Standard Assessments and the Educational Gap

For Everyone

The purpose of blog post is to discuss how standardized testing is affecting elementary school curricula and administration. Various topics that will be discussed include some history of standard testing, how standardized tests affects elementary skill development, and how scores affect educators. It will also discuss the pros and cons of testing, and how it might affect the education in the future, in addition to summarizing policies and methods that schools have used to try and solve the widening educational and economic gap that standard test based curricula cause.

            Most schools create their curricula using standard state assessments as their starting base. While preparing for standard assessments is immutable, strictly teaching students how to achieve passing scores does more harm to the whole school community. In elementary school levels, teaching according to what students will see in a standardized test makes teaching simpler but limits student learning. One of the reasons is that elementary school students have a variety of needs that are not being considered when testing scores are running the curriculum. Elementary students must learn beyond what will appear on a test and must be given time to develop social, artistic, athletic, musical, and social and behavioral skills (L. Jimenez and S. Sargard, 2018).

Vine-Street School, early 1900s

A 'bit of history

            According to the National Education Association, standardized testing has transformed throughout the years from college-entrance evaluations to federal statistics and guides for major-decision making. The timeline provided by the NEA in 2020, shows most states began adopting the Iowa assessments in 1936, although it wasn’t mandated, it helped teachers monitor student progress and target areas for improvement. The NEA states that the Iowa exams were possible because of “The first automatic test scanner is developed; a rudimentary computer called the IBM 805. It remained largely unchanged (save the occasional tweak) until 2005, when the analogies are done away with and a writing section was added” (NEA, p.22). However, testing took a turn when the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act began mandating standardized testing as a means to determine funding and keeping track of districts progress. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in particular opens the way for new and increased uses of norm-referenced tests to evaluate programs.” (NEA, p.24). Based on the NEA timeline, in 2001, the testing became more rigorous with the No Child Left Behind as it used the test results for international statistics and as a guide for the implementation of new programs.  In recent years, due to community complaints and protests, the government has eased the pressure of standardized testing with Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. This alleviated the importance of standardized testing as a guide for the distribution of funds and resources, although much work needs to be done still.

Effects

            The harm of a standard based curriculum can be severe for the multifaceted development of students in elementary school. “According to Every Student Succeed Act, a well-rounded education includes arts, humanities, sciences social sciences, English, and math” (L. Jimenez and S. Sargard, p.12). School grade students need time to develop social, artistic, behavioral, and motor skills that are not evaluated through a test. Especially, students in primary grades, do not yet understand the need or importance of consciously and cautiously completing an assessment that will determine the future of the school or theirs [the students’]. Additionally, School grade children between ages 6-10 have an average attention span of 18-20 minutes (CNLD, p.4), which makes it difficult for them to efficiently complete a standard assessment. The impact of making children focus on passing scores, takes away the focus from teaching the essential kills they need to develop in these grades.

Supporting v.s. Opposing arguments

            There are ‘pros and cons’ to standardized testing, and not everyone stands against a standard based curriculum. Per law, according to the National Education Association and Congress, bills like No child left behind were created to monitor and keep track of progress to help the department of education distribute funding. Most standardized test scores are also used for targeting areas of improvement and are a measurement of success during and beyond college. Psychologist Jonathan Wai favors standardized testing in a Washington Post article saying, “standardized test scores are more objective, predictive and verifiable than any of the other criteria” (Wei, p.12). His point of view states that a standard measurement of knowledge or intelligence allows for a fair examination of all students’ progress. Moreover, Dr. Elaine Riordan says that “considerable research suggests that interventions that help students improve test scores are linked to better adult outcomes such as college attendance, higher incomes, and the avoidance of risky behaviors (Goldhaber and Özek, p.6). In other words, creating learning environments that lead to higher test scores is also likely to improve students’ long-term success in college and beyond.” (Riordan, p.3). It is clear that standardized testing provides fair examination and some aid fund distribution. Nevertheless, it does not take away the fact that over testing is hindering teacher and student performance. That goes without mentioning, the unfair distribution of funds according to test scores and progress reports, which affect already disadvantaged communities.

On the other hand, professor of education at UCLA, W. James Popham, argues that “For several important reasons, standardized achievement tests should not be used to judge the quality of education” (Popham, p. 17). Professor Popham argues that teachers should not bare full responsibility for the test results, when the student is the one taking the test. Standard testing puts a lot of pressure on teachers and administration since scores determine if they will get extra funding or not. Moreover, the student’s results will affect teachers’ evaluations, and most of the time teachers are unfairly blamed for student’s low scores.

How it Could Affect Future Teaching Practices

            While score record keeping is essential for the tracking of school educational progress, they should not be used as the main determinant of which schools will get the funding. Because, oftentimes the funds are awarded to school with the highest score that don’t necessarily need the funding as much as those districts servicing underprivileged communities. When low test scores affect a teacher’s evaluation, the teacher’s performance and efficiency might plummet. In turn, these stressors cause administration to put more pressure on teachers to get scores up and it becomes an education based on what will appear on a test. Teaching for a test, eliminates time and focus for necessary skills beyond school and contributes to the social discrepancies and ongoing injustices and inequalities. This could mean a widening achievement gap in schools servicing poor districts and schools in well-provided districts. Teachers are focusing even more on what students need to learn for the yearly assessments rather than using it as ‘what students should already know’.

Related Policies or Methods

            Many states have protested against the pressures of testing and the government did its best attempt at alleviating those stressors, but they still persist. Some states like Florida, have taken the task of substituting state assessments with progress monitoring assessments. The progress monitoring assessments require 3 tests throughout the year, one at the beginning, one at the middle, and one at the end. While this is a great attempt at finding an alternate route, it adds more pressure and workload on the administration and teachers. In turn, this new change does not aid the need for a standard inspired curriculum over a standard based curriculum. Which means, there is still much research and investigating to do in order to find a solution to standard testing that does not hinder other aspects of education, nor does it distribute funds unfairly.

Conclusion

            The current system for standard testing is taking away valuable time for essential skill development in the early school years. Additionally, it stresses teachers and administration by focusing on the fact that good scores provide more funding. Standard testing was not always this way, its main purpose was to evaluate candidates for college. However, that has changed a lot through history and is now the main data tracker for nationwide educational progress. While many people protest against the issue, many more favor testing and consider it a fair examination and progress monitoring into adulthood. In response, certain states have switched from standard testing to progress monitoring. This unsuccessful attempt is a step forward to closing education and funding gaps that affect many communities.

References

CNLD Testing and Therapy, (2023). How Long Should A Child’s Attention Span Be?. CNLD

Testing and Therapy. Accessed through: https://www.cnld.org/how-long-should-a-childs-attention-span-be/

Elaine Riordan, (2019). Do Standardized Tests Matter? Preparing Students for High-Stakes

Tests, Higher Education, and Careers. Actively Learn. Accessed through: https://www.activelylearn.com/post/standardized-tests

L. Jimenez, S. Sargard, (2018). A Well-Rounded Education. Center for American Progress.

Accessed Through: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/well-rounded-education/

National Association of Independent Schools (N.D.). Sample Cultural Identifiers. Accessed

through: https://www.nais.org/articles/pages/sample-cultural-identifiers.aspx

National Education Association (2020). The History of Standized Testing in The United States. 

Accessed through: https://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/history-standardized-testing-united-states

News Service Florida (2022).  Florida will Dump Standardized Testing in Favor of Progress

Monitoring in Public Schools. WFSU Public Media. Accessed Through: https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-03-16/florida-will-dump-standardized-tests-in-favor-of-progress-monitoring-in-public-schools

W. James Popham, (1999). Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. ASCD,

Vol. 56, No.6. Accessed through: https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/why-standardized-tests-dont-measure-educational-quality