Supporters of standardized testing cite accountability and consistency as two of its greatest benefits (Kucerik, 2002); new teachers take particular comfort in the consistency factor. Winkler (2002) quotes one teacher as noting that standardized testing “can be beneficial because you want each kid to leave the school with the same experiences” (p. 222).
From many novice teachers' point of view, standardized testing provides a sense of security and assures them that they are including the correct content in their lessons. Such an emphasis enables educators to feel confident about meeting any accountability-related demands.
Accountability is strongly emphasized in the No Child Left Behind legislation, whose goal is that “the same test [will be] used to measure achievement of all students” and that the tests will be “aligned with the state's academic content and academic achievement standards” (Kucerik, 2002, p. 480). Proponents claim that “with this Act the accountability defects within the educational system will be identified and repaired” (Kucerik, 2002, p. 479).
The Problems with Testing
These supposed benefits of standardized testing—accountability and consistency—are precisely the attributes that disturb its opponents. Eisner claims that standardized testing will take up an inordinate amount of teaching and planning time (2000), leave no room for teachers and students to demonstrate ingenuity and complexity (1993), and limit students' ability to make decisions (1995).
Eisner (1995) also notes that because standards often fail to make distinctions among students, they threaten cultural diversity and independent thinking abilities. His solution is to use individual criteria instead of standards to assess students' achievement, but he admits that the idiosyncrasies of individual performance confound quantitative measurement: “Quantitative methods are less labor-intensive and less ambiguous. Numbers provide a false security—but a security nevertheless” (1997, p. 271). Proponents of standardized testing prefer that security, and they place great faith in scores that are steadily rising as students become better test takers.
Testing in Practice
Accepting that no child will be left behind by a program that increases the dropout rate, constricts critical thinking, reduces academic teaching time, and hampers motivation is difficult to swallow. When standardized testing—in the guise of the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT)—was first introduced in my school, I supported it. We had been doing testing of one sort or another for years, and it had not significantly altered what any of us taught in the classroom. Testing occupied only one teaching day—the day on which we actually administered the test.
For the first year of the FCAT, our school earned a score of 95 and received an A rating, along with some state money. We shared the money with our feeder schools; after all, the test is meant to be cumulative, so our feeder schools deserved to share the reward. The extent of our “preparation” had been to remind students to get plenty of rest and eat a good breakfast.
The following year, the state produced a small manual for teachers to read and be tested on before administering the FCAT. Students received thin exercise books with content considerably below the level of our normal curriculum. In spite of earning a higher score (97) than the previous year, we received a B rating. Because we had initially achieved such a high score, we could maintain our A only by improving by a certain percentage—in this case, by achieving a rating of 99. Apparently no one had thought of what to do when a school reached perfection. But we still received some money, which we spent on new computers and printers.
The following year, we redoubled our efforts. We held a pep rally for the students. We held practice tests. And we added an extra Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test to ensure that students could read at grade level. We conducted long meetings for the teachers, complete with manuals (thicker than the year before) and other supplementary reading. But it was worth it! Despite a score of only 95, we received an A, thanks to a change in the rules. This time, most of the money was divided among the teachers, and some was used to provide still more teacher training sessions and other professional development opportunities.
Last year, we received our new manuals, bigger and better than ever. We received hours of training in test administration—what to do if someone arrives late, disrupts the class, or throws up. Students received new workbooks in additional core subjects rather than just English. I devoted 18 class periods to teaching my class the workbook. We administered the DRP three times instead of just once.
Finally, FCAT day arrived. We spent two days testing and three days corralling the escapees who did not show up during the first two days. Then we tested students for three more days in the only room big enough to accommodate the group: the library. The next week we had another day of FCAT testing and had to close the library again to allow for make-up tests.
By the time the graphite settled, about 900 freshmen had spent three days filling in tiny bubbles on Scantron cards. That year, each English teacher lost 27 days of instruction time and two weeks of library use because of FCAT. That's a big jump from the two days I lost to testing five years ago. And the time factor does not even take into consideration the stress on both students and teachers.
If this is boring to read, imagine how boring it is to live. I never tell my students that I will be judged by their performance—they do not need that guilt trip. I do remind them that if they do poorly, they will need to attend remedial classes that will teach more of the same mind-numbing workbook content that we spent so much time on. I tell them about this consequence not only because I am required to, but also because it is a much better motivator than anything else I could say. Aside from this small motivation for passing the test, FCAT is the master demotivator. (You will not find this word in the dictionary; it lives only in the FCAT room.)
Every Florida school could benefit from the death of FCAT. We cannot afford to do the right thing because we are busy spending our money doing the wrong thing. We increase scores on state tests by redistributing funds and changing rules. We save money on teachers' salaries by narrowing the curriculum to reduce or even eliminate time spent on art, music, creative writing, and physical education. If Latin, Russian, German, and higher mathematics are not covered on the test, why waste money offering them? Worksheets and workbooks are all we need for high-stakes test preparation.
Instead of spending money on reducing class size and hiring additional teachers, we spend money on training teachers in test administration, evaluation, tabulation, and interpretation. And high-stakes testing not only siphons funds away from teaching; perhaps its greatest cost is the erosion of students' enthusiasm for learning.
The faith that states with high-stakes testing place in these tests has roots in behaviorist John Watson's theories. Watson believed that he could take a dozen infants and train each one to become whatever type of specialist he wished, regardless of talents, tendencies, or abilities (Gredler, 2000). But in the long run, “conditioned responses were not shown to add up to complex voluntary behavior” (Gredler, 2000, p. 21). Why? Because learning is a voluntary act. Testing will not motivate the unmotivated to learn. What rigorous testing has resulted in is resentment and decreased motivation.
I do believe that we need testing in the schools. But it should be formative assessment that addresses problems as they arise, the kind of tests that teachers have always given to check on students' knowledge acquisition and to allow students to examine new ideas and new avenues of thought.
We should redirect testing funds to provide smaller classes in which teachers can work with students individually, provide interesting and motivating lessons, share ideas that students themselves bring to the forum, and truly ensure that no child is left behind.
Or show me a high-end career that requires good “bubbling” skills.
