Do We Really Need Standardized Testing?
This week’s readings made an important point about assessments, to truly understand how well our students are doing, we need to assess them in different ways. Not all students learn the same, so we can’t expect them to show their understanding through just one type of assessment. Whether it's small check-ins, oral assessments, written tests, projects, or even homework, offering a variety of assessments helps us get a fuller picture of where each student is at. So, if that's what works best for learning, why does it feel like standardized testing is the complete opposite?
One of my biggest issues with standardized tests is the time limit. When students are preparing for exams like the SAT, too often the focus shifts to teaching them tricks to "beat the test." Instead of really teaching kids how to read and analyze a text, they learn how to skim it quickly to catch just the main ideas, read the questions first and then search for the answers, or memorize shortcuts to solve problems faster. It becomes less about learning and more about figuring out how to get through the test in the quickest way possible.
These test-taking strategies might help students score higher in the short term, but they don’t promote real learning. Students end up focused more on how to “game” the test rather than developing deeper skills like critical thinking, reading comprehension, or problem-solving. And in the end, that’s what education should be about, teaching kids how to think, not just how to take a test.
What’s frustrating is that standardized tests don’t give teachers the full picture of how well a student really understands a topic. They show us what students can remember quickly, but not how they approach problems or make connections. That's why it’s so important to have a variety of assessments in the classroom. Some students might shine on a written test, while others might do better with a project or a class discussion. By mixing things up, we give every student a chance to show what they’ve really learned.
Standardization is the antithesis to education. I understand that as government workers; we need oversight. They want to make sure that we are doing our jobs, and doing them well. However, teaching isn't an exact science. There is no one way to measure a student's growth. I have plenty of kids who, at this point in the year, just getting them to talk to their peers is a huge step.
ReplyDeleteStandardize tests, like you said, put too much emphasis on things we do not do in the real world. No job is going to drop a huge packet in front of you and expect you to complete it in 90~ minutes. No job is going to have you work feverishly to complete something in a time constraint and then ask you to wait until the time is up before moving onto the next section. We are preparing kids for things they will never need in the real world.
I appreciate the school I work at, and the wider push in education, to focus on skills based education. By teaching kids and measuring their growth in skills that can apply to the real world, we both prepare them for life but also give ample opportunity for all kids to succeed. While I would love the ability to be done with standardized tests because they really serve no purpose outside of tracking us educators (because we can't be trusted) we grit our teeth and push through.
Standardized testing has inadequately condensed what we're supposed to do as teachers to an assessment that 1.) is not reflective of what anyone is expected to do in the real world as you and Wilson have mentioned. 2.) teaching of test-taking strategies can easily take precedence over content-based learning.
ReplyDeleteMy content is always in a weird liminal space since there is no real standardized testing of Spanish. There are expectations of what students should be able to complete in accordance with ACTFL's fluency rubrics and standards, but for the most part, every teacher/department is in charge of the content that they teach. However, every time "testing season" comes around I hear how frustrated my coworkers are with the whole thing.
Auditing learning using some sort of "standardized" testing is absolutely flawed as it assumes every student has had the same access to materials, beneficial student:teacher ratios, and other aspects that we cannot fully control. We're often told "do what you can" by the institutions that implement those problems in the first place with little support.
Both articles reminded me of a previous reading from my Urban Ed class: “Teaching Under the New Taylorism” by Wayne Au. This article described how scripted curricula and the push for standardized testing were the “New Taylorism.” Taylorism refers to a management style that finds the most efficient way to produce, control, and perform. Au argued that modern education was applying this same concept. This lecture really stuck with me because it made me realize how much control there is towards instruction, and how much society values a number rather than a human.
ReplyDeleteStandardized testing scores also cause “friction” between student-to-student and teacher-to-school. Within students, there’s talk of needing to reach a certain score/grade. For teachers, it signifies how well you can teach your class. I remember my IB bio teacher grabbing our stack of tests and shaking it vigorously while telling us, “the principal asked me why so many of you guys have an F in class. Why less than 5 students failed!” She was disappointed but even more devasted that she had to follow the book for this unit. For the following week, we read our student book, she read the teacher’s version, and we prepared again for the test. This approach was necessary for the school rather than our learning. Performance plays a part in the school rating, which unfortunately makes sense as to why my teacher was pushing us to do exponentially better. Similar to Au’s argument, teacher autonomy was narrowed down to the point where scripts were used to reach desired outcomes.
As you’ve mentioned standardized testing is not one size fits all. It’s more of a bland system user manual. I do think there’s value in it when it’s unique for each student. When it’s engaging and educative then it is worth measuring.
Standardized testing is a product of what education looks like now and what it’s striving to accomplish. There’s a bigger emphasis on cramming out numbers and pitting students against one another to see who has “grown” the most intellectually, when both readings explicitly tell us that there isn’t one actual way of assessing growth.
ReplyDeleteSchools and their approach to standardized testing promotes memorization and short term learning, which doesn’t benefit students in significant ways. The goal is to teach them literacy and for them to have the tools they need to take these tests, rather than just teaching them how to beat the test for an acceptable score.
The strategic content literacy assessments seem like the most appropriate way of going as far as assessments go. They’re purposeful, are generated by the teachers, with the knowledge of who their students are as learners. Another benefit is that they give teachers the ability to actually teach content, rather then divesting their time into test prep.
I agree that standardized testing is sometimes like a game where we have to learn all these strategies just to get through the test on time. In the reading by Brozo and Simpson, I was interested in reading about alternative ways to test students. This is important because many students are not good test takers, so their test scores are not a good representation of how much that student retains. There also would be many students who need extra time on the exams because they simply cannot finish the test on time due to learning disabilities. Sometimes kids with learning disabilities are undiagnosed so they don't know that they can get extra time. They just learn to race through the exam to be able to finish it.
ReplyDeleteTeachers can try to give tests that have multiple components. A written and physical part of the assessment could be based on the subject. In science, the task would be to solve problems, and the physical would be for the student to conduct an experiment that is described in the assessment, and they would answer questions based on their experiment. This would allow the students to still use important problem-solving skills while also giving a hands-on portion they can learn from differently. There are many hands-on parts in science due to laboratory work and research. Introducing this in high school would make students more prepared for college-level laboratory classes. Since standardized testing is hard for most people, this alternative way to assess the students could be more accurate.
Although I have not taught students formally I can see how prioritizing exam skills is antithetical to the goal of education. I can see how teachers can become frustrated when put in positions where their performance is determined by student test score growth as opposed to other means.
ReplyDeleteStandardized testing often misses the mark because it reduces student learning to a single score, ignoring individual strengths. While varied assessments like projects, discussions, and small check in reveal a fuller picture of the students abilities, standardized tests push students to focus on test taking tricks rather than real learning. Instead of building skills like critical thinking and problem solving, students are pressured to memorize shortcuts just for a single test. Education should be about helping students develop meaningful skills, so offering multiple assessment types allows each student to show what they truly know and can do. I do believe that standardized testing does measure some type of intelligence and should be kept, however, I believe the severity of not performing well should have the impact that it has on the students and their future.
ReplyDeleteStandardized Testing has always been a sore subject for many of my past teachers because they would preach the importance of things like the SAT but then be quick to assure that standardized tests were not defining in who we are as students. On one hand I appreciate their honesty about why and how these tests were important to us (college, etc) but I also appreciate how quick they were to remind us that these tests are inherently harmful.
ReplyDeleteThis dynamic made for a really weird balance because it became difficult to care about these exams when our own teachers were quick to point out these systematic issues within these exams, and why we shouldn't care too 'deeply' about the score when the score would in fact mean a lot. I think these tests create harmful and generally difficult dynamics in classrooms. These tests are just 'toxic' for classrooms and everyone involved, and seemingly represent a dystopian reality for many students.
With all of this being said, I don't know what the answer is when it comes to these exams. I don't think students should be taking them, but currently so much of these exams are embedded in our government-school relationship. I am unsure what a complete reform of the government funding to school pipeline should look like and how to get rid of standardized exams. I do believe they must leave though.