Testing, standardized

From WikEd

1 Descriptions, definitions, synonyms, organizer terms, types of
2 Application in classrooms and similar settings
3 Evidence of effectiveness
4 Critics and their rationale
5 Alternative explanations due to Diversity considerations
6 Signed "life experiences", testimonies and stories
7 References and other links of interest

[edit] Descriptions, definitions, synonyms, organizer terms, types of

What is Standardized testing?

Standardized tests are tools designed to allow measure of student performance relative to all others taking the same test.

History of Standardized Testing

In 1909, the Thorndike Handwriting Scale was the first popular standardized achievement test used in public schools. Soon after, a wide array of tests followed. By the 1930's, most schools in the United States and Canada were using some form of standardized testing. However, in these days, "the results were hardly ever discussed, parents didn't receive the scores, and school-wide results were not grist for local newspapers"(Perrone, 1991). Now, the scores are used to decide how well a school, teacher, and student are performing, as well as a sales pitch for real estate agents to use to new home owners. Since the 1950's where a student would have graduated from high school taking probably three standardized tests to the present where kids take between 18-21 tests, it is easy to believe that the "volume of testing has an annual growth rate of 10-20 percent"(Perrone, 1991). Prior to 1965, standardized tests were not used in early grades, because these were years of growth and development. However, after 1965, standardized tests were exploding everywhere, with no regard on the age of the student. There were many new federal and state funds available for schools, and "standardized tests were seen as the most inexpensive and easy-to-use measures for meeting the requirements"(Perrone, 1991). By the 1980's sixteen states and districts in 21 others now required children to take a standardized test before entering kindergarten and districs in at least 42 states require students to pass a standardized test before "graduating" from kindergarten(Perrone, 1991). These tests are more screening tools for schools to let parents know that they need to wait another year, or that their child should repeat kindergarten. "Although scant eveidence exists that such early screening is beneficial for either children or schools, it has, nonetheless, become almost universal"(Perrone, 1991). Over the past decades, standardized tests have expanded their purposes. For example, how well a child does on a specific test could determine what math program they are accepted in, if they will be placed in the gifted program, or if they are available for special services. Standardized tests also determine a student's academic level. "They become the basis for early tracking then ongoing tracking, reflecting the belief that homogeneous achievement groups facilitate more efficient and effective teaching and learning"(Perrone, 1991).

Types of Standardized Testing

There are two types of standardized tests: Norm-referenced and Criterion referenced. Norm-referenced testing measures performance relative to all other students taking the same test. The Iowa Test Basic Skills Tests is a standardized tests that measures all students to the same standards. It lets you know how well a student did compared to the rest of the testing population. For example, if a student is ranked in the 86th percentile, that means he/she did better than 86 percent of others who took the test. This type of testing is the most common found among standardized testing. Criterion referenced testing measures factual knowledge of a defined body of material. Multiple-choice tests that people take to get their license or a test in fractions are both examples of this type of testing.

In addition to the two main categories of standardized tests, these tests can be divided even further into performance tests or aptitude tests. Performance tests are assessments of what learning has already occured in a particular subject area, while aptitude tests are assessments of abilities or skills considered important to future success in school.(http://www.worknwoman.com/articles/st_testing2.shtml, retrieved on October 20, 2005)

Examples of Standardized Tests

Iowa Test of Basic Skills ( http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/itbs/)

California Achievement Tests (http://www.ctb.com/products/product_summary.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474395220077&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395213825&bmUID=1132708967659)

Terra Nova (http://titlev.adams.edu/Outreach/TerraNovaTable.htm)

ACT (http://www.act.org/)

SAT (http://www.collegeboard.com/splash)

[edit] Application in classrooms and similar settings

"In theory, test scores looked at over time will reveal how much progress schools have made in their efforts to maintain or raise academic standards. They are used to assess programs success or failure in connection to the students' learning. Standardized tests are intended to help a teacher, school, or district make decisions on what is working in the classroom, how to improve the education, and/or how to help a specific student.

"At best, standardized tests offer a snapshot of performance relative to other students/schools or to a set body of factual knowledge. Test scores can be skewed by a number of factors: Test design Test conditions Student preparation Scoring Accuracy of test content Student disabilities or special needs Student readiness on the day of the test (http://www.worknwoman.com/articles/st_testing2.shtml, retrieved on October 20, 2005)

However, standardized test scores should not be the only thing a teacher, school, district, or school should look at when making a decision about programs or students. Other areas of consideration should be: Observations in the classroom Evaluation of day-to-day class work Homework assignments Meetings with parents Observation of stuent change and growth throughout the year.

[edit] Evidence of effectiveness

One major advantage of standardized testing is that most testing companies will report departmental results in relation to national norms. As a result, academic departments will be able to compare their student's scores to other students in that particular area at other schools.

[edit] Critics and their rationale

Alfie Kohn is a critc of standardized testing. Kohn argues that standardized testing does more harm than good, they are turning American schools into test prep centers, and they are not a good measure of student or teaching quality. In his article 'High-Stakes Testing as Educational Ethnic Cleansing' (The Education Digest v66 13-18. 2000.) Kohn details several arguments against standardized testing:

1. "From an international perspective, few countries use standardized tests for children below high school age--or multiple- choice tests for students of any age."

2. "Noninstructional factors explain most variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared. A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that four such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty rate) accounted for 89% of differences in state scores"

3. "Norm-referenced tests were never intended to measure quality of learning or teaching.... 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."

4. "High scores on both CTBS and MAT were more likely to be found among students who exhibited the superficial approach to learning. Similar findings emerged from studies of middle schoolers (also using the CTBS) and high schoolers (using the other SAT, the college- admission exam).... As a rule, it appears that standardized-test results are positively correlated with a shallow approach to learning.

5. "The time, energy, and money devoted to preparing students for standardized tests have to come from somewhere. Schools across the country are cutting back or even eliminating programs in the arts, recess for young children, electives for high schoolers, class meetings (and other activities intended to promote social and moral learning), discussions about current events (since they won't be on the test), the use of literature in early grades (if the tests are focused narrowly on decoding skills), and entire subject areas such as science (if the tests cover only language arts and math)."

No test is good enough to serve as the sole or primary basis for important educational decisions. Readiness tests, used to determine if a child is ready for school, are very inaccurate and encourage the use of overly academic, developmentally inappropriate primary schooling (that is, schooling not appropriate to the child's emotional, social or intellectual development and to the variation in children's development). Screening tests for disabilities are often not adequately validated; that is, it is not proven that they are accurately measuring for disabilities. They also promote a view of children as having deficits to be corrected, rather than having individual differences and strengths on which to build. While screening tests are supposed to be used to refer children for further diagnosis, they often are used to place children in special programs. Tracking hurts slower students and mostly does not help more advanced students. Retention in grade, or flunking or leaving a student back, is almost always academically and emotionally harmful, not helpful. Test content is a very poor basis for determining curriculum content, and teaching methods based on the test are themselves harmful.

So many teachers cheat on tests. Recently, in Illinois, shocking evidence was found that the extent of teachers helping students to cheat on standardized tests is far beyond what most people ever believed. However, gaging the actual amount and types of cheating is very difficult. Cheating can range from providing extra time on a test to reviewing specific questions ahead of time to even changing incorret answers in a systematic or unsystematic way. (Levitt, S and Dubner, S. 26-28) High stakes testing (linked with the No Child Left Behind initiative) provides monetary incentives for teachers to have their student perform well. (Levitt, S and Dubner, S. 27)In many schools where teachers have low pay and are provided with any true resources to actually help students learn more, some teachers feel as if the system is against them and their students and that they have no other choice. The Chicago Public School system recently conducted a purely analytical data analysis of performance changes in testing, highlighting oddities or standouts for particular teachers or patterns in answers that indicate cheating. This was scientifically analyzed and it was found that there was cheating in 200 classrooms per year or about five percent. (Levitt, S. and Dubner, S. 34) The superintendent reteste 120 of the classrooms and found that the science was correct; He began to lay off those teachers. (Levitt, S. and Dubner, S. 36-37)

[edit] Alternative explanations due to Diversity considerations

[edit] Signed "life experiences", testimonies and stories

My first exposure to standardized testing as a teacher came during my student teaching. I came unglued when I saw the pretty pictures that the kids were drawing with the bubbles!! And then, when I sat down and talked to the teachers I really flipped out - if this is how they are going to measure my ability to teach, then there are some big problems. I don't think students understand the results of their playing around, and if they do, I'm even more worried than before! Dheater

I am a third grade teacher, so state testing is a reality for me. I give practice tests and talk about strategies in the weeks leading up to the test. Once testing time is there, I really de-emphasize the importance, and just ask that they do their very best. I allow them to chew gum, give them special pencils, and then we have some fun activities that follow the tests each day. These tests are only testing the way a student is doing on one particular day. I don't stress about them too much, and I try not to stress my students out. -NMF

I think it is impossible to avoid the reality of standardized testing given that our current school system has been set up to rely on them, and NCLB is based on them. Regardless, we need to make sure that NCLB doesn't drive us to ignore all other measures of student learning. Standardized tests aren't innately evil, but using them as the sole determinent of a school's success, or a student's learning is. -G. Johnson

A number of testimonies about standardize testing by educators and administrators can be found at: PBS-Frontline: Testing our Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/testing/theme.html

I find it quite disturbing that such a high emphasis and value is placed on standardized tests for children. Teachers are expected to differentiate tests depending upon a student's ability level based on best practice, and yet a few weeks out of the year, teachers have to stop teaching and give the same exact test to every student in his/her classroom. It is also a bit ridiculous to me that such tests are usually given when only two-thirds of the school year has gone by, and yet the tests are assessing everything the child is expected to know by the end of that year. Where is the fairness in that? The standarized test only demonstrates a child's performance on a product for a single day. Where is the test to measure the process that child went through to reach that performance? Finally, I find it interesting that we seem to be confused about whether we want to be a nation consisting of unique individuals who grow at different rates and learn from our own experiences or if we want to be a nation where everyone must learn at the same rate and at the same time. The standardized test seems to demonstrate the belief in the later. If such is the case, then I suppose a child who is eight or nine months younger than his/her peers in the same class might need to work extra hard throughout their school years in order to keep up with their classmates. After all, the classmates have eight or nine more months of life experiences compared to the younger child. It is unfortunate that standardized tests do not take this factor into account. -Tricia Pearl

We must remember that standardized assessments are only one measure of children's knowledge and abilities. I do feel that standardized tests have a role in our educational system. We can learn valuable things from standardized test, however they cannot stand alone. We must place just as much emphasis on other forms of assessment. I understand that other forms of assessment are not as easily comparable, but they are usually more informative. We must not look at a child's ability to take a test as the limit to the child's ability. --Amanda P.

Standardized testing does have its value, it is important to remember that it is not all inclusive. I can't help but wonder, if teachers taught the learning standards and didn't worry about teaching to the test if students would do just as well on the test. I realize some school districts don't allow much choice for the teachers. All-in-all, I feel that the reliance on standardized tests is over stated. M. Youngblood

I think it is really important for schools to align their curriculums to the standards and teach these from the beginning of the year. Students should not have to constantly take practice tests to prepare for standarized tests. They need to know the format, but they should simply be learning the information all year and not have to cram in the few weeks before. I think many schools are trying to do this, but it needs to be done more effectively. E. Kilroy