Why do public schools require standardized testing that only serves to be detrimental to the students' learning experience?
It's becoming more and more common for public schools to implement students' learning with standardized testing practices. School concern for higher tests scores only erode a student's learning experience. "Real" classroom time is lost towards test preparation. The school curriculum is narrowed towards test preparation. Student opportunities to read real books, to ask their own questions, to write extended papers (instead of typical five paragraph essay) and to explore new ideas are held back. All of these learning qualities that further contribute to real life job/survival skills are being ignored.
Most tests include many topics that are not important, while many important areas are not included on standardized tests because they cannot be measured by such tests. Multiple choice questions lack: creativity, whole analysis, complex reasoning and critical problem-solving. How can a student be motivated and lead a successful life if the student's education is emerged towards an ineffective learning experience?
Purpose of my blog:
While I realize that standardized tests are going to be in existence for the long-term within the public school system, I would like to share what I have learned and will further ponder and elaborate about this issue. Most importantly, I have decided to blog, not only as a personal experiment but to appeal to a much broader audience with the expectation of attracting and blending the many voices that are out there. Thus, I strongly believe that through our voices we can attain whatever we put our mind to- the possibilities are "limitless". Most of us are familiar with the saying, "Our Children Are Our Future," however standardized testing further takes away from their future. By this I mean the lack of the "life-learning" skills they need to survive and succeed in the real world.
The following is quoted from the Fair Test website which I thought best states in short and to the point inadequate factors that fall within the realm of standardized testing and a more effective approach:
Principles that guide FairTest's work:
Assessments should be fair and valid. They should provide equal opportunity to measure what students know and can do, without bias against individuals on the bases of race, ethnicity, gender, income level, learning style, disability, or limited English proficiency status.
Assessments should be open.The public should have greater access to tests and testing data, including evidence of validity and reliability. Where assessments have significant consequences, tests and test results should be open to parents, educators and students.
Tests should be used appropriately. Safeguards must be established to ensure that standardized test scores are not the sole criterion by which major educational decisions are made and that curricula are not driven by standardized testing.
Evaluation of students and schools should consist of multiple types of assessment conducted over time. No one measure can or should define a person's knowledge, worth or academic achievement, nor can it provide for an adequate evaluation of an institution.
Alternative assessments should be used. Methods of evaluation that fairly and accurately diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of students and programs need to be designed and implemented with sufficient professional development for educators to use them well.
What’s Wrong with Standardized Tests?
Also quoted from Fair Test:
Are standardized tests fair and helpful evaluation tools?
Not really. Standardized tests are tests on which all students answer the same questions, usually in multiple-choice format, and each question has only one correct answer. They reward the ability to quickly answer superficial questions that do not require real thought. They do not measure the ability to think or create in any field. Their use encourages a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such as retention in grade and tracking. They also assume all test-takers have been exposed to a white, middle-class background.
Do tests reflect what we know about how students learn?
No. Standardized tests are based in behaviorist psychological theories from the nineteenth century. While our understanding of the brain and how people learn and think has progressed enormously, tests have remained the same. Behaviorism assumed that knowledge could be broken into separate bits and that people learned by passively absorbing these bits. Today, cognitive and developmental psychologists understand that knowledge is not separable bits and that people (including children) learn by connecting what they already know with what they are trying to learn. If they cannot actively make meaning out of what they are doing, they do not learn or remember. But most standardized tests do not incorporate the modern theories and are still based on recall of isolated facts and narrow skills.
Do multiple-choice tests measure important student achievement?
Multiple-choice tests are a very poor yardstick of student performance. They do not measure the ability to write, to use math, to make meaning from text when reading, to understand scientific methods or reasoning, or to grasp social science concepts. Nor do these tests adequately measure thinking skills or assess what people can do on real-world tasks.
Works Cited:
http://www.fairtest.org/mission-statement
Mission Statement
Posted July 18th 2007 by fairtest in About Us
http://fairtest.org/whats-wrong-standardized-tests
What's Wrong With Standardized Tests?
Posted December 17th, 2007 by fairtest in Fact Sheets K-12
I came about this article online published in The Minnesota English Journal in which the writer, Peter Henry, makes a serious argument against standardized testing that we might not consider, yet are extremely crucial points. He writes:
Thus, in terms of validity, the best that can be said of high-stakes exams is that they measure effectiveness of instruction toward pre-selected material (again, selected by whom?) on one particular exam. And, in terms of reliability, since most schools and teachers focus relentlessly on the material just before the exam is given, it is likely that, a year later, if tested again, many students would not be as successful. This is why most thoughtful educators decry the "narrow" focus of testing: it measures a small domain of select material; one that, when prepped for, regularly distorts the depth, complexity and steadfastness of student ability.
Here, Peter makes a crucial point that also has me wondering. Whom exactly does these tests? Are they appropriately knowledgeable and experienced in the education field to select and process these tests? What benefit do they, themselves receive? What role do they play in the education system? Most importantly, are they just their for "profit" and movement towards privatized education?
I will further close Peter Henry’s The Case Against Standardized Testing, with this following quote:
So, despite all the rhetoric surrounding the need for "accountability" in public schools, the one operational strategy designed to demonstrate accountability has itself escaped accountability— at least in terms of having any kind of a research base to justify its widely accepted use. High stakes exams typically feature low validity, low reliability and a high likelihood of corruption. Further, when you factor in that these high-stakes exams, which have so much riding on them, are not generally available to the public or subject to the safeguards or oversight that you would expect from such a consequential event, it should set off alarms across the country.
From "The Case Against Standardized Testing," by Peter Henry
Published in The Minnesota English Journal
