Bless the Tests? Don’t You Mean Curse the Tests?

: A Refutation of Standardized Testing

 Any student who attended traditional schooling has done it. We all went through the

grueling process. Every single time we asked why. After the third one, most of the students

started giving up and not caring what their score would be. As the teacher began to explain the

instructions, the student groaned at the thought of another year of standardized testing. “Why do

we do this anyway?” and “What’s the point?” are questions and complaints many teachers

receive every year as they pass out the standardized tests. But really, what is the point? Does that

score really determine if those students will graduate top of their class and go to their top choice

college or barely graduate high school and work a minimum wage job for the next 10+ years?

The biggest factors we must evaluate are the objectivity, comparability, and accountability of

standardized testing. By doing this we are able to determine the quality and helpfulness of this

testing.

The answer to the above stated question about helpfulness of standardized testing, is no,

yet the tests lead us to believe there may be helpful data that comes through with the student’s

scores. That ‘helpful’ data is objective as it is usually the schools that find this data the most

helpful. If an elementary school’s students test high, they are more likely to receive funding and

better resources. Standardized testing focuses on the final answer rather than the thought process

of determining an answer. This form of testing is unfair to different demographics of individuals.

The most crucial demographics include culture, race, language, gender, social class, and

presence of a disability. This unfairness translates into certain demographics of individuals

scoring lower than others and being further segregated due to these lower scores.

The objectivity of standardized testing is to prove what each student knows and is scored

in an unfiltered measure. While each student is given the same test, each student’s preparation
varies greatly. Some students may have missed multiple days of school due to sickness and are

behind due to it. Other students may receive a weekly tutoring sessions in preparation for these

tests. Meanwhile, another student just moved to the United States a few months ago and is still

struggling to understand a few English words and phrases. In “Bless the Tests: Three Reasons for

Standardized Testing,” Aaron Churchill stated that, “when students take a standardized exam, a

much clearer view of academic mastery emerges.” It cannot be proven that the scores prove a

clearer look into academic knowledge due to the fact that a student may simply not fully

comprehend a question. A large part of this could be attributed to not having sufficient time to

finish the test, therefore a student rushes to answer the questions and do not perform with their

best work. Standardized testing scores prove the inequalities within our society that bring about

scores. Being able to pay for tutoring is based on their parent’s income. Their income determines

their social class. A large part of social class goes hand in hand with culture and race.

While arguments have been made that standardized testing is used to evaluating the

academic standing of schools and their students, it is not the answer to thoroughly evaluating the

knowledge of the students and effectiveness of the teachers and academic material. The

comparability of standardized testing scores further divides the demographic inequality that so

many students are already subject to. Churchill neglects to refer to the comparability that occurs

between students based on the scores they receive. As the scores come back, this opens the door

to bragging about a higher score and being criticized for not receiving a score as high as others.

Not only does this affect social relationships between students, but also impacts students’ mental

wellbeing. Additionally, “The number of items measuring any particular skill or knowledge may

be too few to provide a reliable measure of a specific skill.” Knowing this, we are able to
determine that while the standardized tests may show data on the face value what a student

knows, it does not provide wide enough data to be reliable.

It is understood that there needs to be a form of testing to evaluate students on their

knowledge and comprehension. But, since not all students have the same comprehension skills,

learning style, and access to accelerated learning, we should not use standardized testing.

Instead, there needs to be a modified version of this testing that caters to the needs of students

rather than dividing them based on scores that are highly affected by the life they were born into.

Standardized testing brings about the factor of accountability of schools. While these

tests show scores of each student, they also show how the school is performing based on

teaching. If a school’s students consistently perform poorly on standardized tests, they are

intervention steps that take place. In some cases, consistent poor scores may lead to the closure

of a school. This begs the question as to if this should even be a factor of these reprimands. It

should not be solely identified that poor scores are a direct result of the school. In “Negative

Impacts of Mandatory Standardized Testing on Teachers and Students” by Maria Mahmoudian,

she brings light to the fact that this accountability is mainly geared toward teachers. The teachers

much be held accountable for furthering the education of their students and providing them with

any additional aid they may require. This need for accountability should not be put on students’

shoulders as they are not the ones who should be aligning educational assistance. Additionally,

standardized testing should not be the driving factor for teachers to provide extra assistance to

students who need it. This aid should be given for the entirety of a student’s academic career or

until it is determined that it is no longer needed.

It is important to analyze the importance and helpfulness of standardized testing in order

to determine if they should be required. The factors of objectivity, comparability, and

accountability of standardized testing are a large part of this comprehension. While standardized

testing may bring forth some positive outcomes, it is important to weigh the presented negatives.

Knowing the inequality and unfairness that surround standardized testing proves that our

academic system needs to improve their way of evaluating schools and their academics.
Argumentative Discourse

Bless the Tests: Three Reasons for Standardized Testing

By: Aaron Churchill

A torrent of complaints has been levelled against testing in recent months. Some of the

criticism is associated with the PARCC exams, Ohio’s new English and math assessments for

grades 3–8 and high school. The grumbling over testing isn’t a brand-new phenomenon. In fact,

it’s worth noting that in 2004, Ohioans were grousing about the OGTs! In the face of the latest

iteration of the testing backlash, we should remember why standardized tests are essential. The

key reasons, as I see them, are objectivity, comparability, and accountability.

Reason 1: Objectivity

At their core, standardized exams are designed to be objective measures. They assess

students based on a similar set of questions, are given under nearly identical testing conditions,

and are graded by a machine or blind reviewer. They are intended to provide an accurate,

unfiltered measure of what a student knows.

Now, some have argued that teachers’ grades are sufficient. But the reality is that

teacher grading practices can be wildly uneven across schools—and even within them. For

instance, one math teacher might be an extraordinarily lenient grader, while another might be

brutally hard: Getting an A means something very different. Teacher grading can be subjective in

other ways, including favoritism towards certain students, and it can find its basis in non-

achievement factors like classroom behavior, participation, or attendance.

But when students take a standardized exam, a much clearer view of academic mastery

emerges. So, while standardized exams are not intended to (and should not) replace the teacher

grade book, they do provide an objective, “summative” assessment of student achievement.

Standardized assessments of achievement can be used for comparison and accountability

purposes, both of which are discussed in turn.

Reason 2: Comparability

The very objectivity of standardized exams yields comparability of student achievement,

a desirable feature for parents and practitioners alike. Most parents, for example, would like to

know whether their child is meeting state benchmarks, or how she compares to statewide peers.

Statewide standardized exams give parents this important information. Meanwhile, school-

shopping parents have every right to inspect and compare the standardized test results from a

range of schools, including charters, district schools, and STEM schools, before selecting a

school for their child.

School practitioners also use statewide test results to benchmark their students’

achievement across school and district lines. For instance, the principal of East Elementary could

compare the achievement of her students against those attending West Elementary, the district

average, the county average, and the statewide average. How do her students stack up? Only a

statewide standardized test could tell.

Interestingly, proposals have been floated to allow schools to select their own

assessment—a pick-your-own-assessment policy. This is a flawed idea and should be rejected. It

would undermine the comparability principle of statewide testing. First, to be clear, standardized

exams are not the all the same. Consider an obvious example: Ohio’s old state tests and the

PARCC exams are both standardized exams, yet they are as different as night and day.

Meantime, a pick-your-own-assessment policy would open a Pandora’s box of confusion over

how to interpret the results. Imagine that Columbus City Schools selects NWEA as its testing

vendor and reports an 80 percent proficiency rate. Now let’s say Worthington City Schools
(suburban Columbus) selects PARCC and reports a 50 percent proficiency rate. Should we infer

that Columbus students are actually achieving at higher levels than Worthington? Or is the test

just different? Based solely on these test data, we’d have no clue.

State assessment policy should not amount to a Choose Your Own Adventure for districts

and schools. Instead, Ohio legislators must continue to implement a single, coherent system of

standardized exams that provides comparable results.

Reason 3: Accountability

Like it or not, standardized exam data remain the best way to hold schools accountable

for their academic performance. To its great credit, Ohio is implementing a cutting-edge school

accountability system. The accountability metrics include robust measures often referred to as

“student growth” or “value-added” measures, along with conventional proficiency results and

college-admissions results. All of these outcome measures are based on standardized test results.

The information from these accountability measures enables policymakers to identify the

schools that need intervention, up to closure. For example, the charter school automatic closure

law uses state exam results—both school-level value added and proficiency—to determine which

schools must close. In addition, districts can go into state oversight via the Academic Distress

Commission if they are low-performing along test-based outcomes. Another use of standardized

testing data is coming in the area of deregulation. One priority bill being considered in the Senate

(SB 3) would give “high-performing” districts certain flexibilities and freedoms from state

mandates. How are these high performers identified? Answer: Through state accountability

measures, based on standardized test scores.

Outside of standardized test results, no objective method exists for policymakers to

identify either poor-performing schools needing intervention or high-performing schools

deserving rewards. Consider the alternative: Who would want policymakers to intervene in a

school based on their “gut feeling” or reward a school based on anecdotes? Statewide

standardized exams are essential for upholding a fair and objective accountability system.

In a utopian world, one could wish away standardized tests. All schools would be great,

and every student would be meeting their potential. But we live in reality. There are good

schools and rotten ones; there are high-flying students and pupils who struggle mightily. We

need hard, objective information on school and student performance, and the best available

evidence comes from standardized tests. Policymakers need to be careful not to undermine the

integrity of the state’s standardized tests.