Comprehension or Memorization? Thinkers or Test Takers? : How Standardized Testing has Hurt American Education
04 May 2011 Leave a Comment
by emmafaye in Essays and Short Stories
In a world consumed by competition, education has become a necessity. According to a study funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, children spend more than 32.5 hours a week in school, not including the time it takes for them to complete their homework and study, and this continues to increase (1). This same study showed that children between the ages of 6 and 8 spend about two additional hours in school then a child of the same age did 20 years ago (1). Furthermore, if a student wishes to move out of their parents’ home in this lifetime, they will need more than a high school diploma. Across our nation, employers have begun to hire simply based upon which candidate has the majority of schooling. A two-year degree might be enough to acquire a job that provides sufficient funds to feed a single person, living in a one-bedroom apartment, in a smaller city, but not much more than that.
So how is the United States to decide who is educated enough and who is not? The solution has become standardized testing. Standardized testing is at an all time high, but is that really going to help American students become educated to a greater extent? With the number of high school dropouts also on the rise, that doesn’t look promising. Today in America, it’s no longer as important to be comprehensive and productive as it is to be able to fill in the circles of a multiple-choice examination. So the question becomes, are the nation’s educators placing the focus on comprehension and application, or are America’s students simply being taught to be efficient test takers? Every year the education requirements of US citizens increase, as an attempt to prevent America from falling behind other nations. But are the strategies our nation is utilizing even effective? Probably not.
If standardized testing is supposed to help students and force them to learn to succeed in life, then it has accomplished this goal. “The idea is that by tying test scores to great consequences, the learning process will be taken much more seriously and tangible progress will be all the more likely,” stated Greg Winter, author for the New York Times (Winter 1). That may be true, but not in a positive way, as it forces educators to take the focus off comprehension and application, and teach students to be effective test takers. According to Stephen J. Dubner, author of Freakonomics, “[Standardized] Tests have increasingly come to be seen as ritualized burden that encourages rote learning at the expense of good thinking” (Dubner 1). Diana Jean Schemo also reported that the “Head of University of California seeks to end SAT use in admissions,” because “Standardized college tests have distorted the way young people learn and worsened educational inequities” (Schemo 1). Winter stated the standardized testing “does little to improve achievement and may actually worsen academic performance and drop out rates, according to the largest study ever on the issue” (Winter 1).How can standardized testing be effective if it does not truly gauge intelligence? If it produced accurate results, then the scores would reflect the student’s grades throughout school. According to Edward B. Fiske, test scores of males are usually higher while the grades of females usually exceed males (1). The explanation for this phenomenon would lie in the questions being asked. In analyzing the questions being presented by standardized tests, Sarah Stockwell, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group FairTest, found that there are many more questions on sports and mechanical things and questions on humanities are almost non-existent (Fiske 1). She asks, “ When’s the last time you saw a knitting analogy on a Scholastic Aptitude Test?” The fact that male minds are geared toward the former, while female minds toward the latter, gives males a better opportunity for success (Fiske 1).
If standardized testing doesn’t accurately represent our intelligence, how can it be used to determine our acceptance into post secondary education? Well, it should not. Mark Gearan, the president of Hobart and William Smith, stated that, “[t]est scores are a much weaker predictor of how students will do in college than their high school transcript” (1). As Tamar Lewin, a writer for the New York Times, argues, standardized tests used to open “college access to students who did not come from elite schools” (1). But, he continues, “many admissions officers now see the test as a barrier to low-income students and those who do not speak English at home” (1). Jane B. Brown, vice president for enrollment at Mount Holyoke hopes that, “now that there are more test-optional schools, students will think about not taking it, and putting their time and money into other activities, like music or writing or community service… [and that] they will have more interesting lives” (1). Lewin reported that, “Admissions officers [of schools that are test optional] said eliminating the testing requirement had increased both the size and diversity of their applicant pools, and bolstered their reputation as places personal enough to consider each applicant individually” (1). “The policy helps attract exceptional students who might not otherwise apply,” argued William Hiss, the vice president for external affairs at Bates College.” (1). “Sure, all the kids who get SAT’s over 700 have real academic strengths,” Hiss said, “But can you say that all the kids who get under 600 don’t, that they won’t do well?” (1). He answers his own questions with the statement that “Lien Le, a Vietnamese refugee with an SAT verbal score of 400, who applied to Bates without submitting her scores, earned a biology degree magna cum laude and then got a medical degree at Brown.”(1). “Human intelligence and ambition is more complex, more multifaceted, than any standardized testing system can capture,” Mr. Hiss argued (2).
Although many respected scholars would argue against standardized testing, there are still others who believe it has many positive effects. A former English teacher strongly believes that if the results are used effectively, then standardized testing can significantly better the education of our students (H 1). She brings up the argument that it provides a guide to teachers showing what and when to teach, allowing for less wasted time in the classroom. Furthermore, a soon to be elementary educator favors standardized testing over other types of more complicated testing because it is objective, therefore the assessor can not assess the student on a bias (Young 1). Others argue that it’s least expensive, thus more accessible and practical. An elementary teacher brings up the point that if standardized testing was all negative, she would hope that it would not still be in use (Newton 1).
Although these educators have a valid point, their arguments are not tremendously strong. Obviously standardized testing provides a guide for teachers, but do these tests truly assess all the important skills students will need to succeed in life? Being an objective test, it cannot. Without the inclusion of emotions and complex thinking, the test cannot gauge the students’ full intelligence, only pieces of it. And if the results only display a fraction of a student’s capabilities, is it really practical to make these examinations “high-stakes.” It would be more sensible to use these scores only as a fraction, in determining the consequences it does.
Moreover, if teachers are focused on preparing students for these examinations, when do they teach students the important life lessons that they need? The truth is, they often miss out on many of the significant experiences of childhood, and more importantly they miss out on the joy of learning. As Mr. Salvadori, who holds a Ph.D. in both civil engineering and mathematical physics stated, “”Kids today have too much education, [t]eachers tell them about science, but they don’t get the chance to experience it for themselves.” It’s time for America to step back at look at the effects of standardized testing, and remember the true reason students are being educated. It’s time to ask a very important question, will this really make the future generations of the United States successful members of society?
Works Cited
Dubner, Stephan J. “What Should Be Done About Standardized Tests? A Freakonomics Quorum.” Weblog post. NY Times. 20 Dec. 2007. <http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/what-should-be-done-about-standardized-tests-a-freakonomics-quorum/?emc=eta1>.
Fiske, Edward B. “EDUCATION; Lessons.” NY Times 19 Apr. 1989. NY Times. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7D91F39F93AA25757C0A96F948260&scp=11&sq=Education;%20Lessons&st=cse>.
Fiske, Edward B. “EDUCATION; Lessons.” NY Times 12 Oct. 1988. NY Times. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DC1E3FF931A25753C1A96E948260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/T/Tests%20and%20Testing&scp=1&sq=Education;%20Lessons%20edward%20b.%20fiske%20difference%20october%2012,1988&st=cse>.
“A Look at the Positive and Negative Aspects of Standardized Testing.” <http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/16137.aspx>.
“Pros of Standardized Testing – Education – Families.com.” Education Blog – Families.com. <http://education.families.com/blog/pros-of-standardized-testing>.
Schemo, Diana J. “Head of U. of California Seeks To End SAT Use in Admissions.” Make-or-Break Exams Grow, But Big Study Doubts Value 17 Dec. 2001. NY Times. 15 Dec. 2008 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6DE163FF93BA15751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&emc=eta1>.
“U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics.” The University Record. <http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Dec06_04/20.shtml>.
Winter, Greg. “Make-or-Break Exams Grow, But Big Study Doubts Value.” NY Times 28 Dec. 2002. NY Times. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6DE163FF93BA15751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&emc=eta1>.
Young, Katie. “Standardized Testing.” Msu.edu.
<https://www.msu.edu/~youngka7/testing.html>.
