Blog Thirteen - Standardized Testing
Around the mid-1800s, when the students who sat in American classrooms shifted from primarily upper-class children to the common folk, the aim shifted from educating the small, elite class to the general public. As written in Richard P. Phelps’ book, Standardized Testing Primer, the original standardized testing system, created in efforts during this time to imitate the Prussian school system, was first introduced by two education reformers, Horace Mann and Samuel Gridley Howe, quickly spread throughout the United States and was one of the main focuses for almost 1.9 million high school careers in 2023 alone as reported by Jane Nam.
Standardized testing helps provide a uniform measurement for an otherwise varying grading system. Some schools have more relaxed requirements regarding grading criteria, a phenomenon otherwise known as grade inflation. This is also a problem for America as a whole. However, it changes drastically between schools. This can lead to some students being disadvantaged when considering college admissions. In addition, the student might feel inferior if they view their peers' high grades from the perspective of their school's learning standards rather than from the perspective of the peer's school's learning standards, which can lead to many issues. With a standardized system, students can measure their progress in relation to the rest of the country in a uniform way without having to deal with minor deviations in the grading standards across schools.
The valuable information gained from standardized testing data also allows for effective interventions for students who need it. According to Elaine Riordan at Actively Learn, interventions based on standardized test scores meant to help students improve them “are linked to better adult outcomes such as college attendance, higher incomes, and the avoidance of risky behaviors.” So, these results indirectly lead to all of these effects through interventions. Of course, it should also be noted that many other factors are linked to these consequences, and the previously mentioned results could be related to whether or not schools even have these interventions. For example, wealthier schools will likely have more robust intervention systems and teaching quality, which will help lead to the effects above. For this reason, it cannot be concluded that the interventions from standardized testing scores directly caused all of the aforementioned positive outcomes, such as higher “college attendance, higher incomes, and avoidance of risky behaviors.”
However, standardized testing has proved time and time again to be an inferior predictor of college success as compared to GPAs, even with all the school curriculum variations. In fact, as reported in Britannica’s “Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?” GPAs are five times better at predicting college success than standardized tests! This is likely because GPAs encompass a more comprehensive range of curriculum since they are cumulative of everything learned throughout a student’s high school years. Moreover, due to many grades coming from tests, quizzes, and homework, students are held accountable for their work ethic. Whereas on a standardized test, persistent work ethic and keeping up with deadlines are not tested, and therefore, that aspect of a student’s academic profile is not recorded. However, good perseverance is critical for college success. Since GPAs measure this to some degree, but standardized tests do not, GPAs will likely better indicate a student’s academic performance in college.
Also, standardized testing puts pressure on both students and educators. Educators may begin to forsake helpful content in favor of “teaching to the test.” This is because standardized tests are so highly valued in American education, and many parents can begin to blame teachers for their curriculum if their student ends up not doing well. Furthermore, even if a teacher is teaching material well, if the same syllabus isn’t on the weighty standardized tests, the data and information from the standardized tests may paint that teacher as one who does not do their job properly, when that is far from the case. Even if it only seems like that teacher is unfit because they were teaching a slightly different curriculum from the “one-size-fits-all” curriculum of the SAT or ACT, parents, students, and even school facility administrators may pin the fault on the teacher rather than the curriculum. This unfair criticism can lead to conflicts between teachers and parents, or even some educators losing their jobs.
Many colleges have decided to go test-blind, test-optional, or test-flexible. The first, test-blind, has a very telling name. It means that schools will not consider SAT/ACT or similar exam scores at all, and they will have zero impact on admission. The second is test-optional, meaning that students are not required to submit them, but other factors will likely be considered a higher priority in their application. Test flexible schools allow students to submit whatever types of exam scores they’d like, whether it be SAT, ACT, or even Advance Placement tests and International Baccalaureate exams, giving learners more flexibility.
The standardized testing system is exceptionally prevalent in the United States and a vast number of countries across the globe. Yet, this leaves education enthusiasts to wonder if it truly addresses the needs of the individual learner or if it is just a way to manage a large amount of students. It has its strengths and weaknesses, as well as its accuracies and inaccuracies. It leads to impactful interventions, but it also has a more accurate alternative predictor of college success: the grade point average. Ultimately, these benefits and downfalls should be carefully analyzed, depending on the balance between addressing the different needs of the individual student.
