In defense of standardized testing – are the success stories being suppressed?
We all know the reasons why standardized tests are bad. A current research report claims that we know this because the media is biased towards presenting the negative aspects of standardized testing. He claims that much of the positive research is being censored because it’s not cool to conform in these days of education reform.
I’ve downloaded the pdf for reading, but I admit I haven’t had a chance to yet. I will, and I’m sure I’ll give you my thoughts on it. 
I’m not prepared to be blown away, though, because when research shows that students perform better when standardized testing is involved, the researchers generally measure performance on the actual tests themselves, or perhaps performance on school tests/assesments.
This phenomenon is similar to the findings that the earlier you put kids in school, the better they do in school. Well, duh. They’ve had more time to acclimate to their environment, learn the system, and adjust to their teachers’ expectations. This doesn’t exactly prove that the kids are learning more or better, just that they have an advantage at the game of school. This does not speak as to whether or not the school’s assessments are valid, reliable and most importantly, meaningful. Consequently, this finding should not be used to argue that kids should start school earlier, as some politicians would like us to believe.
Yes, putting emphasis on standardized testing will eventually lead to higher standardized test scores. If schools’ funding and reputations were based on their students’ knowledge of silent movies, no doubt we’d eventually have a generation of kids quite literate in black and white cinema. Admittedly, there’s little harm in being prepared for an obscure Jeopardy! question, and being a film buff served Ken Jennings rather well. But, are we making the most of our resources this way? The cause and effect is the easy part of the equation. The important part is what we’re actually testing for.
Using results of school tests to judge how standardized tests have “improved education” is similarly problematic. It’s not quite as obvious as the fallacy of using the standardized tests themselves to show that standardized tests improve education, but it’s pretty much the same argument. As standardized tests become more common in and more important to the schools, the regular school curriculum and teaching methods change to reflect the standardized tests. Regular schooling, therefore, becomes more and more like test prep. So, going to school might as well be considered studying for the standardized tests. School assessments, therefore, are not separate, objective measures of learning.
I’m wondering whether Phelps’ argument will be similar to the one above, or whether he actually has some good news to share with us about standardized testing that makes it valuable in its own right when it comes to education. I’ll let you know when I find out!
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader. If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out "starter kit" of articles. Then, click on the pages, posts or categories on the right that interest you for much more information about home school university admissions in Ontario and Canada.
Comments
Hmm.. you gave me pause to think here, and reread my post, Mark, because I didn’t actually think I weighed in one way or the other on the act of “teaching to the test” itself. Rather, I was condemning the logic employed to defend standardized testing.
I guess what I was trying to get across was that as the school curriculum more closely mirrors standardized test content, it becomes increasingly difficult to use school test scores as independent, objective measures with which to evaluate the effect of the mere existence of standardized tests. In many cases, the two naturally converge. I didn’t think I said that I thought this was inherently “evil” — just that it’s misleading to ignore the natural dependencies created. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one that exists in my mind. . . if only my mind. 
So can we condemn every case of teaching to the test? No. Can we condemn the *argument* that having standardized tests raises performance in schools, therefore standardized tests are good? Yes, I think as a reasoned argument, it leaves a little to be desired. If school tests gradually develop into the same tests as the standardized ones, then of course kids who study for one are going to do better on the other. That’s not a compelling *argument.*
A compelling argument would have to, as you did, address the quality of these assessments and what they represent. Many so-called arguments in favour of standardized testing don’t go that extra step, which is to say, to demonstrate that the assessments themselves are valid, meaningful and all that good stuff. I personally don’t think it’s good enough to say, “See — school-issued assessments are higher; therefore, standardized testing is a good thing.” *That* is what I have a problem with.
Hello, Sarah,
I see we both enjoy thinking about standardized testing!
Here’s an idea: Teaching to the Test is not inherently evil, as long as the test is a good tool to assess something important.
Here in the US, more and more parents of talented kids are demanding that their kids take Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses. The thought is that the rigor of the courses is tied to the rigor of the examinations, and that excellent performance on those tests really does indicate a student’s knowledge and skills related to the academic discipline involved.
I have no problem with the thought that my kids’ teachers might be “teaching to the test” in these courses, because I believe in the value of the test results. And they can’t pass these exams solely by memorization, for each demands essays and interpretation of the information that goes beyond the bubble sheets.
My point is that we cannot necessarily condemn every case of “teaching to the test.” We can question the value of the test itself. We can try to redesign better tests. But assessments of any kind must mean something. If thee assessment is good, why not recalibrate instruction to ensure success on the assessment?
Thanks for the conversation.
Mark