3/31/15
Red Group
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Standardized testing is perhaps the one aspect of the American education system
despised almost as vehemently by teachers as it is by students, and for good reason. Although it
began with good intentions of improving education and ensuring equal opportunity for children,
standardized testing has many grievous flaws which render it more harmful than beneficial. As it is
not an accurate measure of intelligence or achievement, it takes away valuable learning time, it
fosters a curriculum which teaches nothing of real life applicability, and it is harmful to students and
to the learning environment, the United States Department of Education must end high-stakes
standardized testing.
High-stakes standardized testing is a relatively new phenomenon, for which widespread support began with the Reagan administration's A Nation at Risk, published in nineteen
eighty-three (Wetzel). A Nation at Risk discussed the "mediocre educational performance" of
American schools and the fact that "our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost
sight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed
to attain them" (United States). The report "[sought] to generate reform of our educational system in
fundamental ways" (United States) In Wetzel's words, A Nation at Risk was "a report that pushed
for more exams as the answer to education's shortcomings," and was responsible for the United
States' "nearly uninterrupted support for widespread testing," a feeling which was federally
reinforced nineteen years later, when the Bush administration reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) under the name No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB's mission
statement declared that it aimed "to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and
choice, so that no child is left behind" (United States). This sounds like an admirable goal; however,
as standardized testing "creates a mythical standard or norm which requires that a certain
percentage of children fail," it is also one which is inherently flawed (Armstrong, 117).
The Obama administration has made attempts to remake the system that calls for highstakes standardized testing but not, as is necessary, to end it. The administration's blueprint for
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
reform of the ESEA discusses diverse learning and a so-called complete education, but not in full
and not the ways in which these are harmed by high-stakes standardized testing. The proposal
regarding diverse learning discusses, as it should, children whose situations make school a
challenge for them, such as English learners, migrant and homeless students, and students with
disabilities. It does not, however, seem to take into account the fact that all children, regardless of
circumstance, have different strengths, struggles, interests, intelligences, and learning styles, as is
discussed below. The blueprint's discussion of a complete education is lacking as well; although it
mentions subjects such as history, foreign languages, and the arts, it focuses only on literacy and
STEM subjects, the two subjects most tested on standardized tests. Suggestions made as to how to
strengthen the former are as vague as "provide competitive grants. Although this is the same
suggestion as is made for the latter subjects, much more space is devoted to the specifics of the
latter. It is clear from these proposals that the Obama administration means well for the nation's
students and wants what it thinks is best for them, but does not actually know anything about
students or the harmful effects of the standardized system on them.
High-stakes standardized testing reinforces harmful ideas about intelligence in parents,
teachers, and students alike. The standards demanded by such tests, and the severe consequences of
not meeting them, create in schools a climate which stresses reading, writing, and math above all
else. This same climate punishes and labels 'unintelligent' children who do not excel in these areas,
regardless of their other abilities. If one looks at the theory of Multiple Intelligences and overlays
the institution of standardized testing, one can see that testing is not likely to be an accurate measure
of intelligence or achievement for any given child.
The theory of Multiple Intelligences, or MI theory, developed by Dr. Howard Gardner in
1983, suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence...is far too limited(Armstrong). MI theory
proposes instead eight different intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodilykinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and natural. Though there is hardly space in a
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
single paper to discuss in depth the intelligences identified by Gardner, it is important to note that
our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic and logical-mathematical
intelligence (Armstrong). The heavy emphasis placed on "only what is tested on an exam" in
students' curricula is detrimental to those who are not [linguistically or logically-mathematically
intelligent] (Armstrong, 117) (Wise). This can be seen as early as elementary school: all students
spend multiple hours a day on reading and math, as opposed to forty-five minutes a week on art,
gym, or music. In high school, English and math classes are required courses in all four years, while
physical education, fine arts, and social studies classes are considered electives. A survey
conducted by the Center on Education Policy found that, after the institution of standardized tests
under No Child Left Behind, "71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the
hours of instructional time spent on history, music[,] and other subjects to open up more time for
reading and math" (Dillon). In Thomas Armstrong's book Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom,
Armstrong criticizes the standardized education system, and the standardized test in particular, as
"treat[ing] all students in a uniform way rather than as unique human beings, and this insistence
that every student study hard and perform well in English and math only confirms his criticism. In
short, the relationship between MI theory, student individuality, and the flaws of standardized
testing can best be summed up in a quote by physicist Albert Einstein: if you judge a fish by its
ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
The most direct way to solve the problem of high-stakes standardized testing is, of
course, to end it; however, there are several obstacles in the way of achieving this. One cannot be
sure which of these obstacles has the Department of Education convinced that standardized testing
is a necessity. It is certain, however, that were these obstacles identified and removed, the ending of
standardized testing would be a much more achievable goal. There are two obstacles in particular
which the author of this paper suspects to be major roadblocks to the end of standardized testing:
teacher accountability and the assessment of progress.
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
all methods of authentic assessment, the portfolio includes higher order thinking skills, puts
[emphasis] on [students'] strengths, and examines students in unobtrusive ways (Armstrong,
117-118). The portfolio is already used as a way of measuring progress in many classes and
programs, including in Montgomery Blair High School's own Communication Arts Program. Its
fairly widespread use can be attributed to its convenience and authenticity. If the DoE were willing
to adopt portfolios as its method of measuring progress, then there would be no significant obstacles
between current circumstances and the abolition of the high-stakes standardized test.
The consequences of high-stakes standardized testing are already visible in students'
educational experiences. As was discussed earlier, curricula are being narrowed in order to devote
more time to the subjects tested on standardized tests. The intense focus on these subjects, however
in no way prepares students for the real world. Dr. Thomas Armstrong provides perhaps one of the
most accurate criticisms of standardized testing and the standardized system when he says that it is
generally limited to reading, listening, and marking on a piece of paper, whereas authentic
assessment and the authentic system [involve] creating, interviewing, demonstrating, solving
problems...and engaging in many other active learning tasks (117). The latter is obviously a much
better sample of the kinds of things one is required to do as an adult. Even when the subject matter
taught for standardized tests is relevant, the ways in which it is taught and applied are not, and the
same subject matter could be taught in a more applicable way under an authentic system.
Standardized tests and the consequent system rear students for whom eighteen years of a so-called
'quality education' has not in any way prepared them for adult life.
Standardized testing is hated by students and teachers alike, and for good reason.
Despite its good intentions, it is an institution too heavily flawed to be fixed without being torn
down completely. High-stakes standardized testing is not an accurate measure of intelligence or
achievement, takes away valuable learning time, and has no real life applicability. For all of these
reasons, the Department of Education must put an end to it once and for all.
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Works Cited
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Annotations
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Mueller, Jon, ed. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Jon Mueller, 2014. Web. 29 Mar.
2015. Mueller's website offers an introduction to authentic assessment. In
a straightforward and highly informative style, he provides information
such as what authentic assessment is, why it's used, and how it's done.
Workshops are also provided on the website for educators interested in
authentic assessment.
The website's content is thorough and well-organized, and the layout and
design are such that they do not distract from that content. Like
Wikipedia, each section of the content has a clearly labeled subsection
linked to the top of the page, so that one can find what one is looking for
without having to skim everything.
As implied in the description of the workshops above, this website would
be of most use to educators interested in trying out authentic
assessment; however, its sections 'What is it?' and 'Why do it?' are
valuable for anyone who desires thorough information about authentic
assessment.
Nelson, Howard. Testing More, Teaching Less: What America's Obsession with
Student Testing Costs in Money and Lost Instructional Time. N.p.: American
Federation of Teachers, 2013. Print. Nelson's pamphlet provides, among
other things, facts and statistics regarding the costs of standardized
testing. The pamphlet addresses many aspects of the aforementioned costs of
time and money, specifically in respect to to its two case study "mid-size
urban school districts", which it uses to draw conclusions about national
losses due to standardized testing.
The pamphlet is well organized. Though the information is perhaps overly
thorough, titles and subtitles make it easy to find what one is looking for
without having to read the whole thing. Charts and graphs are effectively
used to enhance the reader's understanding of the content.
As it was published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), much of
the information presented in this brochure is of interest only to
educators; however, the charts and graphs in particular offer important
statistics about the costs of standardized testing. For anyone interested
in doing further research, the pamphlet contains a list of references at
the back.
Ravitch, Diane. "The Teacher Accountability Debate." Bank Street College of
Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. Ravitch's article explores and
deconstructs the assumptions upon which support for teacher accountability
is based. Ratvich provides first a brief description of the allure of
accountability, and then delves in to all the flaws in its logic. She
offers readers a strong opinion, but backs it with equally strong
reasoning.
The article comes from a reliable (.edu) source, and the author's
credentials are firm. It is also well organized- the main content of the
article is divided into five sections, each deconstructing a different
assumption about teacher accountability.
This article could be used for further research by anyone specifically
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group
MSA.
Wetzel, Bill. "No More Tests!" Mothering Nov.-Dec. 2002: 68-71. SIRS Researcher.
Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Wetzel's article details the idea of learning without
testing as a better educational system than the one currently in place. The
article offers a brief history of both high-stakes standardized testing and
the movement against it, as well as a vision of what could be achieved in
the absence of high-stakes testing. "5 Ways to take Action" in the
protesting of high-stakes testing are also suggested.
As it is an Op/Ed piece, Wetzel's article takes a strong side on the
subject of the debate which it discusses; however, it provides more than
sufficient evidence to give it credibility. In addition, the piece is a
dynamic read, and its points are made with humor as well as logic.
While not heavy in concrete facts or statistics, Wetzel's article provides
much food for thought and makes good suggestions as to how and why to solve
the problem of high-stakes testing. Wetzel also includes a comprehensive
list of sources for those who desire further information about the
consequences of standardized testing, or the movement against it.
Wise, Julie. Multiple Intelligences Theory. Serendip Studio's One World. Bryn
Mawr College, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. Wise's paper offers an introduction
to MI theory and to each of the multiple intelligences, as well as a brief
history of the reactions of educators towards the theory. It also
summarizes the opinions of Dr. Howard Gardner, the father of MI theory,
towards the effects of such on education, particularly in colleges.
The paper is well-researched and concise. Despite being written by a
college student, it is fairly professional, although its organization is
slightly bland.
This paper is not necessarily a useful source for anyone who also
possesses access to any of Dr. Thomas Armstrong's more official writings on
the subject of MI theory, however, some readers might prefer Wise's style
of writing.