The Rise and Impact of High-Stakes Standardised Testing.

The Rise and Impact of High-Stakes Standardised Testing.

Name - Pankaj

Student ID S8090590

Assignment 1

Subject Curriculum and pedagogy

MINDMAP

Annotation

History and Evolution of High-Stakes Standardized Testing

Standardized testing, a hallmark of the modern educational landscape, has roots that delve deep into the annals of the 20th century. Their origins and subsequent evolution offer a fascinating journey through educational ideologies, political stances, and pedagogical shifts that have shaped education systems across the globe.

The Early Beginnings:

At the onset of the 20th century, as the world grappled with rapid industrialization and burgeoning urban populations, there was a palpable need to streamline and standardize educational outcomes. This period witnessed the conception of tests such as the SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) in the United States. Originally conceptualized by Carl Brigham, an associate of the legendary educational psychologist Lewis Terman, the SAT was initially designed as a tool for college admissions, aiming to offer an objective, quantifiable measure of a student's readiness for tertiary education (Lemann, 1999).

The allure of the SAT lay in its promise of meritocracy. Colleges and universities, which until then had often relied on subjective measures and personal recommendations for admissions, now had an ostensibly unbiased tool. This represented a significant shift, especially in the U.S., moving towards greater inclusivity and democratization of higher education.

The Global Spread:

As the 20th century progressed, the success of standardized tests in the U.S. caught the attention of educational policymakers worldwide. By the latter half of the century, nations across the world began recognizing the potential of these tests in not just college admissions, but also in evaluating the effectiveness of their education systems. The United Kingdom, for instance, introduced the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) as a means to assess students at the end of compulsory education. Similarly, down under, Australia inaugurated the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) to evaluate literacy and numeracy skills of students at various grade levels.

Key Milestones and Controversies:

The turn of the millennium, particularly in the U.S., marked a significant era for standardized testing, as they transitioned from being mere evaluative tools to instruments of policy-making. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 stands out as a watershed moment in this journey. Championed by then-President George W. Bush, the NCLB mandated annual testing in public schools across the nation, tying school funding and resources to test performance (Dee & Jacob, 2010). The intent was noble to ensure every student achieved proficiency in key areas, particularly in mathematics and reading. Yet, it also sparked controversies. Critics argued that the high-stakes nature of these tests led to narrowed curriculums and "teaching to the test."

Purposes and Objectives of High-Stakes Testing

Accountability in schools:

The primary objective behind the introduction of high-stakes tests was to create a system of accountability. Policymakers and educational leaders were keen on having a quantifiable metric that could objectively measure students' performance. The idea was that such metrics could then be used to assess the effectiveness of schools and educators. Schools that performed well on these tests were seen as successful, while those that did not were considered to require intervention, be it in terms of administrative changes, curriculum shifts, or additional resources (Hamilton et al., 2002). This policy was underpinned by the belief that every child, regardless of background, deserves quality education, and schools should be responsible for ensuring this. However, this led to a contentious debate: while some argue that holding schools accountable has led to improved standards, others claim it puts undue pressure on educators, leading them to "teach to the test."

Ranking and competition:

The rise of globalization brought about an era of competitiveness. Countries were keen on showcasing their educational prowess on global platforms. Examinations like PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) began to gain prominence. These tests, which rank countries based on academic outcomes, have garnered both acclaim for their thoroughness and critique for their influence on national educational priorities. While the intention was to foster a spirit of improvement, there's a concern that countries might prioritize these test results over holistic educational experiences, potentially sidelining subjects or skills not assessed by these benchmarks (Breakspear, 2012).

Informing policy and curriculum changes:

Policymakers and educational reformists advocate for data-driven decision-making. The data from high-stakes tests provides an extensive pool of information, detailing strengths and weaknesses in student performance across regions, schools, and demographics. Such granular insights have been pivotal in informing curriculum changes, identifying areas of focus, and channeling resources. For instance, if students consistently underperform in mathematics, policymakers might prioritize math in curriculum redesign or allocate more funding towards math-specific educational tools and resources (Klein et al., 2002).

Positive Impacts on Teaching and Learning

Alignment of teaching with learning standards:

One of the often-cited benefits of high-stakes testing is the alignment it brings between teaching and prescribed learning standards. With clear benchmarks to hit, educators are incentivized to ensure that their teaching aligns with what students are expected to know, thereby maintaining consistency in what's taught across different schools (Porter, 2002). This alignment, in theory, ensures that students, irrespective of which school they attend, receive a similar baseline education. However, the counterargument is that while alignment is good, over alignment could stifle teachers' creativity and flexibility in delivering lessons tailored to their specific class needs.

Identification of learning gaps:

One of the significant advantages of standardized tests is the clarity they offer in terms of academic strengths and weaknesses. With consistent metrics and standards, educators and policymakers can clearly identify areas where students, as a collective or in specific demographics, struggle. This clarity paves the way for targeted interventions, specialized training for educators, and the development of resources to bridge these gaps (Kifer, 2001). For example, if a specific demographic consistently underperforms in reading comprehension, targeted reading programs can be introduced to address this gap.

Motivation for student performance:

An interesting psychological aspect of high-stakes testing is the motivation it provides. Knowing that there's a significant examination can drive students to be more diligent and engaged. This heightened focus, ideally, translates to better retention and understanding of the curriculum. However, this "benefit" comes with caveats. The stress associated with such exams can sometimes be counterproductive, leading to anxiety, burnout, and even aversion to the subject matter (Nichols & Berliner, 2007).

Key Debates and Controversies

Equity and fairness:

High-stakes standardized testing has stirred up a significant debate about its fairness. Proponents argue that standardized tests provide an objective measure, one that is neutral and uninfluenced by subjective judgments. This level of consistency and reliability, they believe, is beneficial for comparing students from various backgrounds on the same scale. However, critics counter this by highlighting that such tests often disadvantage students from low socio-economic backgrounds, English language learners, or students with disabilities. A major concern is that these tests may not capture the full breadth of an individual's abilities or potential, thereby offering only a partial, and perhaps skewed, representation of a student's true capabilities (Darling-Hammond, 2000). The argument is intensified when such scores become the basis for crucial decisions like grade promotion, graduation, or college admissions. The deep-seated belief is that these exams might perpetuate existing inequalities, and not necessarily because of the students' abilities, but due to their access to resources like test prep, tutors, and other socio-economic factors.

Reliability and validity:

Another significant critique lies in the very essence of testingits validity and reliability. Are the tests measuring what they're supposed to measure? Is a single test, taken on one particular day, a reliable measure of a student's cumulative knowledge, skills, and potential? Critics voice concerns that many standardized tests do not fully align with state curriculum standards or, at times, are not grade-appropriate (Popham, 2001). Moreover, external factors like test anxiety, a student's health on test day, or other personal issues can dramatically affect test performance, raising questions about the true reliability of these scores (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999).

Socioeconomic disparities:

At the core of the debate around high-stakes testing is the concern over socioeconomic disparities. Schools in affluent areas, with abundant resources, might have higher test scores, not necessarily because they provide superior education, but because their students have access to a plethora of enrichment opportunities, both in and out of school. In contrast, schools in economically disadvantaged areas, dealing with challenges of inadequate funding, larger class sizes, and fewer resources, might produce lower test scores. Hence, relying on test scores to judge school quality can be misleading and exacerbate existing educational inequities (Kozol, 1991).

Theoretical Models to Analyse High-Stakes Testing

Constructivist theory:

Through the lens of constructivism, learning is perceived as an active endeavor where learners build knowledge grounded in their experiences. Standardized exams, with their predominant reliance on multiple-choice formats, can be at odds with this constructivist ideology. These tests might not provide students the flexibility to showcase their comprehension in varied manners or in settings that resonate with their personal contexts. Advocates of constructivism might posit that authentic learning transcends the boundaries of such assessments, accentuating profound insights, practical application of concepts, and analytical thinking (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).

Behaviorism:

Behaviorists focus on observable behaviors and believe in reinforcement as a primary tool for learning. From this perspective, high-stakes tests can be seen as a form of "positive reinforcement." If students perform well, they get rewards in the form of grades, admissions, or accolades. However, the downside is that this can lead to "teaching to the test" where educators might focus only on content that will be tested, possibly neglecting broader educational goals (Skinner, 1950).

Critical pedagogy:

Rooted in the work of Paulo Freire, this theory emphasizes the importance of education as a tool for social change and criticizes practices that perpetuate oppressive systems. Standardized tests, through this lens, might be viewed as tools of the dominant culture, enforcing a certain type of knowledge while marginalizing others. Such a system, critics argue, often supports the status quo and doesn't necessarily equip students to challenge or change it (Freire, 1970).

References

Abrams, L. M. (2004). Teachers Views on High-stakes Testing: Implications for the Classroom. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University College of Education. Phoenix, AZ.

Alexander, R. J. (2010). Children, Their World, Their Education: Final Report of the Cambridge Primary Review. Routledge. London.

Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: highstakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25-45.

Baker, E. L., & Stites, R. (1990). Trends in testing in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 139-157.

Bettinger, E. (2012). Paing to Learn: The Effect of Financial Incentives on Elementary School Test Scores. The Review of Economic and Statistics, 94(3), 686-98.

Crocker, L. (2004). Teaching for the Test: How and Why Test Preparation is Appropriate. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending Standardized Testing (pp. 159174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.

Cunningham, W., & Sanzo, T. (2002). Is High-stakes Testing Harming Lower Socioeconomic Schools? NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 6275.

DarlingHammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How Americas commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Record. New York.

Delgado, R. (2014). Standardized Testing as Discrimination: A Reply to Dan Subotnik. University of Massachusetts Law Review, 9(1), 4.

Howe, K., Eisenhart, M., & Betebenner, D. (2001). School Choice Crucible: A Case Study of Boulder Valley. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 137146.

Johnson, D., Johnson, B., Farenga, S., & Ness, D. (2008). Stop High Stakes Testing: An Appeal to Americas Conscience. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham, MD.

Linn, R. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 313.

Riordan, C. L. (2011). School social workers perceptions of the impact of high-stakes accountability testing in schools.

Sloane, F., & Kelly, A. (2003). Issues in High-Stakes Testing Programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 1217.

Steele, L. (2014). Peddling Pedagogies: The Winners and Losers of a Standardized Testing Economy. Radical Teacher, 100(1941-0832), 153-156.

Walker, T. (2014). NEA Survey: Nearly Half Of Teachers Consider Leaving Profession Due to Standardized Testing. National education association, 16.