Effects of standardized testing on teachers

¶ … American education system has come under considerable criticism in recent years with such criticism rising to the level that there are those who are recommending a complete overhaul. As one might expect, politicians have grabbed this opportunity to make the education system and the teachers who work within such system a major political issue on both the local and federal level (McGuinn, 2006). One of the side issues that have been discussed as part of this debate is the effect that standardized testing on our nation's teachers (Herman, 1993). Proponents of standardized testing argue that such testing improves the quality of education while opponents argue to the contrary. What the actual effect is remains to be determined but what can be determined without much debate is that such testing has resulted in school systems throughout the nation being made to spend millions of dollars and for administrators, teachers and students spending thousands of hours preparing for these tests. In the end, however, the question remains unanswered as to the effectiveness of this testing. Unfortunately for the nation's teachers, however, regardless of the whether standardized testing is effective or not the use of such testing has demoralized the teaching population to the extent that it has undermined the nation's entire educational system.

The arguments for standardized testing and its use as an educational tool are several. First, it is argued that such testing provides a barometer for schools to measure how they are doing. It gives schools, teachers, and students a goal that they can shoot for. Secondly, it also provides the individual teacher with a measure of how effectively he or she is teaching. If the class as a whole does poorly on the standardized test than the teacher is armed with the knowledge necessary to improve his or her teaching technique and if the class does well then the teacher's methods can be used as an example of good teaching methods. Thirdly, standardized testing, proponents argue, forces schools to be accountable for their teaching. Critics argue that American schools have been allowed to operate without any such accountability and, if nothing else, the standardized tests provide a measuring tool to assist determine which schools are succeeding and those that are not. Finally, or so proponents of testing argue, the tests can be used to exercise changes in education system that will serve to improve the overall condition of the education throughout the entire country.

Not everyone agrees that standardized testing is beneficial to the overall health of education. Opponents of standardized testing argue that improvements in standardized test scores do not correlate with improved education (Ricci, 2004). Instead, opponents would argue that improved scores on standardized testing only indicates that the students are better prepared for the tests and that scores on such tests are not indicative of what or whether the students are actually learning. Further, opponents argue that the time being spent on preparing for tests is depriving students of valuable instructional time that could be better spent on developing real thinking skills. There is also argument to be made that the emphasis on standardized testing is having a negative impact on the morale of the teaching profession in general.

The demands being placed on the nation's teachers relative to standardized testing are taking its toll. One of the stated purposes of standardized testing is to provide a measuring stick for determining the overall quality of teaching. Teachers are now being placed under a microscope where the quality of their teaching is determined completely by the success or failure of their students on standardized tests. Such a determination has a direct bearing on whether teachers are retained in their position; whether they receive promotions; and, whether they receive raises. Thus, teachers are being forced to develop their classroom strategy around preparing their students to do well on the standardized tests and ignoring more broad-based teaching techniques. The result of this process is that teachers, especially young ones, are feeling enormous pressure to have their students succeed on the standardized tests to the point where success on the tests have become the primary education goal. Teachers fear that the real reason that these tests are being administered is to evaluate the teachers and not as a method of measuring the success of the students. For this reason, among others, a great number of teachers are now teaching to the test. Again, the students may be well prepared for the test not being truly educated. This is a reality that may not present itself in the earlier stages of education but will be manifested when the students are placed in an educational setting when more abstract and creative learning is required.

The pressure to have their students succeed on standardized testing varies from teacher to teacher and the studies on this type of pressure varies as to whether this pressure has a positive, negative, or neutral effect on how the teacher teach (Winkler, 2002). Some studies indicate that teachers respond positively and others indicate that teachers respond negatively. The fact is that there have been many studies conducted, and yet, there has been consensus relative to whether standardized testing is a good thing for the educational system or a bad thing.

An essential question, however, is whether or not standardized testing changes what and how teachers teach and, further, whether whatever changes occur are for the better. The theory has always been that standardized testing would encourage teachers to focus on teaching what is meaningful and that teachers would than assist their students in improving in those areas. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on what it important and the result is that intense pressure is placed on teachers to improve scores and that nearly all classroom time and resources are being used to prepare students for the standardized tests.

An additional problem in the use of standardized testing is that they are tending to demoralize classroom teachers. The pressure to have the students score well on the tests is so intense it too often leads otherwise honest and hard-working teachers to take action and do things that otherwise they would never even consider (Nichols, 2008). Under the pressure of these tests teachers have been known to condone cheating, participated in data manipulation, narrowed and simplified the curriculum, and compromised their professional integrity by teaching to the test. Considering what the results might be for teachers whose students do not do well on the standardized tests this should not be unexpected. The behaviors that were noted earlier occur in every profession where the stakes are placed so high as to be unobtainable. Corruption of this nature occurs in the business world and in the professions. Every day the newspapers are full of examples where corruption, greed, cheating and taking short cuts are used to obtain an advantage. Should professional educators be expected to act any differently?

The placing of such importance on the results of standardized testing, which has been largely through the efforts of politicians and the general public, teachers have been placed in a position of subordinating learning for learning's sake and emphasizing obtaining an acceptable score on a standardized test. Students are being taught that achieving a passing score on a standardized test is more important than the process of thinking and learning. This is a position that runs contrary to the theories that educators have adopted for years.

What is being overlooked in the debate is that standardized tests are, by their nature, limited in form and complexity (Linn, 2001). The intellectual processes necessary for answering complex questions is far different than those required to answer the kind of multiple questions contained in standardized tests. Real life problems are not answerable, in most cases, by three or four multiple choice responses. Real life problems require far more introspection. Deciding how to invest one's money; deciding which mortgage loan is best; and, determining who to vote for in a national election all require skills far beyond those that are required to answer standardized tests. These are factors that are being overlooked in the debate over standardized testing. All the information needed to answer questions on a standardized test is contained inside the question. The test taker does not have to do research; do any independent thinking; or extrapolate answers based on anything but what is contained in the test question. Again, this is a process that simply does not exist in the real world.

The politics behind the use of standardized testing has also placed a heavy burden on the nation's teachers. Teachers in schools and districts whose scores fail to improve adequately or measure up to some artificial standard are branded and subjected to all sorts of indignities. The schools where they teach are threatened with closures or being taken over by the state. The atmosphere created by these possible contingencies is tenuous and fraught with frustration and pressure. Again, opposing sides to the standardized testing issue view this situation differently. Proponents of the testing argue that this is how it should be. Teachers should feel the pressure when their students do not succeed while opponents argue that placing such pressure on teachers just adds to the problem and makes success just that more difficult and unlikely.

Even the most ardent opponents to standardized testing among the teaching profession would likely argue that the demand for accountability is a legitimate one. Every profession needs to establish its credibility among the public and teachers should not be immune from this process, however, what has been lost in the process of trying to make teachers accountable is the value of what can be learned beyond the preparation for the standardized test. There is a necessity and value in establishing accountability but the method of using the standardized test to do so must be questioned.

When the use of standardized testing first came into vogue throughout the U.S. The goal was to establish a procedure for assessing students' educational achievement and to use such data to prepare all students to better compete in the marketplace. It was thought by testing students periodically throughout their educational career adjustments could be made along the way that might correct any potential problems. Unfortunately, a huge gap has occurred between what the original goals were and what the present reality is. Over the course of time, the sheer quantity of testing, the acceptable standards for passing, and the use of the testing data has increased well beyond what was originally contemplated and the individuals paying the price are the teachers.

The original goals in establishing standardized testing were not to measure the effectiveness of teachers or schools. The original goals were to assess the educational progress of the students. The original goals were not punitive in nature; instead, it was to provide assessment; just another tool in the continual process of educating young minds. The tests were not intended to replace the professional judgment of administrators and principals in assessing their staff. What has developed is a system of testing and re-testing that under minds the educational process and does not enhance the learning environment. Instead, it creates a stressful, restrictive, unimaginative, and fear driven environment.