Why Standardized Tests Fail to Measure Educational Attainment

Standardized Testing: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

Today, high-stakes standardized testing in the nation’s schools is commonplace, and the practice has been used in American schools at some level for more than 175 years. During this time, standardized tests have been accepted for their ability to gauge student learning by some, criticized by others and lambasted by some, but they have generally been accepted as the only cost-effective, standardized method of measuring educational attainment that is currently available. The purpose of this paper is to examine these good, bad and even ugly aspects of standardized testing to determine the facts. Following this review, a summary of the research and important findings about standardized testing are provided in the paper’s conclusion.

The Good

Much of the “good” that is associated with standardized testing is attributable to the fact that these testing methods have been used in the United States for a very long time. Moreover, standardized tests were originally developed by the prominent educator, Horace Mann. In this regard, one historian reports that, “The man considered to be the Father of Standardized Testing in the U.S. is Horace Mann, who was secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education from 1837-48” (History of standardized testing, 2013). Prior to the introduction of standardized tests in 1845, most American schools used oral examinations as the main method of measuring educational attainment (History of standardized testing, 2013).

In addition, proponents maintain that some other “good” qualities of standardized tests include their demonstrated ability to objectively measure educational attainment in ways that uneven grading schemes cannot as well as their ability to identify educational attainment areas that are in of improvement. In sum, standardized tests provide a valuable framework in which the nation’s students can be assessed in a uniform fashion to measure their knowledge (Do standardized tests improve education in America?, 2020). Notwithstanding these good aspects of standardized testing, critics charge that there are multiple bad aspects as well which are discussed below.

The Bad

The American schoolhouse of the mid-19th century and most of the 20th century was dramatically different in demographic composition from the nation’s schools today (Olson, 2020). Indeed, even teaching black students to read and write in some southern states was against the law prior to the Civil War, and Native American and Hispanic students were not represented in the nation’s schools in any jurisdiction in any meaningful numbers. In this regard, Black (2020) emphasizes that, “Public schools in the U.S. today are educating more students from language and racial/ethnic minority backgrounds and from lower socioeconomic groups” (p. 18). Indeed, English as a second language students from vastly different cultural, social and economic backgrounds are increasing in numbers, and many are relegated to largely segregated schools despite the nationwide desegregation mandate of Brown v. Education.

Standardized testing’s track record of effectively measuring educational attainment among minority groups, however, is downright dismal. Not only have minorities been traditionally provided with inequitable educational opportunities and underfunded schools compared to their white counterparts, these young learners tend to come from low socioeconomic homes where education may not receive the same priority as in mainstream households. As Black (2020) concludes, “High stakes, standardized tests have long been a part of Texas education policy even though decades of research show this testing to be a deeply flawed policy that further exacerbates already existing educational inequalities and disadvantages minoritized students” (p. 20). In addition, by measuring current educational attainment rather than cumulative attainment, standardized tests fail to measure student progress over time (Do standardized tests improve education?, 2020).

The Ugly

Perhaps the strongest condemnation of standardized testing relates to the tendency for educators to “teach to the test” in an attempt to have their students score well to avoid cuts in school districts’ budgets and generate performance bonuses for themselves (Solanki & Evans, 2020). Such practices not only fail to provide young learners with the critical thinking skills they need in the 21st century workplace, teaching to the test also conceals the true status of educational attainment and does not identify where learning deficits may exist. As one critic concludes, “Standardized tests only determine which students are good at taking tests, offer no meaningful measure of progress, and have not improved student performance” (Do standardized tests improve education?, 2020, para. 8).

Conclusion

The United States is a generous nation and it has not skimped on education. Enormous sums of scarce taxpayer resources have been used to build, maintain and administer public schools across the country, but far too many students still struggle to attain the education they need to compete effectively in the 21st century workplace and many critics blame standardized testing for this suboptimal outcome. The research did show that standardized testing is regarded as an equitable method of assessing educational attainment and in identifying learning deficits by some educators, but the criticisms against this testing method make it clear that alternatives are needed and the sooner the better.