Issues in the United States Education System: Eliminating Standardized Testing

Rodrigo Martinez

ENGL 138T

Section 008

April 14, 2019

 Abstract

The use of standardized testing has increased dramatically in recent years. The overuse of this

assessment tool has many impacts in the education system as they determine teachers’ salaries,

schools’ funding and students’ success. However, there are many problems associated with

standardized testing that make it an unreliable measure of educational quality. Consequently,

these tests should be reduced or eliminated in order to improve the education system in the

United States.
 Standardized Testing and NCLB Act

The issue with standardized testing began when the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2002.

The act was passed with bipartisan support and it was intended to develop an accountability system

for teachers and students using assessments to measure progress. It was created to ensure student’s

learning and help reform the education system. NCLB required states to test students in math and

reading every year from third through eighth grades, and at least once from grades 10 through 12.1

Since then, the number of standardized tests used increased across the nation. The average U.S.

student in a big-city public school will take 112 mandatory standardized exams between pre-K and

high school graduation.2 According to Popham, former president of the American Educational

Research Association, standardized tests are "any test that's administered, scored, and interpreted

in a standard, predetermined manner." However, the overuse of standardized tests and inherent

problems with them have caused turmoil in the education system. The drawbacks have overcome

the benefits of this tool as it does not properly assess students’ learning or the educational quality.

In order to improve the United States education system, standardized testing should be reduced or

eliminated as an assessment tool for students and teachers.

Current Situation

Standardized testing has increased dramatically since the passage of the NCLB Act in 2002. On

average students take between 10 and 20 standardized tests per year depending on the grade level

and state they live in.3 The increase in testing has proved to have psychological effects on young

adults such as anxiety, anger and stress. Furthermore, they fail to improve student achievement

and constrict the curriculum in schools. The placed emphasis on testing fails to promote other
factors such as creativity, critical thinking and core values. The standardized testing industry is

controlled by few publishers that produce and grade the tests. However, they have proved to be

inconsistent as they have encountered problems in the past with testing questions, grading

standards, and providing timely results. The open-ended questions are often graded by under-paid

workers with no educational training causing grading to be subjective and inconsistent. 4

Additionally, these problems have permanent repercussions as they influence teachers’ salaries

and schools’ funding. A failure associated with the testing requirements is the value-added system

that ties teachers’ pay with student performance on standardized testing. While it may be good in

theory, it fails to account for disparities in students’ learning and does not accurately measure

teachers’ performance.

Inherent Problems with Standardized Tests

The socioeconomic status of students has been proven to have a high correlation with standardized

test scores since many items on standardized achievement tests focus on assessing knowledge and

skills learned outside of school.5 As a result, children with high socioeconomic status are at an

advantage since they are more likely to encounter or learn these skills outside the classroom setting

based on their background.

We place enormous emphasis on their intellectual ability and ignore many other aspects that

compromise intelligence. We measure intelligence with a narrow view of multiple choice and short

responses. However, this is not the way we should measure intelligence. We are failing to promote

other key aspects such as creativity, introspection, and practical intelligence. According to

education researcher Gerald W. Bracey, PhD, qualities that standardized tests cannot measure
include "creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance,

reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness,

courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity."6

Scores on standardized tests should not determine students’ futures as these are essential skills for

success later in life that the tests fail to take in consideration.

Furthermore, the use of multiple choice while necessary to minimize the amount of resources

required for grading is not a proper medium for testing. Multiple choice narrows down

interpretation and work of students to right and wrong answers. However, it does not consider their

method for arriving at solutions. This is unrealistic with the real world as they narrow down the

focus of testing to either right or wrong.

Source:
https://www.campusexplorer.com
/Is-Standardized-Testing-Fair/
 Reliability and Validity

The drawbacks of standardized testing outweigh its few advantages and is not a fair assessment

tool for students or teachers. It fails to take into account many factors, are often poorly written,

and do not provide an accurate baseline assessment of students’ learning. The reliability and

validity of the results obtained from standardized testing are questionable at best. A good analogy

to this is measuring temperature with a tablespoon as it would be imprecise to measure how hot or

cold something is using a tablespoon.7 Likewise, using standardized tests to determine whether

schools are successful or not is an invalid evaluation. Most notably, a 2001 study published by the

Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were

temporary and “caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning”.8

For example, scores are affected by many variable factors such as the amount of sleep prior to the

test and mood. In addition, the tests disproportionately affect students who have learning

disabilities or that English is not their first language. 9 When NCLB was passed, it was greatly

feared that states such as California would not meet the mandated goals for proficiency as locations

such as these states have a high number of immigrants making it extremely difficult to meet the

specified goals.

Educational Value: Curriculum and Accountability

A report has found that students in heavily tested grades can spend over 110 hours per year doing

test prep, and as many as 50 hours per year taking the tests themselves, a total of roughly 15 percent

of their instructional time.10 Moreover, it was found that 44% of school districts had reduced the

time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order
 to focus on reading and math.11 Consequently, there is an enormous opportunity cost associated

with standardized testing as it causes the school curriculums to become narrow and students are

not introduced to many other important academic areas.

Additionally, 66 percent of parents oppose using test scores to evaluate teacher performance. Using

test scores to evaluate teachers is hindering their work and progress achieved as they are not

rewarded for their hard work. Moreover, they are greatly restricted in their approaches used to

teaching as they feel tremendous pressure to increase scores leaving them with few or no options.

While better teaching of content will raise scores on a test, it will not do so nearly as fast as the

bogus gains that can often be achieved by means of bad test prep. 12 Under the current system,

many teachers face performance targets that make it a real risk to choose the real but slower gains

that can be achieved by improving teaching.13

Source: http://neatoday.org/2015/08/23/poll-americans- Source: https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-

want-less-standardized-testing-and-more-school- county-educators-welcome-standardized-test-reforms-
funding/ proposed-under-pennsylvania/article_2890a9f4-7e05-11e7-
9e03-dfba619ef4d9.html
 The Expensive Price Paid

Government spending at the state and federal level is estimated to total around $600 billion per

year. Recent reports estimate that standardized testing costs states $1.7 billion per year. 14

Moreover, this is a significant increase from $423 million before the NCLB Act was passed. The

money being devoted to it has given rise to the multi-billion-dollar industry for standardized testing

companies. The largest test publishers include NCS Pearson, CTB/McGraw-Hill, Riverside

Publishing, and Educational Testing Service (ETS). However, this is not a resourceful use for the

money as it could be devoted in other areas of education that would prove more beneficial such as

reducing the socioeconomic and racial gaps in learning.

Additionally, the tests are having a high cost in terms of the toll it is taking on students.

Standardized testing is causing students across the nation stress, anger and anxiety. These are

psychological side effects that are unnecessarily affecting the mental health of students.

Additionally, test results have an impact on students’ confidence in their academic abilities as poor

results cause students to question their intelligence or capability to perform academically. 15

Comparison of the United States Education System with others

around the World

The United States education system has not been performing well when compared with other

education systems around the world. United States students slipped from being ranked 18th in the

world in math in 2000 to 40th in 2015, and from 14th to 25th in science and from 15th to 24th in

reading.16
Finland’s excelling education system has experienced enormous success reaching graduation rates

of up to 93%. This is in comparison to United States mere 75% graduation rates. 17 Additionally,

students’ performance on mathematics and reading has been among the highest. It is important to

remark that Finland is achieving these features while spending about 30 percent less per student

than the United States.18 Finland’s success can be attributed to a different education system in

which students are motivated to learn. They help students who struggle in school and they do

anything that is possible to help them succeed. Consequently, the gap between the best students

and ‘worst’ students is very small. The teachers are carefully selected and only the top 10 percent

of the graduate schools are accepted into teaching programs and they are required to have a

master’s degree.19 Classes are small and therefore students are able to have a more individualized

learning. Students have no homework until they are teenagers and standardized testing is kept to a

minimum. Students are encouraged to learn through intrinsic means.

The comparison between Finland’s education system and the United States does have some flaws.

For example, Finland’s population is much smaller than the U.S. population and more importantly,

the U.S. has a more diverse population. Therefore, the disparities in socioeconomic status and

other factors that affect education are much greater. While it may not be possible to take the same

approach as Finland to reforming the education system due to constraints such as classroom sizes

and teacher selectivity, there are some factors we can emulate. Finland’s starkly different approach

to standardized testing is the most logical and feasible to emulate. While the United States places

tremendous focus on standardized tests, Finland has the opposite philosophy as they keep their use

to a minimum. Finland has experienced better results and more success in education as a result of

their unconventional approach.

 Recommendations

In order to reduce standardized testing, students and parents across the nation must voice their

concerns and displeasure with this assessment tool. They must create a sense of urgency for

government action and a change in policies. Moreover, universities and colleges will need to

modify their application requirements. They should place more emphasis on student grades rather

than standardized tests. Therefore, universities should have a more holistic approach of reviewing

applications for the admissions process. Universities should not require testing for admissions.

Furthermore, reducing the high-stakes associated with standardized tests could also help improve

the education system. Reducing the significance of these tests will discourage both students and

teachers from engaging in immoral actions or cheating for personal gains. Moreover, it will reduce

the constraints placed on the schools and will give them more freedom in their curriculum. It will

also alleviate the pressure on teachers to improve scores and will allow them to move away from

test preparation as their main focus.

Ultimately, the education system should prioritize teaching students to be good learners not good

test takers. Test preparation should not be the focus of schools across the nation as it reduces

students’ exposure to other content that is important. We need to develop a system in which

students are motivated to learn and in which they are given opportunities to develop their

analytical, creative, practical, and emotional intelligence. We must move away from our narrow

focus on education and have a more comprehensive approach by letting them explore areas such

as arts and civics. We need to focus on preparing students to succeed later in life. The reduction of

standardized testing will help create a better education system. Through reform, the educational
quality and value of the United States education system will improve, and future generations of

students will prosper.

1
Lewis, Katherine Reynolds. “Standardized Testing Hits a Nerve.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite
Information Network, 8 Aug. 2016.
2
Strauss, Valerie. “Confirmed: Standardized Testing Has Taken over Our Schools. But Who's to Blame?”
The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Oct. 2015.
3
Ibid. Lewis
4
“Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?” ProConorg Headlines.
5
Popham, James. “Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality.” Why Standardized Tests
Don't Measure Educational Quality - Educational Leadership, Ascd, Mar. 1999.
6
Ibid. Is the Use of Standardized
7
Ibid. Popham
8
Ibid. Is the Use of Standardized
9
Greene, Peter. “Standardized Testing Is Not A Fair, Sensible System For Evaluating Teachers.” Forbes,
Forbes Magazine, 26 July 2018.
Mulholland, Quinn. “The Case Against Standardized Testing.” Harvard Political Review The Case
10

Against Standardized Testing, 14 May 2015.

11
Ibid. Is the Use
12
Walsh, Bari. “When Testing Takes Over.” Harvard Graduate School of Education, 3 Nov. 2017.
13
Ibid. Walsh
14
Ferrara, Steve. “Is $1.7 Billion a Lot or a Little to Spend on Standardized Testing?” Pearson, 21 Dec.
2016.
Strauss, Valerie. “13 Ways High-Stakes Standardized Tests Hurt Students.” The Washington Post, WP
15

Company, 11 Mar. 2014.

16
Ibid. Is the
17
Dickinson, Kevin. “Is the Finnish Education System Superior?” Big Think, Big Think, 15 Feb. 2019.
18
Hancock, LynNell. “Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution,
1 Sept. 2011.
19
Ibid. Hanock
Works Cited

Dickinson, Kevin. “Is the Finnish Education System Superior?” Big Think, Big Think, 15 Feb.

2019.

Ferrara, Steve. “Is $1.7 Billion a Lot or a Little to Spend on Standardized Testing?” Pearson, 21

Dec. 2016.

Greene, Peter. “Standardized Testing Is Not A Fair, Sensible System For Evaluating Teachers.”

Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 July 2018.

Hancock, LynNell. “Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian

Institution, 1 Sept. 2011.

“Is the Use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America?” ProConorg Headlines.

Lewis, Katherine Reynolds. “Standardized Testing Hits a Nerve.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite

Information Network, 8 Aug. 2016.

Mulholland, Quinn. “The Case Against Standardized Testing.” Harvard Political Review The Case

Against Standardized Testing, 14 May 2015.

Nixon, Bryan. “The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing.” Whitby School.

Popham, James. “Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality.” Why

Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality - Educational Leadership, Ascd, Mar.

1999.

Strauss, Valerie. “13 Ways High-Stakes Standardized Tests Hurt Students.” The Washington Post,

WP Company, 11 Mar. 2014.

Strauss, Valerie. “Confirmed: Standardized Testing Has Taken over Our Schools. But Who's to

Blame?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Oct. 2015.

Strauss, Valerie. “34 Problems with Standardized Tests.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19

Apr. 2017.

Walsh, Bari. “When Testing Takes Over.” Harvard Graduate School of Education, 3 Nov. 2017.