In many of our more recent readings, the topic of standardized testing has been examined quite heavily. Growing up and being pushed through the public school system, this is certainly something that I have always had an opinion on, albeit a slightly uninformed one. In brief discussion with high school teachers, I would receive a lot of the negatives that came with standardized testing, as my teachers would complain as to how it would throw a massive wrench into their curriculum planning–especially in regards to interactive learning that tended to stray away from the goals of math, reading, (and a little science). As I read more about the goals, outcomes, and objectives of standardized testing, I am gaining slightly better insight as to what exactly the problems are with it in terms of achieving its goal of “accountability.”
When I consider what exactly standardized tests are meant to hold students, teachers, and administrators accountable for, it seems that it is merely math, reading, and science skills, as they can be measured quantitatively. In this way, schools are merely preparing students to perform well on tests. We’ve all been there. Many of my own high school teachers would host bi-weekly crash-course sessions on how to take a standardized test. And if you can master this, you can do well on the test and look smart. This seems to hold true for most other standardized tests that exist throughout our educational systems (SATs, GREs, LSATs, MCATs, etc.). Most study material focus on teaching students how to take the test. This in and of itself suggests–to me, at least–that the tests themselves are not designed in a way that is organic to learning and education more generally. Rather, the tests are a forced creation that give teachers and students a whole other section of curriculum to learn (on top of the basic math and reading objectives): how to take the test. Of course, this simply adds unnecessary bulk to the curriculum, taking invaluable time away from students and teachers that could be spent fostering creativity and more intangible learning.
Furthermore, as we discussed in class, the standardized testing of math and reading creates a specific and direct depiction of what it means to be smart and a top students. Students who perform most highly on these standardized tests and tracked, whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, as the students who will go on to college; whereas students who perform less well are generally pushed continuously into lower tracks, and aren’t necessarily given the support they might need to pursue their education further. I believe we are putting ourselves into a dangerous position by defining math, reading, (and now some science) as the means by which we assess whether or not a student is smart and is learning well from their teachers.
Comments
2 responses to “Dissecting the “Standard” in Standardized Testing”
Yes, the tests seem to suggest that we only value some vary narrow types of knowledge. What about creativity? What problem solving? Critical thinking? These tests are notoriously bad at tapping into these kinds of learning. Learning that we would probably say is important.
I agree with the points you have made in this post. I think that our extreme focus on math, reading, and science as determining factors of one’s success is indeed problematic. I think that while these scores are useful in ranking the success of education between nations, other aspects of learning should be just as important. Because these subjects can be rated quantitatively however, it makes it hard to focus on other subjects such as art and music which are hard to measure the success of. I think our society needs to expand what we consider as successful within schools because once these students are out of the school system entirely, what will our society value more? Their test scores? Or their ability to be innovative and creative?