Standardized Testing and the Stress it Puts on Teachers

¶ … American public education system has endured many changes in the last few decades. It has gone from back to basics, to whole language learning, and then back to basics again. The system is constantly being scrutinized by the parents who send their children to it, the students themselves, experts in the field and politicians who use its flaws as a springboard for change, while using its successes as a platform for bragging rights. The American public school system is constantly being evaluated, and re-evaluated. A central criteria for the scrutinization of the system is the marks the students receive on the standardized testing that is administered each year.

Each school system or state system uses a standardized test of its choice to measure the student's progress through their academics. The school system administers the test to the students and the percentages are tallied to determine where on the national percentile the school falls. One of the problems that has begun to make its way to the forefront in recent years is that the test is also being used to judge the worth of the teachers within that system. The teachers are aware that this is occurring and in recent times have begun something called "teaching to the test." This term is used when teachers are teaching lessons geared to help the student get high marks on standardized tests, with little concern about other material. The entire system places an unfair amount of stress on the teachers, who struggle annually with making sure they teach whatever will show up on the standardized test for their students. The results are often published in local newspapers school by school, thereby making it even more stressful for teachers who have to answer not only to administrators but also to the public at large. This entire system has become a sort of witch hunt for teachers who may be doing an excellent job, but are not teaching to the test as their peers are doing. Many decisions are based on the results of the test including career ladder choices, pay scale raises, and hiring and firing decisions. The test has become such an important tool for evaluating teachers that instead of working to provide solid foundational educations to the students the teachers are concerning themselves mainly with making sure the test results come out in a positive light. Because the tests are becoming more about the teachers, and less about the students, the teachers are being put under stress to compete with other school systems and each other. The public comparing of the results combined with the outcome because of the results have caused standardized testing to become stressful for teachers across the nation.

This proposed study is designed to determine what it is about the tests that cause the stress for teachers. Once the main stressors are determined then steps can be taken to alleviate the stress and make the teacher's job go back to being about teaching, and not about testing. This study will also lay the foundation for future tests that will allow for the planning of academics to be sure the proper things are being covered within the scope of total teaching. The main question the study is designed to answer is how the stress of standardized teaching affects a teacher's ability to teach the students.

Because standardized testing has become so important in recent years in the evaluation of teachers and their abilities it has caused many teachers to forgo teaching academics for the purpose of teaching so that their students will score highly on the standardized testing instead. This can cause students to miss out on valuable instruction and valuable learning experiences as well as leave gaps in their education which the next teacher has to handle while she or he too tries to teach to the test for their students.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to determine how the implementation of standardized testing affects the teachers ability to teach. It has been changing for many years in the field of education and the standardized test has become one of the mainstay tools with which to evaluate teaching ability. It is something that districts and states have come to rely on as the scores are held against other scores across the nation. Schools use the standardized test scores within their school systems to advertise what a superior system it is. Conversely if a school does not do well on standardized testing, local politicians point to those numbers for the purpose of blaming their opponents for the poor education that their students are receiving. The standardized testing of students has become the single most important measure of a teacher's worth in recent years, thereby cutting out all creative abilities within the teaching system. The schools are working to compete with local schools as well as state and national scores as a measure of self-worth. This has caused teachers to stop trying to instill lifelong learning skills in their students and instead works to instill the right answers in the students for the purpose of the standardized test scores. The entire focus that has been placed on the results of standardized testing has caused increasing stress for the teachers in the school systems where the tests are administered. This study is designed to determine if the stress of standardized testing of students affects a teacher's ability to teach the students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There have been many studies conducted on the effects of education changes and mandates. There are studies to cover the differences in systems, private and public. There are studies designed to ask whether a back to basic education or a whole language system is best. The majority of the studies tie directly to the question of standardized testing however, by their very nature. Standardized tests are what studies often use to measure the answer to the study questions. If a study wants to determine whether whole language learning or phonetic teaching is best, the study often turns to the scores on the standardized testing to determine the answer. If a study is designed to evaluate the worth of a core curriculum the study turns to the scores on standardized testing instruments to determine which curriculum seems to offer the most success. At the very basic foundation of the studies is support for this study as the studies are dependent on the fact that standardized testing scores are a valid message of a curriculum worth, or the abilities of a teacher or group of teachers.

There have been studies conducted throughout the years as well that measure many aspect of testing and alternative testing.

One study measured the success and profitability of using alternative assessment tests. In recent years the decision has been made by some school systems to remove the scores of their special education students before tallying and releasing the scores of their standardized tested students. This decision was made for the purpose of removing the ability of special education students to lower the overall scores of the systems (Kleinert, 1999). It is another indication that the standardized test scores are being used for the judgment of teachers more than the gauge of the students. In one recent study the use of alternative assessments was examined.

The use of alternative assessments allowed their students to be included in the overall scoring measures of the systems standardized testing results. "These teachers perceived benefits of including their students in state and school accountability measures, as well as their perceptions of the instructional impact of the alternate system upon student outcomes (Kleinert, 1999). The results of this survey indicated that teachers did realize such benefits, and perceived positive changes in both instructional programming (e.g., students' learning to follow their own individualized schedules, students' learning to assess their own performance) and enhanced student outcomes (an increased percentage of students having functional augmentative communication systems) (Kleinert, 1999). However, teachers also expressed frustration with the amount of time required to complete student assessment portfolios, and concern over scoring reliability and the extent to which the alternate assessment was more of a teacher assessment than a student assessment (Kleinert, 1999)." Which allows for the same stressor problems as the standardized testing that is the focus of this study.

The driving reason behind the development of alternative assessment of special education students was the fact that they are often being excluded in the overall measurement of students within their school systems. The alternative assessment idea allowed them to be included however, it places an additional burden or stress on the teachers who must provide the assessment and the evaluation of the assessment in addition to the stress of having to give a standardized test to the regular students as well.

Driving these federal requirements for the participation of students with disabilities in educational assessments, which entails developing alternate assessments for students who cannot participate in regular assessments, are several critical concerns (Kleinert, 1999):"

Students with disabilities are, as often as not, excluded from state and local measures of educational accountability and thus are not held to the same high learning expectations as other students ("CEC Fights," 1995; United States Department of Education, 1995) (Kleinert, 1999);

b) students with more severe disabilities are nearly universally excluded from such measures (Elliott, 1997; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993) (Kleinert, 1999) school effectiveness measures are truly meaningful only if we account for the learning of all students (Kleinert, Kearns, & Kennedy, 1997).

Although many authorities endorse this direction toward inclusive assessment and accountability (Elliott, 1997; Kleinert et al., 1997; Sailor, 1997; United States Department of Education, 1995; Ysseldyke et al., 1996), sorting out, on a national scale, all of the conceptual and logistical issues involved in making instructionally valid accommodations to regular assessments, and designing appropriate alternate assessments for students with more severe disabilities, represent a task of immense proportions.

Indeed, research is limited on whether performance-based assessments translate into significant positive changes in instructional practice for students without disabilities. When writing portfolios were included as a part of large-scale assessments for students in Vermont and Pittsburgh, teachers reported that they liked the portfolios and that they integrated the new assessment activities into their daily classroom instruction (Gearhart & Herman, 1995; Langenfeld et al., 1997; LeMahieu, Gitomer, & Eresh, 1995). However, teachers in Great Britain were far less enthusiastic about a national performance-based assessment (based on that nation's Core Curriculum); they viewed the assessment tasks as increased work and time taken from teaching and as wholly separate from their daily instructional routine (Torrance, 1993). "

This is the concern that has prompted the proposed study in this paper. The teachers are having to take away from instruction time to not only give the standardized tests, but also to prepare for the standardized tests. The tests are often given in the spring which means that a good part of the school year is devoted to teaching to the test so that the teacher can pass the scrutinization that the test results are used for. This entire process takes away from the education of the students and causes the teacher stress as the year and the standardized test draws closer.

The study concluded "the relationship between performance assessment and changes in instruction becomes even further complicated when those assessments are conducted in the context of high-stakes accountability (i.e., rewards for schools that improve performance and sanctions for schools that fail to meet their improvement targets). One result of using performance-based assessments in high-stakes accountability environments is that the field is developing its knowledge base even as the assessments are being implemented (Earl & LeMahieu, 1997). Several authors have noted that basing school rewards and sanctions on the results of performance-based assessment measures might well "[trivialize] both the skills measured and the instructional strategies" (Miller & Legg, 1993, p. 14) and "[compromise] the very nature of performance assessment" as a tool for improving student learning (Jones & Whitford, 1997, p. 280) (Kleinert, 1999). "

Another study was conducted on a Kentucky school system. The result of the study was that teachers were not changing the basic fundamentals of the curriculum for the purpose of the test other than asking the students to write additional assignments for the preparations of the writing assignment. This failure to change the curriculum caused stress to the teachers given the high stakes that the state offered to teachers who had students score highly on the standardized testing each year.

However, none of the above studies considered the instructional impact of an alternate assessment for students with disabilities who were unable to participate in the state or district's regular assessment program (even with appropriate adaptations); IDEA's new mandate for the implementation of such alternate assessments for students with disabilities makes such research imperative (Kleinert, 1999). "

When one wants to determine whether or not the standardized testing causes stress for the teachers of the students who take the standardized tests, one only has to look at the accountability score ratings. The accountability of the teachers and their ability to teach is based in the scores of the standardized test. It is a combination of indicators but they all go back to the testing of the students with a standardized instrument to measure the teacher's success or failure in the teaching arena.

The study was conducted using a one page survey for teachers to fill out. The study was used to conclude whether teachers felt their students in special education should be included in the standardized testing assessment and measurement and if so whether those scores should be included in the evaluation of the teachers themselves.

There were limitations to the study. One of the limitations was the fact that the changes to the classroom were not directly observed, but instead were left to the teacher self-assessment form which was not able to be completely objective.

In a different study conducted by the University of Tennessee standardized testing was evaluated for its worth when it comes to the worth of the teachers (Goldstein, 2000). The study was conducted over many years and involved the examination of six million records of students. The actual study was for the evaluation of over 30,000 elementary school teachers. The study measured the amount of knowledge that was gained by students from a specific teacher or teachers over the years (Goldstein, 2000). The study used what is called the TVAAS (Tennessee Value Added Assessment System).

Among their findings:

An ineffective teacher can slow a child's future educational progress by at least four years (Goldstein, 2000).

A teacher's effectiveness is 10 to 20 times more important to a child's educational success than any other factor (Goldstein, 2000).

These include class size, per-pupil expenditure, the school principal, whether the school is urban, suburban or rural, the ethnic makeup of the class, whether students are placed in heterogeneous (different) or homogeneous (similar) groups, free or low-cost lunch and breakfast programs (Goldstein, 2000).

As Dr. William Sanders, a statistician whose research has been used since 1992 to assess every elementary school teacher in Tennessee recently told the New York Times (Goldstein, 2000):

In two of our larger school districts we traced individual children through sequences of teachers. If we were to look at two kids who left second grade with the same achievement level, and one, by fate, caught for each of the next three years a teacher we had identified as being in the top 20th percentile (of ability), that kid scored on average at the 96th percentile on the fifth-grade math test (Goldstein, 2000). "But if the other kid caught for three years a teacher at the bottom, he scored in the 44th percentile (Goldstein, 2000). Purely as the luck of the draw. The difference was huge, huge, huge (Goldstein, 2000)."

This study underscores the stress that standardized testing can cause for teachers.

The standardized tests are used for several purposes according to the study. "They can introduce standardized student testing, revise curricula, spend more in the classroom, less on administration, raise instructional times, mandate class size, impose extra-curricular activities, set behavior codes, bring in uniforms (Goldstein, 2000). But if, in the end, they create an educational environment where teachers are completely embittered, disillusioned and demoralized, they will ultimately harm public education, so vital to students is the role of the individual teacher (Goldstein, 2000)."

The study concluded that using standardized test scores by which to evaluate teachers abilities is unfair to the teachers as it doesn't test the teacher's true abilities but instead tests their ability to cram answers into students for the purpose of passing the standardized test. This stress inducing accountability standard of measurement is not a true evaluation and causes the teachers undue and unnecessary stress according to the results of the University of Tennessee research.

Across the nation teachers are being forced to teach to the test and many of the innovative plans that they had at the beginning of the year fall by the wayside with no time to introduce the concept let alone teach the unit (Strauss, 2001). "Daniel Dara Din, a freshman at the University of Virginia, is learning history he didn't get to study before he graduated last year from Chantilly High School in Fairfax County (Strauss, 2001). "Drilled into my mind over the years were Virginia history, Colonial history and history up to the Civil War, " Din said, "but there was no time for much of anything past World War II (Strauss, 2001)."

Standardized testing and teaching to prepare for the standardized testing take up more time each year as schools compete for places based on the scores their students get. Teachers are more concerned than ever that their worth is being measured by the standardized tests and if their students do not score as well as the students down the hall or across town their job, or their future may be called into question. It is a stressful situation all the way around and the teachers are losing their ability, drive and motivation to be creative and continue instilling a student's lifelong love of learning in the students (Strauss, 2001).

Standardized testing now cuts into teaching time -- Maryland students in various grades take an entire week of such tests a year -- and teachers find it difficult to refocus students on learning after spring tests, for which the curriculum is geared (Strauss, 2001)."

Because of the stress that is caused by standardized testing for teachers many of them breath a sigh of relief when the testing is over. According to the research many teachers as well as students believe that the learning for the year is over once the testing is completed. This is based in the understanding that the entire teacher measurement is based on the scores that his or her students achieve on the tests (Strauss, 2001). This is the only measurement that matters in many school systems today therefore the teachers quit teaching once the tests have been administered, and the students turn off their thinking caps. Standardized testing is often given in the spring which leaves many weeks of the school year left following the tests (Strauss, 2001). The testing has become so stressful to teachers, according to studies that when it is over they believe nothing they do from that point matters as far as their measurement as a teacher is concerned.

Part of what is causing the teachers to be stressed about the standardized testing standards and what it means to them is that the states are requiring more and more things be included in what they are required to teach their students each year. To get it all taught the teachers are instead, teaching to the test to try and make it appear that they have covered everything even if they have not.

Apparently they don't (Strauss, 2001). A 1999 study conducted by the Colorado-based Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning Lab showed that teachers would need twice the time now allocated to adequately cover all the material required by state standards (Strauss, 2001).

In three states -- Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota -- teachers would need 1,100 hours of instructional time to address the standards in four main areas, though there are 630 to 720 hours of instruction time available in a school year, the study showed (Strauss, 2001)."

In recent years educators have begun to look at the trend to use the standardized tests to measure the worth of a teacher or group of teachers and have discovered that it does not actually measure the worth. The stress that testing causes the teachers, is causing them to forgo the wonderful and innovative teaching ideas that they brought with them into the career (Puckett, 2002). "An over-reliance on standardized testing would force teachers to gear their lessons solely to one test, Johnson said. That," she said, "is definitely not learning (Puckett, 2002)."

As long as the test is used to measure the worth or value of a teacher there are going to be problems with teachers teaching to the test. The stress that they are under to get the scores to achieve causes them to forgo anything other than getting their students ready to take the standardized test. When school systems compare their scores to the scores of other school systems it can be a rude awakening or something to be proud of. It is long since forgotten that the tests are a mere indicator of a student's ability to test well or the fact that the teacher made sure the students knew the information that was going to be on the test (Charp, 2001). It has no bearing on many of the things students could be learning if they did not have to take the standardized test. If the standardized test tolls were only used to develop curriculum they would not cause the amount of stress on the teachers that they currently cause. The decision to hire and fire or advance a teacher based on the scores his or her students attain is the most important stress causer for teachers when it comes to standardized testing and their student scores.

Measurements vary from state to state and have encountered criticism such as: teachers try to inflate student scores by teaching to the test; tests rely heavily on multiple-choice questions; variability in student performance from state to state is not accounted for; and course standards are not sufficiently rigorous. At a recent meeting, a number of teachers were discussing testing and agreed on the following (Charp, 2001): "

If we tie teacher evaluation and compensation as well as funding for the school to test results, teachers will teach to the test (Charp, 2001).

Testing, which teachers call "high stakes," is driving much ofwhat is considered important. Therefore, testing is both the beginning and the end of instruction (Charp, 2001).

In teaching to the test and aligning the curriculum to the standards, the other important needs of the students may be forgotten (Charp, 2001).

Many experts have looked at ways to reduce the importance of the annual standardized test and thereby reducing the stress level that is caused by the standardized test for teachers. Some of those suggestions included:

1. "Provide safeguards against the selective exclusion of students from assessments; e.g., by including all students in accountability calculations (Charp, 2001)."

2. "Utilize new high-quality assessments each year that are statistically equated to those of previous years.

3. Not put all of the weight on a single test; instead, seek multiple indicators (Charp, 2001)."

4. "Place more emphasis on comparisons of school performance from year to year, rather than from school to school. This allows for differences in starting points, while maintaining an expectation of improvement for all (Charp, 2001)."

5. "Consider both value added and status in the system. Value added provides schools that start out far from the mark a reasonable chance to show improvement, while status guards against institutionalizing low expectations for those same students and schools (Charp, 2001)."

6. "Recognize, evaluate and report the degree of uncertainty in the reported results (Charp, 2001)."

7. "Put in place a system for evaluating the effects of the system: positive and negative, intended and unintended (Charp, 2001)."

Measuring how much students have learned.

While parents are of course eager to know how well the educational service is teaching their children there are problems with using a standardized test as the only means of measurement (Ediger, 1998). It places teachers in the position of having to teach to the test to make the parents believe their students are being taught at least as much or as well as those who also scored highly against the national averages. This means that the parents may be getting a false sense of security and the students are drilled so hard regarding the upcoming testing week that they lose their natural curiosity and love of learning.

The problem is further complicated when international comparisons are made (Ediger, 1998). From data obtained from test results of diverse nations on the face of the earth, selected educators state that the United States is near the bottom of all industrialized nations whereas other educators will say that the U.S. is doing very well in educating their children when apples are compared with apples and not oranges (Ediger, 1998). Thus the U.S. has pupils in school for a longer period of time, agewise, than most other nations; therefore pupils in the U.S. will not do as well as others due to more of the cream of the crop of pupils being tested in nations outside the U.S.(Ediger, 1998). The more pupils being tested in any nation, of course, will lower the average for that country (Ediger, 1998). There is even disagreement if Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores have gone up or down during the ensuing years when viewing the population taking the test (Ediger, 1998). Again, as numbers increased over the years in pupils taking the test, the lower the average score will be (Ediger, 1998). An increased number of lower achieving pupils are taking the test as numbers increase for the total number of test takers (Ediger, 1998)." few states have mandated tests which need to be passed in order for pupils to obtain a high school diploma (Ediger, 1998). Items on the test and the cut off point for passing the test are strictly arbitrary. Pilot studies may even be run here to develop validity and reliability data, but the subjective factors come first in that the test items are chosen and written by human beings and subject to change in terms of possessing perceived relevance. Truth is in the eye of the beholder (Ediger, 1998)." These tests being mandated for the student to be passed to the next grade or to graduate places additional stress on the teachers to be sure to teach to the test and make the students perform as required on the test (Ediger, 1998).

There are many assumptions that test writers and publishers of tests operate under in developing their measurement instruments. Walsh and Betz (1985) listed the following (Ediger, 1998):

1. It is assumed (at least to some extent). that each item on a test and all the words in that item have similar meaning for different people (Ediger, 1998)

2. "A second assumption is that people are able to perceive and describe their self-concepts and personalities accurately (Ediger, 1998)."..

3. "It is assumed that people will report their thoughts and feelings honestly (Ediger, 1998)."..

4. "It is assumed that an individual's test behavior (and actual behavior) is rather consistent over time (Ediger, 1998)."..

5. "It is assumed that the test measures what it is supposed to measure (Ediger, 1998)."..

6. "It is assumed that an individual's observed score... On a test is equal to his/her true score (true ability)... plus the error (Ediger, 1998).".."

The literature that has been published underscores the fact that standardized testing causes stress to teachers within the system. The published studies promote the understanding that standardized testing causes teachers to teach to the test, meaning get the students ready to answer test questions without any deeper understanding of the material. The literature also provides the knowledge that the standardized tests have become an evaluation tool for teachers and their worth and future are often dependent on the scores that their students attain. The previous studies have laid the foundational understanding of what the standardized test is used for and the fact that it is not a reliable tool for measurement. enthusiastic about a national performance-based assessment (based on that nation's Core Curriculum); they viewed the assessment tasks as increased work and time taken from teaching and as wholly separate from their daily instructional routine (Torrance, 1993). "

This is the concern that has prompted the proposed study in this paper. The teachers are having to take away from instruction time to not only give the standardized tests, but also to prepare for the standardized tests. The tests are often given in the spring which means that a good part of the school year is devoted to teaching to the test so that the teacher can pass the scrutinization that the test results are used for. This entire process takes away from the education of the students and causes the teacher stress as the year and the standardized test draws closer.

The study concluded "the relationship between performance assessment and changes in instruction becomes even further complicated when those assessments are conducted in the context of high-stakes accountability (i.e., rewards for schools that improve performance and sanctions for schools that fail to meet their improvement targets). One result of using performance-based assessments in high-stakes accountability environments is that the field is developing its knowledge base even as the assessments are being implemented (Earl & LeMahieu, 1997). Several authors have noted that basing school rewards and sanctions on the results of performance-based assessment measures might well "[trivialize] both the skills measured and the instructional strategies" (Miller & Legg, 1993, p. 14) and "[compromise] the very nature of performance assessment" as a tool for improving student learning (Jones & Whitford, 1997, p. 280) (Kleinert, 1999). "