PME 801 - Nov.

2018 
Problem Brief 
 
 

 
Standardized Testing 

By: Ian Maclure, Sharan Dhaliwal, & Heather Dow 

   
Problem

As a group we were tasked at creating a solution brief about a topic that impacts our
professional career. We chose to investigate the effect that standardized testing has on
schools, teachers, students, and society. The following document is the result of our
collaborative effort in trying to find some solutions.

Introduction

As educators, it is our job to teach students, help them become creative and innovative thinkers,
and prepare them the best we can for life after high school. However, sometimes we are
required to prepare our students for a test that we have no control over, and which often has
high stakes consequences for both the teacher and the student: the ​standardized test​.

A standardized test is any examination that's administered and scored in a predetermined,

standard manner (Popham, 1999) . There are two major kinds of standardized tests: aptitude
tests and achievement tests. Standardized ​aptitude​ tests predict how well students are likely to
perform in some subsequent educational setting. The most common examples are the SAT and
the ACT both of which attempt to forecast how well high school students will perform in
American colleges. But standardized ​achievement​ test scores are what citizens and school
board members rely on when they evaluate a school's effectiveness (Popham, 1999). These
achievement tests are the most common standardized tests in Canada, and we as teachers
help prepare our students for them.

In Canada standardized testing varies from province to province, but every student across the
country will be subjected to a standardized test at some point during their elementary or high
school education. For example, in Ontario province-wide assessment occurs in Grades 3, 6,
and 9, while in British Columbia although they recently scrapped the Grade 10 Science and
Math provincial exams, they have implemented a new numeracy assessment that must be
taken between Grade 10-12 (Bains, 2018). ​Results from this new assessment will not be
blended with classroom marks because they are not tied to a particular course, however results
will be tied to a four-point proficiency scale that will be recorded on students' transcripts.​ Then,
if students wish to apply to university in the United States they must write the SAT test which will
greatly determine their fate. However, for the purpose of this problem brief we are going to
examine the various Canadian provincial achievement tests, with a focus on Ontario.

It is our stance that standardized testing does not help to educate students in the classroom and
for life beyond high school. Instead teachers are merely teaching students to pass a test, which
suffocates creativity and innovation. In this problem brief we will build a case to show that
standardized testing is biased against students with social inequalities, students with special
needs are at a distinct disadvantage, and they can have psychological impacts on students.
Standardized tests often don’t align with the new curriculum being taught, they are expensive to
run, and they are a poor way to evaluate student and teacher performance. Since student
performance is often regarded as a reflection of teacher competence, standardized tests can
put pressure on teachers and has been known to promote a culture of cheating. We will
conclude this problem brief by suggesting some alternative options to the standardized test that
we think will be a better fit for students, teachers, and society.

Social Inequalities

As students move through the education system, they are required take some version of a
standardized test at some point. Standardized tests are viewed as raising academic standards
and tend to put pressure on educators and students to meet those standards. Students who are
doing these standardized tests all come from different backgrounds and communities, which
affect their performance on the tests and how they view themselves after they receive the
results. Standardized testing is impacting confidence levels of students and how they portray
themselves in society.

Standardized testing is viewed as reproducing social inequalities such as racial and social class
and gender equity (Laura-Lee, 2011). Within education, socioeconomic status plays a role in
affecting academic achievement. Those coming from a higher socioeconomic background tend
to perform higher on tests compared to those who come from a lower socioeconomic
background (Laura-Lee, 2011). Student, family and community characteristics all play a role on
student learning. It has also been found that teachers who teach more disadvantaged students
will question the fairness of using standardized tests and are less likely to feel that changes in
their schools’ test results are connected to factors that are within their control (Herman and
Golan, 1993). Educators within different communities know where their students are coming
from and the type of conditions that are preventing their students to be successful.

The Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) is classified as a high stakes test and it is
a requirement for high school graduation in Ontario. Students who pass this test are “privileged,
rewarded, deemed to be good future citizens and active contributors to society”(Laura-Lee,
2011). However those who fail “are named as different, deemed not up to the standard, are
considered to be not thriving, and, therefore, must work harder to become good future citizens
by passing the literacy test or course” (Laura-Lee, 2011). Test results tend to change how
students’ view themselves as they question themselves, their capabilities and consider
themselves to be inferior to others (Laura-Lee, 2011). These tests can put students in a
vulnerable state, as they tend to punish themselves for not being successful. Laura – Lee claims
that “youth are different and differently located, and those differences impact test-taking success
and failure” (2011). It is not fair that one test can have such a huge burden on students and for
them to feel like failures due to their personal circumstances. To make education equitable we
need to understand the impact of high stakes tests on those who fail. Within education students
can face complex social, political, and economic circumstances that marginalize some youth
(Laura – Lee, 2011).
Psychological Impact

It is important to consider the psychological impact that standardized testing has on students.
Writing a test is one thing, however the effects that come along before and after writing the test
can have a negative impact on a student’s well being. Donohue (2015) points out that tests that
are labeled as high stakes are developmentally unsuitable and emotionally damaging for
elementary and middle school students. In education, more attention needs to be given to
student’s well-being rather than their ranking on a particular test. As the time comes to write
these high stakes tests, students appear overwhelmed and exhausted and show signs of
depression and anxiety (Donohue, 2015). The effects of anxiety are able to impact a student’s
ability to comprehend the test questions and perform to the best of their ability (Nicholson,
2016). Donohue mentions “extreme test anxiety may affect up to 20 percent of school-aged
children, while another 18 percent may experience less severe forms of it” (2015). A high level
of anxiety during a test is closely associated to performing poorly on the test (Nicholson, 2016).
The common emotional responses that come along with test anxiety include feelings of anger,
fear, helplessness and disappointment (Donohue, 2015). Standardized tests tend to ignore that
students are at different stages in their emotional development and maturity (Donohue, 2015).

Disadvantageous for Special Education Students and ELL’s

It is important to note that most standardized tests, and specifically EQAO (Education Quality
and Accountability Office) tests do not accommodate students with learning disabilities. The
tests are structured into sections, and many of the sections need to be completed during a
certain time (Menard, 2018, p. 18). Students cannot go back and add more supporting details or
check their work, and there is absolutely no support allowed from teachers. This can create a
daunting environment for students in the Ontario school system and puts pressure on them
(Hamilton Spectator, 2017).

Some students have extra processing time indicated on their IEP (Individual Education Plan),
and this strategy enables them to process information and comprehend what is required in order
to attain success. However, with time constraints, they have to rush through the test and don’t
have adequate time to process the questions. Some students also have teacher modelling
indicated on their IEP, whereby the teacher takes time to provide strategies for them to
understand the question and provides adequate scaffolding through sentence stems and
modified graphic organizers. However, EQAO prohibits this. Hence, EQAO does not make the
necessary provisions to support special education students (Menard, 2018, p. 18).

The Individual Education Plan document from the Ministry of Education clearly states that
teachers need to adhere to the IEP and ensure that goals and strategies are being adhered to
and that the document is meant to uphold accountability (Ministry of Education, 2004, p. 6).
Therefore, it can be argued that there is a disconnect between EQAO and the accountability of
the IEP. As educators, we need to understand the diverse learning profiles of our students and
how they best demonstrate their learning (Menard, 2018, p. 18). Hence, it is difficult for special
education students to demonstrate their learning using pencil and paper tasks and limited time
(Menard, 2018, p. 18).

Special education students that demonstrate anxiety may experience difficulty completing some
of the cognitive questions on EQAO and thus, this would affect their results (Hirsch, 2016, cited
in Menard, 2018, p. 18). The format of EQAO is not conducive and focuses on executive
functions (planning, organizing, and sequencing information (Menard, 2018, p. 18). Special
education students can experience difficulty trying to communicate their responses on paper
using these functions (Menard, 2018, p. 18).

Aligning EQAO with the Curriculum

Standardized testing has always been a contentious debate in the Province of Ontario amongst
educators. The Peel District School Board and the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
have requested the provincial government to suspend The Education Quality and Accountability
Office (EQAO) from being administered at their Board until a review of the revised mathematics
curriculum is in place (Alphonso, 2017). The recommendation to halt EQAO testing for Grade 3
and Grade 6 students was made at the end of 2017 (Alphonso, 2017). Janet McDougald, Chair
of the PDSB stated that the Board would like a review of EQAO to ensure it meets the needs of
students and that the new math curriculum would need to be aligned with the EQAO test
(Alphonso, 2017). It is important to note, that this was before the election of the Ford
Conservative government. Under the Liberals, Wynne wanted a revised math curriculum that
would focus on the basic fundamental skills, since nearly 50% of Ontario’s Grade 6 students
were failing to achieve the provincial standards (Alphonso, 2017). Achieving provincial standard
is 70% or higher (Alphonso, 2017).

The Ontario Ministry of Education, under Premier Ford has put a compendium in place to be
used alongside the current math curriculum. The compendium titled, Focusing on the
Fundamentals of Math: A Teacher’s Guide (2018) states that the emphasis will be on
fundamentals in mathematics, especially for Number Sense and Numeration and in Patterning
and Algebra in particular that deal with number properties. This document has provided
educators with strategies that needs to be used in the classroom to support student success
and understanding the basics in math through cross-curricular connections within the strands
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018).

The compendium uses a framework that educators need to embed into their practice.
These include:

● Working with numbers:

○ Students need to understand numbers, they need to be able to read, represent,
count, order, estimate, compare, compose, decompose and recompose numbers
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018).
 ● Recognizing and applying understanding of number properties:
○ This would enable students to use math computation in order to work on
problems and recalling math facts (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018).

● Mastering math facts:

○ Students will use a variety of math facts and use effective strategies that they
have been taught to work on solving the problem (Ontario Ministry of Education,
2018).

● Developing mental math skills:

○ Using calculations in their mind, trying not to rely on pencil and paper (Ontario
Ministry of Education, 2018).

● Developing proficiency with operations:

○ Understanding number operations and solving computation problems with
confidence and correct strategies focusing on number properties (Ontario
Ministry of Education, 2018).

This framework focuses on the basis of math and therefore EQAO should be revamped to
encompass the changes that have occurred. For those that believe that standardized testing is
critical for measuring student success, we can always come back to standardized testing and
assess if the mathematics compendium has made a difference in student achievement.
However, since more than 50% of students are not achieving provincial standards, it is a waste
of money moving forward to continue to have standardized testing. Perhaps, funding allocated
towards EQAO can be used for professional development workshops and resources to provide
teachers with a more holistic understanding of teaching the fundamentals of math by
incorporating the compendium in programming.

Economic Effects of EQAO in Ontario

According to an article by the Hamilton Spectator (2017) EQAO has indicated on their website
that standardized testing costs the province of Ontario approximately $35 million dollars per
annum. EQAO strongly defends standardized testing and has countered that if standardized
tests were to be scrapped, it would only save $22 per child (Hamilton Spectator, 2017). The
Hamilton Spectator has proposed that allocation of funds should be aimed at hiring an additional
920 educational teaching assistants or providing more resources in the school library. The
Hamilton Spectator further stated that the results do not convey new information to teachers,
rather it just reaffirms what teachers already know. It is important to note that EQAO is not
reported on the Ontario Provincial Report Card (Hamilton Spectator, 2017) and the results are
not immediate, in fact results arrive to the school in the Fall.
Standardized Tests Are a Poor Way to Assess Learning

Standardized testing does not foster a cross-curricular approach and thus only focuses on a few
select skills (Volante, nd). EQAO only assesses literacy and numeracy (Volante).
Cross-curricular learning is an integral component of our pedagogy and this is not reflected on
EQAO. When EQAO tests are being evaluated, they are all scored using an identical criteria
and thus no differentiation of learning is taken into consideration (Betz et al., 2013, p. 134). As
educators, it is imperative that we are providing students with differentiated assessment based
on their strengths, interests and learning styles (Menard, 2018, o. 18). Differentiated learning
clearly outlines that students need to be provided with a safe learning environment. They need
to feel comfortable and therefore if they experience any discomfort, rejection, failure, pressure
or intimation then the environment would not be conducive to their needs (Learning for All,
2013, p. 17). Differentiation ensures that the learning material is appropriate and thus
challenges them at their cognitive level. It is important to ensure the new learning concepts
should not be too easy nor difficult that would be too challenging to the student and create
discomfort within the learning environment (Learning for All, 2013, p. 17). Instead, new concepts
should extend learning and students should be able to embrace these challenges that are
appropriate to their learning needs (Learning for All, 2013, p. 17). Students should be
encouraged to extend their level of understanding to encompass previous knowledge and
experiences (Learning for All, 2013, p. 17). As educators, we need to reflect if EQAO is aligned
with the Learning for All document outlined by the Ministry of Education.

When educators are evaluating English Language Learners or special education students, there
are modified rubrics in place based on the grade level that they are working on or on their level
of English language acquisition. It would be impossible to evaluate all students in an identical
manner as there are mitigating circumstances that we need to take into consideration.
Therefore, if the ESL box and IEP box is checked off on the Ontario Provincial Report Card,
then why are we not catering towards their needs on EQAO? This is a pertinent question that
educators need to reflect on and policy makers need to address. English Language Learners,
especially those that are on Step 1 or Step 2 on the English Language Acquisition Continuum
have also experienced difficulty with answering questions. Many ELL’s are still acquiring
vocabulary and are trying to use it in an appropriate context, however, when the are asked to
read a story that has some vivid vocabulary or asked to write a creative announcement on the
test, it does not do them any service. Rather, it is frustrating for them and many feel dismayed
and anxious whilst completing the test.

Sachin Maharaj (2017) has argued that if proponents of EQAO believe that it is necessary to
assess the province as whole, then perhaps a small sampling of students can be solicited to
write the test and this could be conducted once every three years. Maharaj (2017) has made a
very pertinent point in his article for the Toronto Star, instead of spending the millions it costs
every year, perhaps having a large scale assessment every few years might be cost effective
and the data that is derived from the small sampling representing all jurisdictions in Ontario can
be used to inform teaching practice. Maharaj (2017) also stated that one of the primary
intentions for introducing standardized testing was to improve teaching practice, however, as
evidenced in the results that is clearly not the case anymore and thus the government needs to
question the existence of EQAO in Ontario.

Pressure on Teachers

Standardized tests don’t only create anxiety and stress for students, but teachers also feel the
pressure to perform. Since the test results are often published for public knowledge, there is a
pressure to increase student scores from school boards and principals. Teachers, therefore,
must teach to the tests rather than teach for learning. According to Moon, Brighton, Jarvis & Hall
(2007) ​the pressure felt by teachers results in drill and practice type of curriculum and
instruction​. In their study, Moon et. al (2007) conclude that “th​ere is a clear feeling among most
teachers that the focus on minimum standards and basic skills has diminished both the richness
and depth of the curriculum and professional autonomy over curricular and instructional
decision​.” Not only does this stifle creativity and innovation, but teachers sometimes feel so
much scrutiny from their superiors that they result in cheating.

In 2014 in Atlanta, USA, 11 teachers were convicted in a standardized test cheating scandal
that resulted in racketeering charges and jail time. These teachers were under pressure to
meet certain score goals at the risk of sanction if they failed (Strauss, 2015). It should be noted
that the United States has linked student test scores to teacher evaluation and pay, which
Canada does not, but teachers in Canada have still be caught cheating to raise their students
grades. In 2010 the ​Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) said​ it has found
blatant cheating during standardized testing of students at 10 Ontario schools and glaring
irregularities at others (CBC News, 2010). Agency CEO ​Margeurite Jackson stated, "Guidelines
were not followed. The booklets are not to be opened before the day of administration, however
some teachers peeked at the tests before they were supposed to and gave students the
questions ahead of time.​" The extent of the test-cheating scandals around Canada remains
unknown because they are hard to find and prove, but it is clear that teachers feel the need to
do whatever it takes to get their students high marks. Transgressions have included ​opening
sealed questions, reviewing answers and inviting children back to complete unanswered
questions (CBC News, 2010).

Cheating by teachers sends a horrible message to students and cannot be condoned.

However, one can sympathize with teachers who must administer the one-size-fits-all test,
especially those at schools with large numbers of students with learning difficulties or for whom
English is a second language.​ Overall, the tests create a stressful environment in schools for
students and teachers alike.
Alternatives to Standardized Testing

Standardized testing is not an authentic way of evaluating student learning and progress, and
the pressure of performing well sometimes discourages schools from broadly implementing
experiential learning opportunities (Scogin, Kruger, Jakkals, & Steinfeldt, 2017). ​While there are
many possible options for educators, the following are what we believe to be the 3 most
effective alternatives to standardized testing.

1. Multiple Measures
This option encompasses a wide array of alternatives. Rather than rely exclusively on
standardized tests, Kamenetz (2015) recommends collecting different information from students
using things like social and emotional skills surveys, game-based assessments, and
performance or portfolio-based assessments (see 1. a) below). Research shows that at least
half of long-term chances of success are determined by nonacademic qualities like grit,
perseverance and curiosity (Kamenetz, 2015), so measuring students levels of hope,
engagement and well-being may do a better job of predicting college persistence than
standardized tests do.

1. a) Portfolio Based Assessments

Since we live in a digital world, students could collect artifacts and add them to a digital
portfolio throughout the year to showcase their learning (Zazula and Egeland, 2008). Educators
can see the student’s needs and therefore can differentiate instruction as needed. The portfolio
at the end of the year shows the overall growth of the student and gives a realistic view of the
whole learner. In addition, students should have literacy portfolios which allow them to show
their learning in other ways using oral, written and visual communication.

2. ​Inspections
Scotland has no specifically government-mandated school tests, which allows schools
and teachers to have a lot of control over the methods of their instruction. To ensure
accountability, Scotland has a system of government inspections that have been in place since
1833 (Kamenetz, 2015). Inspectors observe lessons, look at student work and interview both
students and staff members. By eliminating standardized testing and implementing annual
inspections, it would hold teachers accountable while still being able to differentiate their
teaching.

3. ​Sampling
A simple approach - the same tests, just fewer of them. ​Rather than test the entire
student population every year, sampling tests a statistically representative group of students.
While this alternative doesn’t eliminate traditional standardized tests, it lessens the impact on
students and teachers (Walker, 2018).
Conclusion

Standardized tests do not effectively assess student achievement, and it causes high levels of
anxiety for students and teachers alike. They are biased against minorities, students with social
inequalities, and students with learning disabilities, and they are extremely expensive to
administer. It is recommended that the Provincial government establish an expert panel that is
diverse and to conduct an entire review of the current standardized testing program in Ontario
(Després et al., 2013, p. 5). The panel needs to conduct a critical assessment focusing on other
countries that are strong performers and to make recommendations to the government that
would enhance our educational system by focusing on new approaches aimed at student
success (Després et al., 2013, p. 9). For example, Finland does not have standardized testing
and yet their educational system ranks as a top performer (Després et al., 2013, p. 9). Instead
of using standardized tests to assess student achievement, the government should look at
alternative options such as assessing using multiple measures and portfolios, implementing
inspections, or only having small samples of students write standardized tests for statistical
purposes. Standardized testing is an archaic way to measure aptitude, and Canada needs to
look towards the future and eliminate them as a tool for assessment.
References

Alphonso, C. (2017, November 1). Ontario school boards want EQAO testing halted amid
review. ​The Globe and Mail​.

Bains, C. (2018, Sept 4). B.C. students learning for ‘real life;’ some provincial exams scrapped.
Vancouver Courier. Retrieved at:
https://www.vancourier.com/news/b-c-students-learning-for-real-life-some-provincial-exams-scra
pped-1.23420704

Betz, S., Sullivan, J.R., & Shanleigh, F. (2013). Factors Influencing the Selection of
Standardized Tests for Diagnosis of Specific Language Impairment. ​Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 1 ​ 33-146.

CBC News. (2010, Sept. 21). Ont. schools accused of cheating on standardized tests.
Retrieved from:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ont-schools-accused-of-cheating-on-standardized-test
s-1.898970

Després, S., Kuhn, S., Ngirumpatse, P. & Parent, M.J. (2013). ​Real Accountability or an Illusion
of Success?: A Call to Review Standardized Testing in Ontario. ​Vancouver, B.C: Action
Canada.

Donohue, C. (2015, April 23). Our Children Are Being Tampered With’: A Teacher Speaks Out
on Emotional Effects of High-Stakes Testing. ​National Education Association.

Durkacz, K. (2017, June 5). EQAO testing provides little to no value. ​The Hamilton Spectator​.

Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1993). The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 20-25.

Kamenetz, A. (2015, Jan. 6). What schools could use instead of standardized tests. nprED.
Retrieved from:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/01/06/371659141/what-schools-could-use-instead-of-stan
dardized-tests

Kearns, L.-L. (2011). High-stakes standardized testing and marginalized youth: an examination
of the impact on those who fail. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 112+. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.queensu.ca/apps/doc/A271594486/AONE?u=queensulaw&sid=
AONE&xid=d66eaeba

Maharaj, S. (2017, October 16). Why we should end EQAO testing. ​The Toronto Star​.
Menard, L. (2018). Mismatch: Special education learners and EQAO. ​Our Schools / Our
Selves,​ ​18​, 18-19.

Moon, T.R., Brighton, C.M., Jarvis, J. M., Hall, C.J. ​(2007). ​State standardized testing programs:
Their effects on teachers and students​ (RM07228). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Nicholson, L. (2016, May 9). Stressed out: the psychological effects of tests on primary school
children. The Conversation.

​ inistry of Education, (2004). ​The Individual Education Plan (IEP): A Resource Guide​,
Ontario​ M
p. 1-82.

Ontario Ministry of Education, (2013). ​Learning for All A Guide to Effective Assessment and
Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12.​ Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer of Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education, (2018). Focusing on the Fundamentals of Math: A Teacher’s

Guide.

Popham, W.J. (1999, March). Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality.
Educational Leadership: Volume 56; Number 6; Pages 8-15. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized
-Tests-Don't-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx

Scogin, S.C., Kruger, C.J., Jakkals, R.E., Steinfeldt, C. (2017). Learning by Experience in a
Standardized Testing Culture: Investigation of a Middle School Experiential Learning Program.
Journal of Experiential Education. Mar2017, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p39-57.

Strauss, V. (2015, Apr. 1). How and why convicted Atlanta teachers cheated on standardized
tests. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/01/how-and-why-convicted-atl
anta-teachers-cheated-on-standardized-tests/?utm_term=.159756a85c92

Volante, L. (nd) Accountability, student assessment, and the need for a comprehensive
approach.

Walker, J. (2018, Mar. 21). How to measure student progress without standardized tests. Otus.
Retrieved from: ​https://otus.com/measure-student-progress-without-standardized-testing/

Zazula, D., & Egeland, T. (2008, June-July). Are digital portfolios a realistic alternative to
standardized testing? Yes. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(8), 8+. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.queensu.ca/apps/doc/A194333188/AONE?u=queensulaw&sid=
AONE&xid=256aa6ca