Below I\u2019ll discuss 4 articles, 2 peer-reviewed and 2 professional, that each uniquely oppose the current ways in which standardized tests influence public education.<\/p>\n
Peer-Reviewed<\/strong><\/p>\n Problem:<\/p>\n In \u201cRetaking the Test\u201d David Backer and Tyson Lewis call for a more nuanced view of testing using the framework of the \u201clearning-testing regime\u201d and Ronell\u2019s (2005) idea of the \u201ctest drive.\u201d According to this article, the problem is not testing itself but rather the type of testing that has become \u201ccommon sense\u201d in modern schooling. The culture of standardized testing creates an endless \u201clearning-testing regime\u201d in which the purpose of tests is \u201cto improve outputs, maximize human capital development\u201d (Backer & Lewis, 2015). This type of testing is harmful to students\u2019 growth as human beings and discourages their natural \u201ctest drive,\u201d which is one\u2019s natural drive to push themself and make new discoveries about the self and the world (Backer & Lewis, 2015). They argue that while tests that encourage students\u2019 \u201ctest drive\u201d are essential to quality education, the problem with standardized testing is that the merit and quality of the test itself goes unquestioned. Similarly, in \u201cMeritocracy 2.0\u201d Wayne Au argues that standardized tests are falsely viewed as objective. This author views the problem through a lens of social justice and argues that this assumed objectivity \u201cmasks\u201d the structural inequalities that students of color actually face (Au, 2015). According to Au, neoliberal reforms employ \u201ccolorblind racism\u201d by arguing that tests rooted in systematic inequality are in fact equalizers of students across race. Thus, both articles call into question the validity of the \u201ccommon sense\u201d of modern standardized testing.<\/p>\n Effects on Students:<\/p>\n Both articles emphasize that the supposed objectivity of the test places unjust blame on individuals by giving them personally a \u201cfailing\u201d score. In \u201cRetaking the Test,\u201d after the authors note the disproportionately low scores of students of color on state tests, they argue that \u201cWithout the test, there is no such thing as the Common Core, no such thing as \u2018meeting\u2019 or \u2018exceeding\u2019 some \u2018standard.\u2019 The test produces a certain set of expectations, reducing the complexity of education to a series of quantities that can be compared, aggregated, disaggregated, and read as symptoms or as successes\u201d (Backer & Lewis, 2015). Thus, the test uses an unquestioned yet inorganic standard to label the students as failures. Likewise, in \u201cMeritocracy 2.0,\u201d Au discusses how neoliberal reformers use the same logic to use Black and Brown students\u2019 \u201cfailing\u201d test scores to justify increased discipline and outside control of their schools. Students are also exposed to less culturally relevant and engaging class activities to make more time for test preparation. Research has also shown that tests such as exit exams can cause higher rates of incarceration and high school incompletion, especially for students of color (Au, 2015). Therefore, all authors agree that the arbitrary and biased standards created by standardized tests negatively impact students by working to create failure.<\/p>\n Solutions:<\/p>\n Backer, Lewis and Au all call for a stop to current standardized testing practices. Backer and Lewis advocate for \u201ctests that defy measurement and labeling\u201d and claim that \u201cthe point of such tests is not to rank and classify students, but rather to declassify students, enabling them to experiment with their lives in ways that remain unrecognizable to the performance quotas of high-stakes testing\u201d (Backer & Lewis, 2015). Therefore they suggest that instead of abandoning testing altogether, tests should be geared towards encouraging students\u2019 \u201ctest drive\u201d and not achieving a quantitative score. From a social justice perspective, Au suggests that parents, students and teachers join the \u201copt out\u201d movement to abandon current testing practices. Similar to Backer and Lewis, he also says that different kinds of tests, such as a multi-subject portfolio, may help to correct the inaccurate scores of individuals. However he notes that this approach does not remedy the underlying structures of inequality.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Professional<\/strong><\/p>\n Problem:<\/p>\n These articles discuss the ways in which standardized testing negatively impacts both schools and students. In \u201cTest Scores Don\u2019t Tell the Whole Story,\u201d Jack Schneider argues that the traditional focus on test scores as the main measure of school quality creates a narrow and often inaccurate view of what a \u201cgood\u201d school is. Since test scores are closely correlated with individual students\u2019 income levels, this results in a cycle of segregation in which more affluent families move their high-scoring children to districts known for having \u201cgood\u201d schools, which in turn really just means schools that are known for having a high average of test scores. According to this article, it also creates a culture in which teachers feel pressured to prioritize test preparation. In \u201cWhat to do about a Generation of \u2018Lost Einsteins\u2019\u201d Anthony Brandt and David Eagleman lament that this prioritization of test preparation causes a lack of creative opportunities for students. The authors note that from a holistic perspective, students who have grown up around this culture of standardized testing are put at a disadvantage when it comes to problem solving and skills that are not specific to this type of testing.<\/p>\n Effects on Students:<\/p>\n According to Schneider, the disproportionate focus on test scores in school ratings causes the \u201cundermining\u201d of the rest of the curriculum, giving students an education that only focuses on math and English. It also limits students\u2019 valuable exposure to people who are different from them from increased socioeconomic segregation. \u201cWhat to do about a Generation of \u2018Lost Einsteins\u2019\u201d also laments the negative effects of an education that focuses narrowly on just testable subjects. This article discusses how the current emphasis on test preparation leaves students without opportunities to practice invaluable risk management and resilience skills. The authors note that by focusing on standardized tests with only one correct answer, students learn that there is no value in an incorrect answer. This is a damaging message for students\u2019 creative drive, which requires many attempts and failure before finding a solution. Thus, both articles agree that standardized testing creates a culture with a narrow-minded focus on a few testable subjects, while devaluing skills and experiences that are critical for developing students\u2019 whole selves.<\/p>\n Solutions:<\/p>\n Schneider has already implemented a solution to this problem by creating a more holistic system of school evaluation that takes into account \u201cteachers and the teaching environment; school culture; resources; academic learning; and citizenship and well-being\u201d instead of simply test scores (Schneider, 2017). These non-traditional categories of school quality are less discriminatory to low-income communities, give teachers more autonomy in their classrooms, give teachers valuable insights into how to improve their teaching to fit students\u2019 needs and improve public perceptions of schools (Schneider, 2017). In Brandt and Eagleman\u2019s article they offer solutions to a bland and uninspiring lessons such as creating alterative histories in history class, imagining future inventions in science class, and creating one\u2019s own music and art instead of just imitating well-known existing pieces (Brandt & Eagleman, 2018). Their point that \u201cKnowledge shouldn\u2019t just be a landing point\u2014it should be a springboard\u201d perfectly captures the main idea of both articles (Brandt & Eagleman, 2018). The solution to the rigid standardized testing culture in both school ratings and classroom experiences is to broaden what is considered important from just rote memorization of pieces of \u201cknowledge\u201d to how that knowledge can be built upon by the students themselves.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Below I\u2019ll discuss 4 articles, 2 peer-reviewed and 2 professional, that each uniquely oppose the current ways in which standardized tests influence public education. Peer-Reviewed Problem: In \u201cRetaking the Test\u201d David Backer and Tyson Lewis call for a more nuanced view of testing using the framework of the \u201clearning-testing regime\u201d and Ronell\u2019s (2005) idea of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":528,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-182","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/528"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/education-2272-spring-2018-nsblackf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}