thinking, not active problem solving. It is hypothesized by Newman, Brik, and Nagaoka that students who engage in problem solving activities respond better to standardized tests not because they’ve been taught to think as the test requires, but because they can see many options for a solution, thus can come to the solution required by the test more easily. In other words, children who are given extensive problem solving are more likely to see other options. Students that are taught to the test seem to have one train of thought they pursue, which is frequently the “correct” one, but when it is not, it is difficult for them to understand why it is incorrect.
Overall, standardized testing seem to be a good idea in theory—a uniform way to measure performance of a school and set of teachers. However, the way it is applied, the way in which these tests are used as assessment measures for individual students and teachers make them highly flawed. They are not effective as an assessment tool, and do not reflect an accurate picture of the student’s ability or situation. They are influenced by many factors outside of the academic environment, which leads them to be an inefficient and flawed means of assessment.
Works Cited:
Koegel, L., Koegel, R., Smith, A., (1997) “Variables Related to Differences in Standardized Test Outcomes For Children with Autism.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 27(3). 233-243
Kohn, A. (2000). “Standardized Testing and Its Victims.” Education Week. Sept (2000). Np.
Newmann, F., Brik, A., Nagaoka, J. (2001). “Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: Conflict or Coexistence?” Improving Chicago’s Schools. 6-45.
Oakland, T., Weinert, E. (1971, February). “The Effects of test-Wiseness Materials on Standardized Test Performance of Preschool Disadvantaged Children. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Roberts, AC., Freed, B., McCarthy, W., “Low Aerobic Fitness and Obesity are Associated with Lower Standardized Test Scores in Children.” Journal of Pediatrics. 156(5). 711-718.
