High Stakes Testing - Report Example

HIGH STAKES TESTING High Stakes Testing is the term used to describe a set of standardized tests whose results have important and serious consequences for students, teachers, schools, and districts. The consequences are in form of promotions, certification, graduation, or denial/approval of services and opportunity. It can also be described as a system of nationwide testing on the basis of which important decisions such as promotion in grade or graduation-are made that seriously affect students' further prospects. The National Reading Conference Policy Brief (2004) gives information regarding high stakes reading tests and reading assessment, their uses and misuses and the affect their results have on students, teachers and schools. (Afflerbach, 2004) These test results are used to take serious decisions such as student retention or promotion by the school. Even the local administration authorities use these results to decide regarding the school fundings and taking community support for a school. High stakes tests were designed to ensure school accountability and student achievement. But it has been seen that they carry numerous liabilities with them. These include the following: • The tests are used with increasing frequency despite the fact that it has not been proven yet that these tests help to improve students capability. • These tests do not seem to fully or correctly measure students achievement. • If the results are not good, there are negative effects on students' self-esteem and motivation. • The tests confine themselves strictly to the defined curriculum and no extra effort is required by the student. • Since these tests are standardized throughout the country, teachers do not seem to have any say in them thereby alienating teachers from the whole system of tests. • High stakes tests provide a barrier against high quality teaching because teachers are more focused on getting good results in high stakes test results thereby "teaching only to the test". These tests require significant allocation of time and money. But despite all these issues, Afflerbach reported in 2002 that the people in general, support high stakes tests. Many people feel that since the tests are standardized, no student receives preferential treatment. This is because each student gets the same degree of support from the person who takes the test. But it is not simply a question of fairness. The students who are tested may or may not have the same amounts of prior knowledge. Some students may not be good at answering tests though they may actually have the knowledge. Moreover certain students may get anxious and not perform as per the expectations. Thus, if we assess students based on a single score on a test, then we are not making a good judgment. And this is specially so when this results in students getting retained or not being allowed to move to next grade. It is also believed that high stakes tests are based on scientific logic. This is so because tests are devised by experts having vast amount of experience in their fields and a lot of effort goes into developing the tests. These tests also adhere to scientific notions of validity and reliability and help in summarizing the results to single scores and percentile rankings (Lemann, 1999). Thus it is easier for the school authorities and communities to take test scores at face value. But in actuality the tests are limited in their ability to describe the wide range of achievement that the students have actually achieved. Another reason for their popularity is that they are familiar. The tests are being taken with increasing frequency ever since they have been brought into picture. Moreover, The No Child Left Behind act specifically states that they be used on an annual basis from grades 3 to 8. As a result, parents are comfortable with what they already know rather than bet on something unknown. According to No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), standardized test scores are used to hold schools and school districts accountable for student achievement. Each and every state has been asked to create an accountability system, and specifically explain how the results of these tests will be used for assessing student performance. The idea is to increase student achievement by pressurizing students to perform well. But research has proved that this pressure created by high-stakes testing did not influence the student’s performance to a great degree.(Kinsler, 2006) Thus the Bush administration’s NCLB Act has opened up the proverbial Can of worms. But all through this debate the actual stakeholders – students, teachers and parents have been left unheard. No one has thought of hearing their perspective on the matter, though it is very obvious that they are the actual users/victims or benefactors of this policy. Teachers, students and parents are the ones who are actively participating in the process of testing and even though schools are the ones held accountable for test scores, teachers and students assume the heaviest of burdens in the accountability issue. (Flores & Clark, 2003) Now let us examine the ethical issue involved in this High Stakes testing issue. Teaching has been described as the Moral activity since time immemorial. In ancient civilizations like Egypt, Greek or India – the disciple/teacher relationship is a revered entity. In ancient Indian civilization, the Teacher (Guru) is worshipped before any other God or Goddess as he is supposed to lead the student from darkness to light. Thus it is a fact that the education of children is a moral endeavor and it is the duty of the teacher to reveal the fundamental truths of human experience. According to Gardner (1984 ) -- Education is a process of self-discovery throughout the life. On should be able to realize one’s best self and try to be as best as one could be. The high stakes testing and the testing methods used for evaluating the students places teachers in a very difficult position and on morally shaky ground. Since the stakes are so high, teachers do not want to put students’ career in jeopardy by not concentrating on the tests. And by focusing on the tests, they are ignoring the basic tenets of education of providing a free flow of ideas and creativity. As per the actual expectations of the society, teachers are expected to foster understanding and teach children for the future. But the testing forces the teachers to “ teach to the test” and not according to the general guidelines of education. Teachers are thus being held accountable through students’ test scores and are supposed to be responsible for the test results. The fallout is that the teachers are now teaching with respect to the test and classes are solely planned keeping in mind the desire to get high scores. Actually, testing in itself is not bad. There has to be a certain system of evaluation of students. Otherwise, there is no way for teachers to know whether whatever has been taught has been understood or if any particular student needs extra help. But it assumes monstrous proportions if one single test score is made the focus for taking important decisions or one single score is used to assess a child’s knowledge or suitability for promotion. Testing practices are a part and parcel of school life since time immemorial and the test results are used as a feedback system for teachers and students alike . But using a single indicator to measure a child’s learning is a different matter altogether. Heubert & Hauser (1998) also consider it unethical to use a single test score to make decisions about promotion or gradation of students. This causes teachers to adopt methods which focus only on tests preparation. The actual learning and knowledge gain is being replaced by rote learning by the students. This has also resulted in education policies being designed keeping the high stakes tests in mind. The Policy makers do not seem to regard research work as high as they used to do in earlier times. By using single measure for student assessment, the policy shapers are sending out a wrong signal to students and teachers alike. The focus has shifted entirely towards getting high scores and this has come by sacrificing high standards of curriculum and instruction. Ethically, the use of these test results to take decisions regarding a student’s future is wrong. Becker (2001) proved that there is no evidence to show that higher test scores are reflective of better student capabilities or more knowledgeable students. In fact, it has been seen that some students who have scored poorly in high stakes tests have scored much better in class tests or other tests taken by the school. Thus a bad score in one test cannot be used to measure a students’ capability since anyone can have one bad day. The teachers are the only persons aware of diverse backgrounds and family histories of the students. They also know how the students are performing in class. They can only successfully test the student’s understanding by different and innovative means. Student assessment can be more true if the tests are designed by keeping view of the ethical and cultural considerations. We are all aware that everyone has different style of learning. Not all children are good at test taking, nor are all students good in verbal assessments. Each has his/her own individual style. And applying standardized tests to assess these individuals is not possible at all. It is quite possible that even two students from identical backgrounds have different learning styles. And when we talk about different cultures, there are going to be obvious differences. Therefore, we must take into account all these cultural differences and the different styles of learning while designing the curriculum that is responsive to the needs of a diverse student population. But, because of these high stakes tests, teachers are unable to take into account the different needs of students and have to compromise on equity by being forced to teach according to the dictates of the standardized testing procedures. There are many factors whose non consideration has led to the criticism of High stakes testing. Many factors play an important role in how the student performs a test. These include but are not limited to student’s background, his socio-economic status and school climate, facilities provided by the school in terms of equipment, programs and processes, teaching methods, etc. The factors regarding the students’ background can cause differentiation between students having similar schools and following similar programs and processes, and the resources and the process factors can cause differentiation between two schools and two districts. It has been reported by Kober (2002) that in many states the results of these tests are treated as final scores without giving any thought to how the student has fared throughout the academic year. It is a well known fact that any person who is not well or may have a problem on any day and if that happens to b the high stakes test day , the student is doomed because he/she will not get another chance. It is therefore, highly unethical and inappropriate to use standardized tests as a single measure of a student’s academic progress. But there is another side to the story. We have just seen how high stakes testing forces schools to “teach to the test,” thereby improving results on high stakes tests without improving real learning. Greene & Forster in 2003 did some research by comparing schools’ results on high stakes tests with their results on other standardized tests that are not used for accountability purposes. They reasoned that if a student scores on high stakes test and other tests are similar, then they are accurate in measuring the student’s performance. The report finds that score levels on high stakes tests are similar to score levels on other tests, which showed that high stakes tests are showing accurate results. According to their study, the state of Florida, which has the nation’s most aggressive high stakes testing program, was found to have a very strong correlation between high and low stakes test results . Thus we see that it is possible for the schools to organize their teaching plans in such a way that there is actual and real learning rather than artificially improving test scores. But not all schools are following the Florida model and there are demographic differences which need to be taken into account before others can follow the same model. In conclusion, we can say that although testing is the most inexpensive and easiest way to measure student’s performance, their use as single source of assessment is totally inappropriate. No single test can be considered as the definitive measure of the student’s knowledge. The idea should be to improve education through innovative and creative learning . By taking overall performance of the students throughout the year, the students will be encouraged to take active interest and participate in their pursuit of education, otherwise we will be left with students achieving high scores in tests but lacking the necessary logical and needed skills to succeed in life. The aim should be to teach young children to become better humans and better citizens of the future and not mere robots who are tuned to pass tests. References Afflerbach, P. (2002). The road to folly and redemption: Perspectives on the legitimacy of high-stakes testing. Reading Research Quarterly. 37. 348-360. Afflerbach, P., 2004. National Reading Conference Policy Brief :High Stakes Testing and Reading Assessment, University of Maryland. Flores, B. B., & Clark, E. R. (2003). Texas voices speak out about high-stakes testing: Preservice teachers, teachers, and students. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 463. Gardner, J.W. (1984). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? (Rev. ed) New York: Norton Greene, J. P., Forster, G. (2003). “Burning High Stakes Tests at the Stake,” The Education Gadfly, volume 3, number 1. Heubert, J. & Hauser, R., (1998) High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation. National Research Council: New York: National Academy Press. Irvine Kinsler, A. V., (2006). The Perceived Impact of No Child Left Behind on Third- Through Fifth-Grade Elementary Science Classrooms Kober, N. (2002). What tests can and cannot tell us. Testtalk for leaders. 2(1) Washington D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 11-15. Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Perterson, M. S. (2005). The Ethical Dilemmas of High-Stakes Testing and Issues for Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal of College & Character VOLUME VI, NO. 7 Read More