Studium

The media regularly reports that America’s public schools have some of the lowest test scores in the world; however, the test scores of American students are not necessarily comparable to the test scores of other students (Berliner 1995). “In the first International Assessment of Education Achievement, from which we learned how ‘awful’ the U.S. was doing, the average performance of 75 percent of the American group was compared with the average scores of the top 9 percent of students in West Germany, the top 13 percent in the Netherlands, and the top 45 percent in Sweden” (Berliner 1995). In other words, the average American student was being compared to the best students from West Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. If the top American students had been compared with the top students from around the world, the results would have been different. In Susan Ohanian’s article discussing President Clinton’s “Goals 2000” education reform plan, she suggests another reason why the results are not comparable. She states that we are “comparing our 17-year-olds with their 21-year-olds” (2000). And finally, another factor not accounted for in these comparisons is the length of the school year. Some foreign countries, such as Korea and Taiwan, have much longer school years than the U.S. Therefore, when students of the same age take the tests, the students from Korea and Taiwan have actually had more time in the classroom than the American students. According to a study by David Berliner, sometimes these students have even up to a year more schooling than American students (1995).

In addition to the faulty comparisons between American and other countries’ test scores, there are other reasons to suspect the validity of standardized tests. For example, these tests are not necessarily an effective way of testing students’ knowledge. They may not be testing students’ complex thinking skills; they may merely test how well students can memorize and regurgitate facts (Schafer 2001). This paper examines this charge, as well as others, which call the effectiveness and accuracy of standardized tests into question. It also examines at least one reason why, despite these problems, standardized tests are so widely used throughout the U.S. And finally, this paper looks at the impact that parent involvement has on standardized test scores.

As already discussed, various studies offer reasons to suspect the validity of test score comparisons between U.S. and other countries’. In addition to pointing out the weaknesses in these comparisons, these studies also indicate some weaknesses in the particular approach to standardized testing used by some states in the U.S. For example, one factor not fully addressed in U.S. standardized tests is the role of student motivation (Berliner 1995). One way some states have attempted to increase student motivation is by making the tests “high stakes” tests. North Carolina uses these “high stakes” tests on eighth graders; the students have to pass the test in order to move on to the next grade (Clayton 1999). However, many states still do not use “high stakes” tests, meaning the tests will not affect the students’ grades. Therefore, many students may not even try on these tests. In other countries these tests are considered to be an honor (Berliner 1995). In America, students perceive these tests not as an honor but as an inconvenience (Berliner 1995).Not only do students not take the tests seriously, many of the parents don’t understand the tests. In a national survey of parents’ views on standardized tests conducted by the Sylvan Learning Center, a majority of the parents surveyed did not believe that the tests were accurate measures of their children’s ability (Moore 2000). Nearly half of the parents in this study found inconsistencies between their child’s test scores and their grades (Moore 2000).

If students are doing really well in school, although they earn low test scores, this would naturally raise questions about the tests. A teacher who works individually with a student every day should have a much better idea of a student’s abilities and knowledge than any one test could reveal. The teacher’s grades are based on many tests and other projects throughout the year. A standardized test does not take into account all the other work that is done. It merely asks students to memorize facts that they can forget as soon as the test is over. In some states, one test can determine if a student will graduate, while totally disregarding the rest of the student’s high school accomplishments.

Furthermore, standardized tests do not encourage or test the students’ complex thinking skills (Schafer 2001). “The typical standardized exam reduces the assessment process to multiple guess and stunts development of comprehension skills” (Schafer 2001). As a result, teachers are “abandoning time-honored assignments” in order to spend more and more hours on test preparation (Schafer 2001). Students who in their day to day class work, have problems handling complex thinking problems, score within the normal level for their age on standardized tests (Waber 2000). These are the same students who are struggling so much in their classes that teachers and parents are having them tested for learning disability problems (Waber 2000). And because these students score within the normal limits on these standardized tests, they are often not eligible for any special services that other students with learning disabilities are eligible to receive (Waber 2000). Relying on standardized tests is going to lead to students who are not life long learners (McAdie 2001).

The tests are also poor measures of the effectiveness of the teachers and school. According to one study, only 15 percent of the differences in test scores are due to teacher and school quality (Sacks 2000). This means the other 85 percent is related to other factors such as family income, poverty rate, educational attainment of parents, and other non-school related variables (Sacks 2000). It does not seem fair to fire teachers and take money away from schools that are not performing on standardized tests when they only influence 15 percent of the test score. Even if these teachers were perfect, and the school was perfect, some students would still receive failing grades on the standardized tests. In addition, these tests cause stressful working conditions for many teachers. For example, one fourteen-year veteran teacher was under so much pressure from the standardized tests, that she wanted to switch the grade she taught because in the other grades they didn’t have to participate in the standardized tests (Clayton 1999). In Japan, teachers just simply refused to administer the tests (Kohn 2001).

One last problem with the standardized tests is that many believe the tests are biased against minorities, females, students with disabilities, and students from low-income families (McAdie 2001, Sacks 2000). In one school, students who did well on the standardized tests received scholarships (Schafer 2001). This seems like a good idea, however, the students who were receiving the scholarships were the students from rich families who did not need them (Schafer 2001). In a study on how SAT scores are influenced by family income, it was found that for every $10,000 decrease in family income, the SAT score also decreases 15 points (Schafer 2001). Assuming this applies similarly to kindergarten through twelfth-grade students, the tests discriminate against low-income families.

Despite all of the drawbacks to standardized tests, the number of states who use them has increased from only two states in 1973 to thirty-four states in 1983 (Linn 2000). This dramatic increase in the use of standardized testing is because politicians see them as a great opportunity—not an opportunity for the children, but an opportunity for the politician. Politicians use education as a way to get people interested in the elections. Politicians often mention the poor test scores at some point in their campaign and have some type of reform plan. Their plans range from reducing class sizes, to spending more money on public education, to testing students more often. For example, in 1989, President George Bush, Sr. introduced six national goals for public education known as “America 2000” (Ohanian 2000). This was later incorporated into President Clinton’s education reform plan known as “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” (Ohanian 2000). And in 1994, Congress passed a public school reform plan called “Goals 2000.” While “Goals 2000” sounded like a good plan, the goals it listed were subjective and hard to measure. For example, the first goal was “All children in America will start school ready to learn” (Ohanian 2000). Of course this is very subjective, since everybody has a different definition of “ready to learn.” The plan also neglected to mention how to make them “ready to learn” (Ohanian 2000).

Politicians like standardized testing because it is something that can be implemented during their time in office (Linn 2000). Typically, test results will improve in the first few years, even with no real improvement in the school or the teaching (Linn 2000). Test scores are very visible and easy for politicians to point to as a measure of how they have “improved” our public schools.

Another reason standardized tests are popular with politicians and policy makers is that they are relatively inexpensive to administer compared to reducing class sizes and other methods of improving student achievement (Linn 2000). This way the politician does not have to spend a great deal of money on the public education system, but he is able to point to some improvement, and most people just believe the statistics. They think numbers can’t be wrong, although the numbers are very misleading.

One factor that is often forgotten when discussing the effectiveness of standardized tests is the effect of parental involvement. Studies continue to show that parental involvement is associated with stronger academic achievement and improved attendance and behavior (Hoover-Dempsey 2001). According to a study by Andrew Beveridge and Sophia Catsambis, “Parental involvement is one of the major ways by which families influence the educational achievement of children” (2001). The importance of parental involvement was also addressed in the public school reform plan, “Goals 2000.” The plan notes that if children are to “start school ready to learn,” then parents must be responsible for preparing or enrolling them in some type of pre-school program. The eighth goal of the plan specifically states, “Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children” (Ohanian 2000). Unfortunately, most parents don’t feel equipped to help their children prepare for the standardized tests that were implemented partly as a result of “Goals 2000” (Moore 2000). However, this fear has not stopped many private schools; they require that in order for the child to attend, the parents must volunteer a certain number of hours at the school.

Of course not all the factors that influence a child’s success in school or on tests will be under the parents’ control. For example, one study discusses how the neighborhood in which people live can depress a parent’s ability to engage in effective parental practices (Beveridge 2001). When parents are trying to influence their children to do their school work , and the children are being influenced by their friends in the neighborhood, often the peer pressure of their friends will win out. The negative influence of the child’s friends can override the positive influence of the parents (Beveridge 2001).

Although, most people believe that money, class size, and frequency of testing are the primary reasons for American public schools’ poor test scores, parental involvement and the format of the standardized tests actually have a greater impact on the test scores.

Based on the studies and literature on standardized testing, many people feel these tests are not an accurate way of measuring how our students and schools are doing. The literature reviewed in this paper indicates that standardized tests are not an accurate measure of students’ academic abilities, and that there are many other factors that influence the test results much more then the school itself. There is a hidden agenda behind the politician who so proudly points out that his or her district’s public schools have improved over the first few years of the tests. Although as argued in this paper, this does not mean that the quality of the school has actually improved.

Berliner, David. (1995). A Crisis Created by Education Myths: Education Digest. Virginia Journal of Education. 61 (2).

Beveridge, Andrew, and Catsambis, Sophia. (2001). Neighborhood and School Influences on the Family Life and Mathematics Performance of Eighth Grade Students. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Available online at: http://www.csos.jhu.edu.

Clayton, Mark. (1999). Do High-Stakes Tests Change a School? Yes.Christian Science Monitor. 91 (90).

Hoover-Dempsey, Kathleen, Kathleen Jones, Richard Reed, and Joan Walker. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18: 843-867.

Kohn, Alfie. (2001). Fighting the tests. Phi Delta Kappan. 82 (5): 348.

Linn, Robert. (2000). Assessments & Accountability. Educational Researcher. 29 (2): 4-14.

McAdie, Pat. (2001). Assessment and Accountability: Why Standardized Testing is the Wrong Answer. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Available online at: http://www.etfo.on.ca.

Moore, Kathleen. (2000). National Survey Gauges Parent Perceptions of State-Mandated, Standardized Tests. Harris Interactive and Sylvan Learning Center. Available online at: http://www.ascd.org/educationnews/pr/sylvan.html.

Ohanian, Susan. (2000). What’s in a Name? Phi Delta Kappan. 81 (5).

Sacks, Peter. (December, 2000). High Stakes tests are leaving schools and students consumed by a “cult of measurement.” The School Administrator Web Edition. Available online at: http://www.aasa.org.

Schafer, Gregory. (2001). Tests that Fail Democracy. Humanist. 61 (3).

Waber, Deborah P. (2000). Characteristics of Children Referred for Evaluation of School Difficulties Who Have Adequate Academic Achievement Scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 33 (5): 489