Why Standardized Testing Fails to Benefit Students

Introduction: The Problem with American Education

Western school systems and their corresponding instructional techniques are engaged in a persistent battle. Over the last few decades, society has continued to highlight the perceived inferiority of the American school system and how it may infringe on the productive capacity of future generations. Pundits have joined the chorus of negative remarks about schools, teachers, and student outcomes. Interestingly, many of these calls for improvement have been met with increasing amounts of funding, donations, and capital expenditures directed at education. Relative to other developed nations, no country on earth spends more, per capita, to educate its citizenry. However, the outcomes are not compelling: the United States ranks roughly tenth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields globally.

This is alarming because the future is heavily skewed toward STEM-related fields. These fields require a strong foundation of expertise built through years of experience and training. Without an educated citizenry that specializes in these areas, it will be difficult to simply provide on-the-job training to establish core competency. Instead, a far more strategic, methodical, and consistent approach is needed for students to achieve the mastery required for success in these fields (Howard, 2017).

The Case for Standardized Testing and Why It Falls Short

Historically, standardized tests were used to determine student aptitude. The prevailing notion was that standardized testing provides a universal educational standard that can be easily compared, graded, and judged. Proponents argue that an examination conducted outside of school curricula — which can vary widely by district — helps an education system compare students from very different backgrounds, since all students take the exact same test. By measuring students against a universal standard, it becomes easier to evaluate and rank them. Through that standard, both teachers and students can also be held accountable for results. Legislators, albeit well-intentioned, sought to create a concrete set of standards and initiatives that could seamlessly gauge academic progress.

With a standardized test, not only can students be ranked, but common deficiencies in a curriculum can also be identified and corrected over time. Proponents further note that standardized testing can provide analytical rigor demonstrating progress throughout a student's academic career, and can give students from underperforming schools an opportunity to prove they have mastered necessary course material to the satisfaction of state and federal governments. As a result, advocates believe standardized testing can ultimately level the playing field for those with lower socioeconomic status. Although well-intentioned, many of these components fall short of the standards needed for continual educational improvement, and many of the above elements are actually a detriment to the overall education system — detracting from, rather than enhancing, performance (Morgan, 2016).

Key Arguments Against Standardized Testing

Standardized testing should be avoided based on research indicating that it does not enhance academic outcomes over the long term. While it may offer short-term benefits, the evidence shows it fails to deliver sufficient gains for longer-term outcomes. For one, standardized testing is rife with biases that ultimately inhibit student progress. Many teachers are restricted in their ability to instruct because they are often compelled to teach toward the specific parameters established by the government. This does not provide adequate flexibility for teachers to leverage their full creative capacities and engage students in richer, more meaningful ways. The tests themselves often measure test-taking aptitude more than genuine competency — students who pass are frequently simply skilled at taking tests.

Research conducted by Burton and Ramist found very little correlation between SAT scores and college success. Studying scores since 1980, they found that SAT scores were not statistically significant predictors of college and career success. This evidence is crucial given findings suggesting that high school GPAs are better predictors of college performance than standardized test scores. Further, the "one-size-fits-all" approach disadvantages students who may be behind in a particular subject. Research conducted by Sonnert, Sadler, and Barnett found that weaker students not only failed to reap long-term benefits in college calculus when their AP instructor emphasized standardized test preparation, but were actually put at a disadvantage. Students most in need of support might have been better served by a focus on mathematical fundamentals and basic mathematical skills rather than "prepping" for the AP exam.

Additional problems include gender bias in the tests themselves and in the preparation materials. Research conducted by Perihan Saygin demonstrates a strong gender bias within standardized testing. Her work showed that female students often outperform their male counterparts in GPA — because those grades derive largely from essay-type assessments — but fall behind on tests taken under extreme pressure and high-competition conditions. Saygin also demonstrated that GPA is a much stronger predictor of college success than standardized test scores. Unfortunately, many college admissions programs heavily weight standardized test results as an evaluation tool. Finally, the tests may not even reflect the skills students need for future success. Research by Applebee, Polleck, and Jeffery, examining the New York school district, suggests that many test items do not correlate with the skills required for career and college success, and advocates for social and cultural adjustments to account for the diverse backgrounds and experiences of students (Sonnert, 2020).

Conclusion

The evidence supporting standardized testing is not promising. The research against standardized testing is overwhelming, showing from a variety of viewpoints that it simply does not work to promote the education and future prospects of American youth. Standardized tests do not provide a legitimate method of measuring knowledge. Instead, they reward drilling and memorization, which ultimately undermines students' long-term prospects. While students may benefit from memorization in the short term, that benefit is transient because students have not internalized the foundational principles required to retain information over time.

In addition, standardized testing provides an excuse for teachers, faculty, and administrators not to innovate in the classroom. Instead, they teach to the test in an effort to satisfy institutional metrics, having students memorize test-relevant material without ensuring genuine learning. The incentives driving this approach are so overwhelming that teachers are effectively compelled to adopt it in order for their schools to receive proper benefits, compensation, and recognition. Ultimately, it is the students who suffer due to this misalignment of incentives, and a fundamental rethinking of how student learning is assessed is long overdue.

References

Howard, S., Woodcock, S., Ehrich, J., & Bokosmaty, S. What are standardized literacy and numeracy tests testing? Evidence of the domain-general contributions to students' standardized educational test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology (2017), 87, 108–12.

Morgan, H. (2016). Relying on high-stakes standardized tests to evaluate schools and teachers: A bad idea. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(2), 67–72.

Polleck, J., & Jeffery, J. Common Core standards and their impact on standardized test design: A New York case study. The High School Journal (Fall 2017). University of North Carolina Press.

Saygin, P. O. Gender bias in standardized tests: Evidence from a centralized college admissions system. Empirical Economics, 59, 1037–1065 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01662-z

Sonnert, G., Barnett, M., & Sadler, P. Short-term and long-term consequences of a focus on standardized testing in AP calculus classes. The High School Journal (Fall 2020). University of North Carolina Press.