Burgess 1

Lauren Burgess

Tyler Evans

English 102-073

5 April 2016

Judging a Fish to Climb a Tree: is Standardized Testing an Accurate Mile-Marker in Student Progress?

As students go through grade school, there are many different ways they are assessed and

analyzed to determine their academic achievements throughout the years. These measurements

are vital in determining student progress, and they also help teachers and administrative staff

assess if a child is ready to progress to the next grade level, or if they are ready to go to college.

As standardized tests have become more popular throughout the years, they have also raised

many questions in the education community and with parents. Many wonder if some testing is

too strenuous or if it is even legitimized. Standardized testing has become a great determining

factor for many students as they try to progress in their education and that puts great concern into

this debate. Many question how far is too far when a child exceeds in all other aspects of the

classroom including informal and authentic testing. Other forms of testing like traditional or

formal include standardized testing, and these forms of testing minimize teacher focus on the

student but rather student test scores and have proven to be unfairly biased toward upper-class

males preventing minority success. Also standardized testing overall assess a minimal amount of

skills instead of assessing the child as a whole and lastly they greatly increased student stress.

One of the biggest concerns with standardized testing is the relationship between teachers

and students. Many teachers see standardized testing as a threat to their jobs, and therefore they

spend copious amounts of time teaching students to pass these exams rather than learning

material that makes them well-rounded students. Alfie Kohn, the author of The case against
 Burgess 2

standardized testing: raising the scores, ruining the schools, states high-stakes testing may turn

teachers against students, and later continues about how A superintendent in Florida observed

that when a low-performing child walks into a classroom, instead of being seen as a challenge,

or an opportunity for improvement, for the first time since Ive been in education, teachers are

seeing [him or her] as a liability (18). If educators resent their students because they are falling

behind, the student-teacher interaction will most likely become negative, completely demeaning

their students and how they feel about themselves. Kohn emphasizes that If educators resent

children who are likely, for one reason or another, to perform poorly, they cannot establish the

nurturing relationship with those children (The case against standardized testing 18). Student

and teacher interaction is very important for the progress and well-being of a student as a whole,

so when resentment arises, the relationship is compromised. Student teacher relationships are

also compromised when the weakest teachers were given a system they could readily conform

(The case against standardized testing 16) says Linda McNeil of Rice University, the Director

for the Center of Education. McNeils comment lies within Kohns article with the intent of

saying that weaker teachers have learned how to work the system of standardized testing, so

essentially they are keeping their jobs when really they fail other aspects of teaching like their

one-on-one relationship with a student and their personal progress. Teachers are coaching

elementary level students on how to succeed on state or national issued tests in order to simply

keep their jobs, rather than being an effective teacher and helping the student become well

rounded in all aspects of the classroom. Teachers teach what the tests are looking for, and

standardized tests cant measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking,

curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of

other valuable dispositions and attributes (Kohn, The case of standardized testing 11)
 Burgess 3

Therefore, when teachers neglect the aspects that make students well-rounded, they fail to do

their job, but yet they are recognized for excelling on exams, ultimately compromising the

students education. Finally, Kohn believes high-stakes testing can lead to widespread cheating

(The case against standardized testing 18). In essence, he believes this because teachers feel

the pressure from state officials to have certain percentages of their students succeed, so they

belittle themselves and their students to cheating. Reports of such behavior always elicit

condemnation of the individuals involved but rarely lead people to rethink the pressures

attendant on high-stakes testing, (Kohn, The case against standardized testing 18) so

essentially standardized testing directly impacts the teachers and the pressures they face to make

sure their kids pass examinations. When students become aware of the cheating, this can result in

one of two things: first, the student feels shame in not being good enough, and second, the

student might see cheating as acceptable because if their teacher can do it, then they can too. This

negative affect from testing compromises how teachers ultimately feel and react toward their

students which in turn deteriorates the very important relationship of trust that students must

have with their teachers.

Relationships are not the only thing that prevents a child from progressing their

education, but their backgrounds can too. The difference between minority scores and upper

class male scores is extremely noticeable when standardized tests are compared side-by-side.

According to Monty Neill and Noe J. Medina, authors of Standardized Testing: Harmful to

Educational Health, write Researchers have identified several characteristics of standardized

tests that could negatively bias the scores of minority students and of students from low-income

families (691). After these biases are identified, they recognized who these tests actually favor:

These tests tend to reflect the language, culture, or learning styles of middle- to upper-class
 Burgess 4

whites (Medina, Neill 691). Because these tests reflect one culture, they therefore neglect the

numerous cultures that exist in the United States: stylized English commonly used in

standardized tests prevents such tests from accurately measuring the achievement, ability, or

skills of students who speak nonstandard (e.g., African-American, Hispanic, southern,

Appalachian, working class) dialects (Monty, Neill 692). The language used is not only biased

against foreign culture, but it is also biased against actual cultures that are rooted in the United

States, especially the most prominent class in America: the working class. Monty and Neill give

an example: African-American students often associate the word environment with terms such

as home or people, while white students tend to associate that word with air, clean, or earth

(692) and they further state that neither definition is wrong, but only one of these definitions will

be accepted: particularly the one reflecting the white male perspective. Asking questions like the

one previously stated obviously shows biases because it accepts definitions based on those who

wrote the exams which happen to be upper-class white male professors or educators. When

students answer these types of questions in context of their culture, they can receive little to no

credit. Students tend to perform better on tests when they identify with topics covered by the

test itemsUnfortunately, standardized tests continue to be dominated by questions about and

for middle- or upper-class white males (Monty, Neill 692) So, what the authors are stating is

that what children learn in their classrooms is not wrong, but in the case of these tests and the

particular answers that the exams are looking for, they are wrong. Alfie Kohn, author of

Standardized Testing and Its Victims, agrees with Monty and Neill emphasizing how critics

have complained that many standardized tests are unfair because the questions require a set of

knowledge and skills more likely to be possess by children from a privileged background (3)
 Burgess 5

essentially concluding that tests do contain biases that penalize students of other backgrounds

and assess skills that do not reveal accuracies of our current society.

In addition to the tests benefitting upper-class males, there are claims that standardized

tests are not actually testing students on important or necessary material. Based on much

research, testing does not actually reflect student progress, but rather it simply identifies students

according to the outcomes of their answers (Weaver 11). Keshia Weaver, author of Standardized

Testing Measuring the Academic Success of Students presents her analysis of these studies:

But these studies strongly suggest that standardized tests fail to measure the qualities that are

truly important, reward the ability to adopt a superficial style of thinking, and may in fact

penalize many of the candidates with the deepest minds (7). Oklahoma State Universitys

provost, Bob Sternberg, speaks openly in his lecture, None of the Above Why Standardized

Testing Fails: Bob Sternberg at TEDxOStateU, about his experiences and how standardized

testing does not widely fit the skills needed in present day society: The skills you need to

survive today are just much broader than the skills you needed to survive in the 1800s (n.p.).

Sternberg emphasizes how standardized tests do not account for creativity, adaptability, and

accountability that is needed to be successful in todays society: you not only need the

memory and analytical skills that are so important on those tests, you also need to be creative,

you need to be able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment in a creative and flexible way

(n.p.). Scholars continue to find evidence supporting how tests do assess skills that are necessary,

like memorization and problem solving, but the fact that tests do not cover a wide set of skills

like communication between potential coworkers, the ability to physically fix something broken,

or any other everyday working skill magnifies the fact that standardized tests should not be

considered a major mile-maker in student progress, but rather it should be considered equal with
 Burgess 6

other forms of assessment. Dawn Camacho and Vickie Cook, authors of Standardized Testing:

Does it Measure Student Preparation of College & Work? conclude that Instruction must go

beyond procedural knowledge and focus on conceptual knowledge so that students are able to

demonstrate their learning on a wide scope of standards because they have been taught how to

think and problem solve (11). They confirm that there is more to a student than just assessing

procedural knowledge, but in fact, a wide range of material that is vital to success is missing

from standardized testing.

Student confidence is also vital to succeed on standardized tests, but student stress greatly

impacts how well they do on a standardized tests like state issued exams or national issued tests

like the American College Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The emotional cost

of high stakes testing causes anxiety and stress for students. It is physically exhausting says

Jacky Boyd, a blogger for the Badass Teachers Association. Boyd also believes that adding the

negative emotions associated with poor performance enhances the negative views of having to

take these tests, and though she states teens can own responsibility for failure, Kindergarteners

cannot (n.p.) a very important idea that should be recognized when states implement testing

from Common Core criteria. Common Core is widely known for testing children at all age

levels, all over the nation to make sure each child is on the same level before progressing to the

next grade level. This can be very damaging for young students because if they have passed each

grade without an issue, and then suddenly they are being tested on a national level, they can

easily fail, and therefore the results can be damaging to their emotional well-being and how they

perceive themselves. With all the stress teachers and administrators are under it would be

unreasonable to think it does not rub off on the students as well. Some schools go as far as

putting up a visual aid to show where their students fall compared to classmates (Reddell 3) Not
 Burgess 7

only do teachers feel the heat of testing, but students feel the second hand effect, and when they

are openly compared to others This allows the students to see which of their classmates are

proficient, which can be embarrassing for students who fall below a given line (Reddell 3).

Samantha Reddell then automatically comes to the conclusion that a single test can affect a

students entire educational career because this publication of their tests can detriment their self-

esteem.

While recognizing yet another flaw with standardized testing, there are pros that do exist

behind some of the ideas that come with standardized tests. The idea that the country has

something to compare students from California all the way to South Carolina with when it comes

to their knowledge and ability to actually sit down and take a test, are beneficial to the nation so

that they can see the progress of the nation as a whole. Standardized tests allow alignment of all

states and the expectation of their students. Samantha Reddell, author of High Stakes Testing:

Our Children at Risk, points out exactly what testing does: Testing in schools is used in a wide

variety of ways: placing children into learning groups, ranking schools amongst others in the

region, state, and nation, and creating a visual for where our nation as a whole is heading (2).

She openly points out what testing does for our schools, and it is easy to conclude that testing is

obviously beneficial, but According to researchers, the best practices for the use of assessment

tools are to focus on the alignment of standards, assessments, and curriculum (Camacho, Cook

11) emphasizes that, yes, alignment between how students are measured nationwide is the best

practice for the use of assessment, but educators must understand the constructs of a test to

support thinking and learning (Camacho, Cook 10). Educators need to understand the meaning

behind questions on tests, and why they are important or beneficial to the students assessment. A

problem that currently exists is our educators are not aware of the intent behind standardized test
 Burgess 8

questions and how they accurately reflect a specific type of student (upper class males), rather,

they assume these tests are there as a measurement of their ability to teacher what is on state or

national tests. Robert E. Stake, author of The Teacher, Standardized Testing, and Prospects of

Revolution, recognizes the reform that is needed to take place in the classrooms but points out

that Research shows that it is a mistake to design a revolution in American schools around a

national testing program (247). SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) and ACT (American College

Testing) argue that their testing is important because it is used to accurately predict a college

students first semester grade point average and most of these studies do confirm that both tests

are equally capable of predicting college grade point averages (Aleamoni 393). Yes, the fact that

these tests have the ability to predict grade point averages for incoming college freshman is a

very helpful tool, but it does not solve the issue that these two major tests can actually prevent a

student from reaching their dream college or a college that is truly the best fit for them. Many

schools, like the Ivey Leagues or even Clemson University, have denied students that have

excelled academically in the classroom because they did not meet the standard average of their

accepted students ACT or SAT scores. These average ACT and SAT scores are something

colleges have created on their own by only accepting students with above average scores. So

basically these schools are telling students to throw away all of their hard work in the classroom,

because without a high test score, they are not good enough.

The simple idea that a child is not good enough because a standardized test has so much

meaning behind their overall academic success is completely absurd. Standardized tests diminish

many teachers performance in the classroom because their jobs are on the line over a simple test.

These tests are bias[ed] to hard working students who come from any background or culture

besides that of a white, upper class male student, and in turn questions are not analyzed and
 Burgess 9

answered to the standard of the county, state, or nation. Because these tests are bias[ed], on what

ground is the material that is used for testing accurate? The answer to that is the fact that tests

only analyze a small portion of what a student has to offer intellectually and physically and

therefore, material that is actually on the tests shows little about how the student has grown and

progressed during their academic year. The stress on students to perform their years worth of

knowledge on a four hour exam is unfair and potentially belittling when being compared to

others. It is easily concluded that standardized testing should not be a major mile marker in

student success, but rather it should be reevaluated because it is an unfair representation of a

student as a whole.
 Burgess 10

Works Cited

Aleamoni, Lawrence M. ACT Versus SAT in Predicting First Semester GPA. (n.d.): n. pag.

SAGE Journals. Web 31 Mar. 2016.

Beach, Richard W.. Comments on Porter, Mcmaken, Hwang, and Yang: Issues in Analyzing

Alignment of Language Arts Common Core Standards with State

Standards. Educational Researcher 40.4 (2011): 179182. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Boyd, Jacky. "The Woes of Standardized Testing - Crunchy Moms." Crunchy Moms. Crunchy

Moms LLC, 19 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

Camacho, Dawn, and Vickie Cook. Standardized Testing: Does It Measure Student Preparation

For College & Work?. Online Submission (2007): ERIC. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

Kohn, Alfie. "Standardized Testing and Its Victims."(2000): 1-6. Education Week. Editorial

Projects in Education, 27 Sept. 2000. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

Kohn, Alfie. The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2000. 19 Jan. 2016.

McNeal, Kelly, and Salika Lawrence. Teachers From The Neighborhood: Standardized

Testing As a Barrier To Certification Of Minority Candidates. Online Yearbook Of

Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research (2009): 1-12. ERIC. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

Neill, D. Monty, and Noe J. Medina. Standardized Testing: Harmful to Educational

Health. The Phi Delta Kappan 70.9 (1989): 688697. Web. 2 Jan. 2016.

Reddell, Samantha. High Stakes Testing: Our Children At Risk. Online Submission (2010):

ERIC. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

Sproull, Lee, and David Zubrow. Standardized Testing from the Administrative

Perspective. The Phi Delta Kappan 62.9 (1981): 628631. Web. 19 Jan. 2016.
 Burgess 11

Stake, Robert E. The Teacher, Standardized Testing, and Prospects of Revolution. The Phi

Delta Kappan 73.3 (1991): 243-47. JSTOR. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

Sternberg, Bob. None of the Above Why Standardized Testing Fails. TED Talk.4 December

2012. 28 Feb. 2016.

Weaver, Keshia. Standardized Testing: Measurement Of Academic Achievement. Online

Submission (2011): ERIC. Web. 3 March 2016.