Standardized tests measure test-taking ability, not proficiency
Standardized tests reflect little of what you have learned. Rather, they reveal how well you test. Students who test well have advantages over those who have average or low test-taking ability. The inaccurate perception that tests precisely measure intelligence and ability allows better test-takers more educational opportunities and higher academic status.
Many ineffective educational practices are grounded on the false premise that factors related to schools are largely responsible for standardized test scores. This premise leads to the delusion that all students can demonstrate a common level of achievement, and ability gaps as measured by standardized tests can be closed.
There are many reliable methods of assessment available to teachers. State test scores are not one of them. Like most standardized tests, individual performance reveals inherent test-taking ability.
State tests efficiently rank seemingly objective scores. Ranks are used to sort and select students and create enduring academic labels. Test performance becomes an inherent ability and remains stable after third grade.
Student demographics largely determine test outcomes, as there are few substantive differences of academic practice between schools. In the Clark County School District, as in other districts, state test scores reflect sociocultural factors.
Standardized tests are purposely designed to produce scores that allow comparison of individual students via a bell curve.
When scored by percentiles, a limited percentage of students will be at or above the designated score for proficiency. If proficiency is the 60th percentile, only 40% of test-takers will be proficient. The system produces failure by design for some and predetermined success for others. It’s a rigged game that all are required to play.
The most notable difference between annual state standardized tests and classroom tests are time limits for completion. Classroom assessments, including tests, usually allow ample time for student success. Knowledge recall with the clock running is only important if you are a contestant on “Jeopardy!”
Students learn at different rates, and thoughtless arguments against second chances in education should be ignored. It is appropriate to allow extended time for completion of academic tasks, including assessments. Timed tests penalize capable students who need additional time to comprehend and process questions.
State proficiency tests measure little of consequence. The plethora of state test prep materials available commercially demonstrates the futility of chasing test scores. High expectations for achievement require better measures of academic performance.
Good teachers accept only high-quality work and students are not let off the hook for shoddy or incomplete assignments. A second-grade teacher might say, “Do it nice or do it twice.” In high school the phrase might be, “You didn’t have time to do it right the first time, but you had time to do it over.”
Excellence is the goal, not mediocrity or failure. Proficiency with a scalpel or in moving a tractor-trailer down the highway come with repeated practice. Medical students and truck drivers are given multiple opportunities to develop their skills. Training and repetition build proficiency.
Depth and accuracy of research projects and fluency with technology tools are better measured by scoring rubrics. State tests are inferior measures of authentic learning. Rote memorization of facts is more unnecessary than ever.
School factors have little influence on state test outcomes. Tying test scores to school funding and teacher evaluations is pointless. Grade retention in elementary does little to close reading gaps and often leads to negative outcomes in high school. Closing schools with low test scores does not improve individual test scores. State takeovers of schools are futile endeavors. Academic interventions rarely improve test scores.
There is no need to debate the merits of standardized testing in education. An efficient tool to rank students, it solidifies achievement gaps and leaves many students behind. By design, tests create success for some students and failure for others, leaving most students in the middle.
Other methods of assessment provide better measures of learning. Learning should be a cooperative venture. There is no need to continue the tradition of distinct winners and losers in education. Academic ability differences can be differentiated when necessary through multiple types of assessments, including testing. Achievement gaps will continue regardless of the measurement.
Educators need courage to reveal the realities and political absurdity of state testing. Standardized achievement tests are not accurate measures of learning, instructional quality or school success. Basing educational practice on the convenience of standardized testing harms children.