How Standardized Testing Should Work

The Conundrum that is the Standards Movement

We are now in what is commonly called the “Standards Movement” in public education. The basic premise is that we give standardized tests based on predetermined curricula to assess student mastery. The conventional wisdom is that this is a logical way to put pressure on schools to improve student achievement.

When No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2003, the stated goal was that all students would be at “grade level” by 2014. Determine appropriate content for each grade level, teach said content with “proven” instructional strategies, assess student understanding, and, voila! All students will learn. The centralized implementation of this dogma meant one size fits all while ignoring that every child was a different size.

_______________________________________________________________________

No consideration is given for different learning styles, varied brain

development and maturity, or environmental factors.

The problem with the Standards Movement is that it ignores the predetermined student biases that come through content exposure, socio-economic, cultural, and linguistic circumstances. No consideration is given for different learning styles, varied brain development and maturity, or environmental factors. Regional and cultural conditions give certain students an advantage skewed by a limited interpretation of mastery. It’s not simply that wealthy or educated communities are smarter, it is that their privilege exposes them to the subject matter tested.

Proficiency Independent of Inquiry

The evolution of high stakes testing has taken inquiry out of the learning equation. State departments of education come to conclusions on student proficiency independent of what goes on in the classroom and then has companies develop tests with little teacher input. When the tests are taken, teachers get the results at the end of the school year as their current class matriculates or at the beginning of the year with a new set of students.

______________________________________________________________________

Failing tests then become a self-fulfilling prophesy…

Teachers not only have to teach the curriculum expected for the current school year but somehow find time to reteach missed learning without knowing the child or adequate time to research the problem. Failing tests then become a self-fulfilling prophesy where students who succeeded the year before study new content and students who struggled focus on gaps from the previous year while missing the new information to be tested the next spring.

So How Should We Approach Standardized Testing?

More Human Capital and Resources

First, standardized tests are designed to be diagnostic, not determinative. Many current tests do provide meaningful data on student deficits, but teachers do not have the time and resources needed to bring students up to speed based on this reporting. This is where smaller classes and more adults in the classroom would be beneficial. Punishing teachers and schools for results without providing the resources to respond means failure is predetermined. Give standardized pretests at the beginning of the year that gives real-time data. Then get out of the teachers’ way, provide time for preparation, and let them teach accordingly.

Deploy Master Teachers

Second, identify master teachers and have them coordinate teacher teams and staff planning. In many countries there are multiple teachers in a classroom at one time lead by a master teacher. All are engaged in instruction with the most veteran modeling the most effective instructional practices and curricular priorities. How do we determine mastery? Trust the school administration to coordinate the arrangement and give them the resources of additional instructional specialists to engage with teachers to gauge needs in the classroom. It would require more staff in the schoolhouse while improving academic achievement.

Give Teachers Testing Autonomy

Third, give teachers more autonomy in testing practice. Part of the problem we see in the Standards Movement is that we undervalue teacher capacity in developing credible assessments. In one of my schools, I conducted a series of faculty meetings where I had teachers share their priorities with the grade level above and below. Once we completed this exercise, we compared our teachers’ priorities to the state standards. My teachers were amazed that both aligned well. Our end of year test results took off based on teacher self-evaluation and instructional initiaitve. Yes, I had an exceptional staff, but every staff I have worked with would have been successful if put through this process. This exercise worked because teacher collaboration is the most effective way improve individual and collective pedagogy.

Focus on How to Learn, not Recall

Fourth, school should be about how to learn, not about content. The content covered in standardized tests should give us clues on how students interact with stimuli to develop better understanding. This requires a critical emphasis on exposure to prior knowledge that promotes a student’s motivation to inquire. Humans are wired to explore priorities built on interests and adapt accordingly. The more we experience, the more we seek to understand. If there is no personal context to what is being taught, then the brain discards the information automatically. Dendrites are not built on exposure, but through relationships with meaning.

Standardized Tests Can be Helpful

Standardized tests have a roll in educating students. They provide meaningful data that reveals clues about individual student learning. The problem we face today is that the centralized institution of the public schools acts as if that this data reveals all that is needed to improve student achievement. Standardized test results are only a part of the evidence needed when prescribing strategies for struggling students. Teachers’ daily work with students and their knowledge of the school community are just as vital.