West Coast Publishing
Standardized Testing
Public Forum December 2015
Starter File
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.
Please don’t share this material with anyone outside
of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at jim@wcdebate.com
www.wcdebate.com
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education
in the United States.
Table of Contents
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States. ...... 2
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 2
Pro Standardized Testing is Good .......................................................................................................... 4
Empirical Evidence Shows Testing is Effective................................................................................................................... 4
State Results Prove Testing is Effective ......................................................................................................................... 5
Testing Creates Better Schools ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Testing Is Vital For The Real World ................................................................................................................................ 7
Testing Is Not Discriminatory ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Testing Is The Best Option Available ............................................................................................................................. 9
Standardized Testing Is On-Balance Good ................................................................................................................... 10
Pro standardized testing is good .......................................................................................................... 11
Standardized Testing checks discrimination - EDUCATION ......................................................................................... 11
Standardized Testing checks discrimination - EDUCATION ......................................................................................... 12
Standardized Testing checks discrimination - EDUCATION ......................................................................................... 13
Standardized Testing checks discrimination - HIRING ................................................................................................. 14
Standardized Testing enhances education – general .................................................................................................. 15
Standardized Testing enhances education – general .................................................................................................. 16
Standardized Testing enhances education – alternative education............................................................................ 17
Standardized Testing enhances education - motivation ............................................................................................. 18
Standardized Testing enhances education - motivation ............................................................................................. 19
Standardized Testing ENHANCES EDUCATION – No ‘TEACHING TO TEST’ .................................................................. 20
Standardized Testing are not objectifying ................................................................................................................... 22
Standardized Testing teaches Real WORLD SKILLS ...................................................................................................... 23
PRO PRAGMATISM IS A DESIRABLE VALUE ..................................................................................................................... 24
PRO: INCREMENTALISM IS DESIRABLE ............................................................................................................................ 25
PRO: INCREMENTALISM IS DESIRABLE ............................................................................................................................ 26
WE CAN FIX TESTING INCREMENTALLY ........................................................................................................................... 27
TESTING DOESN'T INCREASE SOCIAL STRATIFICATION.................................................................................................... 28
HIGH STAKES TESTING CAN BE APPROPRIATELY USED ................................................................................................... 29
TESTING GENDER GAP ISN'T SIGNIFICANT ...................................................................................................................... 30
NO DECREASED GRADUATION RATES ............................................................................................................................. 31
TESTS ARE GENERALLY GOOD ......................................................................................................................................... 32
TESTING IS GENERALLY GOOD ......................................................................................................................................... 33
RACIAL/ETHNIC GAP IS NOT SIGNIFICANT ....................................................................................................................... 34
ATTACKING TESTS MASKS THE PROBLEM ....................................................................................................................... 35
TESTING INCREASES ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 36
Con Standardized Testing is bad .......................................................................................................... 37
Standardized Testing Only Benefits The Few .............................................................................................................. 37
Standardized Testing Causes High Dropout Rates ....................................................................................................... 38
Standardized Testing Results in Bad Education ........................................................................................................... 39
Standardized Testing Causes Incomplete Education ................................................................................................... 40
Standardized Testing Hurts Student Morale ............................................................................................................... 41
Standardized Tests Hurt Teachers ............................................................................................................................... 42
Standardized Testing Uses a Flawed Philosophy of Education .................................................................................... 43
Standardized Testing Is Net-Detrimental .................................................................................................................... 44
Con Standardized Testing is Bad .......................................................................................................... 45
Standardized Testing is discriminatory - minorities .................................................................................................... 45
Standardized Testing is discriminatory - women......................................................................................................... 46
Standardized Testing is discriminatory – LOW INCOME .............................................................................................. 47
Standardized Testing undermines education - creativity ............................................................................................ 48
Standardized Testing undermines education - creativity ............................................................................................ 49
Standardized Testing undermines education – PERVERSE INCENTIVES ...................................................................... 50
Standardized Testing undermines education – TEACHING TO the TEST ..................................................................... 51
Standardized Testing undermines real world success - WORKPLACE ......................................................................... 52
Standardized Testing undermines real world success - WORKPLACE ......................................................................... 53
Standardized Testing is objectification ........................................................................................................................ 54
Con HIGH STAKES TESTING UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ................................................................................................. 55
Con DEMOCRACY REQUIRES EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY .................................................................................................. 56
Con HIGH STAKES TESTING ENTRENCHES HIERARCHY AND OPPRESSION ...................................................................... 57
Con PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED IS NECESSARY ........................................................................................................ 58
Con PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED IS GOOD FOR EDUCATION .................................................................................... 59
Con RACISM MUST BE REJECTED ..................................................................................................................................... 60
CON: WE MUST REJECT SEXISM ...................................................................................................................................... 61
TESTING IS UNFAIR .......................................................................................................................................................... 62
TESTING DOESN'T INCREASE COLLEGIATE OR EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK ........................................................................ 63
TESTING DEHUMANIZES STUDENTS ................................................................................................................................ 64
TESTING IS RACIALLY BIASED ........................................................................................................................................... 65
EXIT EXAMS DON'T INCREASE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OR INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY .................................. 66
STEREOTYPE EFFECT HURTS WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN TESTING .............................................................................. 67
Pro Standardized Testing is Good
Empirical Evidence Shows Testing is Effective
1. Quantitative analysis proves that high stakes testing is successful.
Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the
Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm
We also find that year-to-year improvement on high stakes testing is strongly correlated with year-to-year improvement
on low stakes standardized tests in some places, but weakly correlated in others. The population adjusted average
correlation between year-to-year gain on high stakes tests and year-to-year gain on low stakes tests in all the school
systems we examined was 0.45, which is a moderately strong correlation. But the correlation between year-to-year
gains on Florida’s high and low stakes tests was extremely high, 0.71, while the correlation in other locations was
considerably lower. These analyses lead us to conclude that well-designed high stakes accountability systems can and
do produce reliable measures of student progress, as they appear to have done in Florida, but we can have less
confidence that other states’ high stakes tests are as well designed and administered as Florida’s.
2. The best studies conclude standardized testing is beneficial for education.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
Studies with more sophisticated methods have produced evidence that accountability systems positively affect student
achievement. In a 2003 study examining the effects of accountability on state National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) scores, Martin Carnoy and Susanna Loeb rate the strength of each state's system on a five-level scale;
both student and school accountability contribute to the rating.5 Regression analyses controlled for per pupil revenues,
student enrollment, and the percentage of African American and Hispanic students in each state. Carnoy and Loeb find
that between 1996 and 2000, the stronger the accountability system, the greater the gains states made in raising the
percentage of eighth graders functioning at or above the basic level in mathematics. A two-rank increase in the
accountability index was associated with about a one-half standard deviation gain, which is statistically significant. The
results were significantly positive for black, white, and Hispanic students and held up after controlling for how many
students each state excludes from NAEP testing. The exclusion factor is important in addressing the suspicion that some
states artificially inflate NAEP scores by overidentifying students in special education or limited-English programs,
thereby exempting such students from NAEP testing.
3. Evidence against high stakes testing is very biased.
Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the
Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm
Most of these criticisms fail to withstand scrutiny. Much of the research done in this area has been largely theoretical,
anecdotal, or limited to one or another particular state test. For example, Linda McNeil and Angela Valenzuela’s critique
of the validity of high stakes testing lacks an analysis of data (see McNeil and Valenzuela 2000). Instead, their arguments
are based largely on theoretical expectations and anecdotal reports from teachers, whose resentment of high stakes
testing for depriving them of autonomy may cloud their assessments of the effectiveness of testing policies. Their
reports of cases in which high stakes tests were manipulated are intriguing, but they do not present evidence on
whether these practices are sufficiently widespread to fundamentally distort testing results.
4. A state-by-state analysis proves standardized tests works best.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
John Bishop of Cornell University has examined systems targeting both students and educators. He analyzes the 1996
and 1998 NAEP scores of eighth graders in states with different accountability regimes—for students, meeting basic
course requirements, passing minimum competency exams, and passing [End Page 9] curriculum-based external exit
exams; and for schools, receiving rewards or sanctions based on test scores. Students in states requiring curriculumbased external exit exams (New York and North Carolina) exhibited the highest levels of achievement, with an
advantage of 0.45 grade levels in math and science, followed by states that reward and sanction schools, with gains of
0.20 grade levels. Minimum competency tests had a positive but insignificant effect. Requiring particular courses for
high school graduation had no effect.7
STATE RESULTS PROVE TESTING IS EFFECTIVE
1. Florida proves that high stakes testing is effective.
Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the
Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm
The report also finds that Florida, which has the nation’s most aggressive high stakes testing program, has a very strong
correlation between high and low stakes test results on both score levels and year-to-year score gains. This justifies a
high level of confidence that Florida’s high stakes test is an accurate measure of both student performance and schools’
effects on that performance. The case of Florida shows that a properly designed high stakes accountability program can
provide schools with an incentive to improve real learning rather than artificially improving test scores.
2. Texas proves standardized testing causes academic excellence.
Andrew Ruth, Staff Writer, September 18, 2002, The Daily Texan, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2002/09/18/News/Survey.Shows.Most.Adults
.Favor.Standardized.Testing-499157.shtml
According to the foundation's survey, 71 percent of adults are in favor of the TAKS test once they were informed about
it. TEPRS officials said over 50 percent of those surveyed were not initially aware of the new test. "The thing I like about
the TAKS test is you simply can't teach to it," Gayle Fallon, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, said in a
release. This opinion coincides with the National Education Association's stance on standardized testing. The NEA
opposes the use of standardized tests when, "programs are specifically designed to teach to the test." According to Brad
Duggan, a TPERS board member and executive director of Just for the Kids, a non-profit organization dedicated to
raising academic standards in public schools, Texas fourth-graders outperform all other students in the United States in
math and writing. Texas is among the top seven states for performance in reading.
3. Empirical evidence proves these tests work.
Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the
Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm
Our examination of school systems containing 9% of all public school students shows that accountability systems that
use high stakes tests can, in fact, be designed to produce credible results that are not distorted by teaching to the test,
cheating, or other manipulations of the testing system. We know this because we have observed at least one statewide
system, Florida’s, where high stakes have not distorted information either about the level of student performance or
the value that schools add to their year-to-year progress. In other school systems we have found that high stakes tests
produce very credible information on the level of student performance and somewhat credible information on the
academic progress of students over time. Further research is needed to identify ways in which other school systems
might modify their practices to produce results more like those in Florida.
4. Texas shows that standardized tests are what families want for their kids.
Andrew Ruth, Staff Writer, September 18, 2002, The Daily Texan, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2002/09/18/News/Survey.Shows.Most.Adults
.Favor.Standardized.Testing-499157.shtml
Most adult Texans support standardized testing, a survey released Tuesday shows. "The results of this survey are clear:
Texans are saying don't mess with testing," said David Russell, communications committee chairman of the Texas Public
Education Reform Foundation, which commissioned the study. Planning for the poll began 18 months ago when the
foundation decided to sample attitudes toward public testing, Russell said. The survey found that 64 percent of adults
are in favor of standardized testing. It also found that 57 percent of adults consider education the most important issue
for the state Legislature to address.
TESTING CREATES BETTER SCHOOLS
1. Requiring a certain level of student achievement heightens schools’ commitment to education.
Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_2/ai_87209072
The constant measurement of student achievement focuses everyone's attention on student achievement.
Superintendents, principals, and teachers now spend more time trying to link the structure and work of the organization
to student learning. Discipline creeps back into the organization. Practices that don't seem to improve student
achievement are dropped, and practices that do work spread throughout the organization. Innovation begins to
flourish. Student achievement improves. As a former 12-year school board member for the Houston Independent
School District, I have seen this happen in Houston and in Texas. Demanding accountability for results and measuring
achievement with the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a criterion-referenced assessment--actually, a rather
blunt instrument--has spurred significant improvement in student achievement. This improvement has been displayed
nor only on the TAAS; it has shown up in Houston on the Stanford 9 and statewide on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
2. Standardized tests result in better teachers.
Marc Holley, Doctoral Fellow at the University of Arkansas, February 29, 2008, Education Report Webpage, Accessed
8/12/08, http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.aspx?id=9300
The alternate viewpoint is that we have not yet maximized the learning potential for all students, and improving the
available educational inputs would go a long way to helping students achieve. Of the factors that schools can control,
teachers make the most difference for student success; therefore, it is best for schools to focus on improving teacher
quality. The most objective measure of teacher quality is to evaluate the performance of a teacher in the classroom as
measured by student performance on standardized tests. To do so, it is essential to link individual students to their
teachers.
3. Overall standardized tests are net-beneficial for academic achievement.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
What is known so far about the effects of accountability systems on student achievement? Do they work? Are there any
unintended consequences? In general, evaluations of accountability systems have been quite positive. In raising student
achievement, states that have implemented such systems are outperforming states that have not done so. Although the
potential for serious unintended consequences cannot be ruled out, the harms documented to date appear temporary
and malleable.
4. Standardized tests are vital to maintain accountability.
Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_2/ai_87209072
Teachers know that standardized tests are not perfect measures of what their students have learned, just as they know
that the assessments they develop for their own use are not perfect measures. Yet they still use them to diagnose,
motivate, and focus classroom learning. And how often are they surprised by a child's standardized test score? Usually it
is just about where they expected it would be. Standardized high-stakes tests also don't measure school improvement
perfectly, and they shouldn't be the only accountability device we use. Nor should they be the sole measure of teacher
effectiveness. But imperfect as they are, standardized tests do the job. They enable policymakers and the public to
answer much more confidently the question, "Are the children learning"' More important, they change behavior.
5. Standardized tests result in balanced education.
Marc Holley, Doctoral Fellow at the University of Arkansas, February 29, 2008, Education Report Webpage, Accessed
8/12/08, http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.aspx?id=9300
Another criticism of teaching to the test is that other untested subjects do not receive as much attention. Rather than
spending extra time at recess or in music or art, students practice for reading, math, science or social studies tests.
Again, is this a bad thing? Students need a balanced curriculum, but the best thing we can do is to ensure that they are
developing the cognitive abilities and skills that will prepare them for success in the workforce or higher education.
TESTING IS VITAL FOR THE REAL WORLD
1. Standardized tests are vital to prepare students for the real world.
Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_2/ai_87209072
High-performance organizations measure almost everything. Why? Because measuring changes behavior. The best way
to focus the attention of a workforce on something important is to measure it. As critics points our, measuring the
performance of schools and teachers is difficult, very difficult. Does this mean we shouldn't do it? Does this mean we
leave teachers, in the privacy of their classrooms, to set their own standards, develop their own performance measures,
and tell us whether the children are learning? We tried this. The result: too many teachers neglected to reach the
curriculum or did not teach effectively, and too many children suffered the consequences.
2. Standardized testing is vital to help American maintain its lead in education.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
The release of A Nation at Risk (National Commission, 1983) reinforced the need for student accountability and elevated
the level of demonstrated proficiency. According to the report, the United States could no longer rely on minimal
reading and math competency to maintain its competitive edge. Instead, students needed to be held to "rigorous and
measurable" standards in order to ensure the country's success in the information age (National Commission, 1983).
These standards would raise the level of expected learning and, in essence, define a new set of minimum competencies.
Within 3 years, 35 states had begun comprehensive educational reform, marking the beginning of an almost 2-decade
journey to create and hold students accountable for mastery of a new set of world class standards (Kornhaber & Orfield,
2001). Currently, a majority of states use or have plans in place to use state-mandated tests as the sole or significant
criteria for promotion and/or graduation from public elementary and secondary schools ("Quality Counts," 2002).
3. Standardized tests are the best method for achieving math and science excellence.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
The most interesting evidence on student accountability comes from a series of studies by Bishop, including an analysis
of international evidence. He discovered that students in countries with curriculum-based external exit exams scored
higher on international math and science assessments than those in countries with less stringent promotion
requirements.8 The same pattern held true for Canadian provinces. Those employing such tests exhibited higher test
scores than the provinces that did not.9 In the United States, Bishop finds positive achievement effects for the New York
Regents program and the Michigan Merit Award Program. Michigan's program offers one-year $2,500 scholarships to
students who meet or exceed standards in reading, math, science, and writing. The tests include demanding material,
and students who fall short do not face negative consequences. Thus the program is not high stakes for failure, nor is it
predicated on students' demonstrating minimum competency in basic subjects, two aspects of accountability systems
that have drawn fire from critics.10 Bishop concludes that systems combining student and school accountability hold
great promise for raising academic achievement, especially when performance on end-of-course exams or other
curriculum-based tests is the outcome that states measure and reward.
4. Every major profession requires standardized tests – students must learn how to take them.
Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_2/ai_87209072
Yes, we should recognize that a test measures true ability and random influences. Yes, measured gains are noisy and
unstable. Yes, socioeconomic and demographic factors have some influence on measured student progress. And indeed,
scaling is a problem. No standardized test is perfect, yet we use them all the time, and to good effect. Physicians,
lawyers, accountants, financial planners, real-estate brokers, and pilots all take high-stakes tests. These tests ensure
that professionals have the knowledge necessary to serve the public well.
TESTING IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY
1. Standardized tests are the best, most fair method of evaluation.
Richard Phelps, Education Author, June 3, 2008, Third Education Review Essays: Volume 4, Number 3, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v4n3.htm
When individual teachers, or individual employers for that matter, are given the responsibility to make judgments
unanchored by common standards or rules, those judgments tend to float freely in the currents of time, fitting first one
context, then another, and then another. Being idiosyncratic to each particular, temporary context, each free-floating
evaluation result is not generalizable to any permanent context. It is a judgment that makes sense only to a particular
teacher or employer at a particular point in time and space. When I was young, standardized tests were often called
“objective tests,” which implied that teacher-made tests were “subjective.” Standardized tests’ clear separation from
the influence of local decision-makers, be they classroom teachers or personnel managers responsible for hiring new
employees, remains one of their most beneficial features. The adoption of standardized university admission testing in
the United States in the mid-twentieth century, for example, helped to pave the way for minorities who lacked the
familial connections and social pedigree of wealthy WASPs (i.e., White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants).
2. The studies used against standardized testing are grossly inaccurate and littered with errors.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
In the first study, Amrein and Berliner find that states showed no clear academic gains after adopting high-stakes
testing. The findings from the second study are decidedly negative. In the sixteen states with exit exams, dropout rates
increased, graduation rates declined, and GED rates went up relative to national changes on the same measures. Amrein
and Berliner conclude that there is no solid evidence that high-stakes tests produce achievement gains and considerable
evidence that high-stakes tests produce negative consequences. The Amrein and Berliner studies drew withering
criticism, primarily on methodological grounds. Comparing data from high-stakes states with national averages does not
offer the clear contrast that comparing high-stakes states with [End Page 8] non-high-stakes states would provide.4 The
studies also did not control for demographic changes or other factors influencing achievement scores, nor did the
researchers run significance tests to measure the probability that the results appeared by chance.
3. Standardized tests are the fairest approach to education.
Richard Phelps, Education Author, June 3, 2008, Third Education Review Essays: Volume 4, Number 3, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v4n3.htm
According to Professor Stephen G. Sireci (2005, 113), the bad reputation of standardized tests portrayed by some critics
“is an undeserved one.” He continues People accuse standardized tests of being unfair, biased and discriminatory.
Believe it or not, standardized tests are actually designed to promote test fairness. Standardized simply means that the
test content is equivalent across administrations and that the conditions under which the test is administered are the
same for all test takers. …Standardized tests are used to provide objective information. For example, employment tests
are used to avoid unethical hiring practices (e.g., nepotism, ethnic discrimination, etc.). If an assessment system uses
tests that are not standardized, the system is likely to be unfair to many candidates. There is more to subjectivity in
decision-making than ethnic, racial, gender, or class bias, however. The fact is that true objectivity requires too much
time to be practical in making everyday decisions. Double-blind controlled experiments or program evaluations with
random assignment require time, money, and trained professional observation to monitor their progress. In our daily
lives, we make judgments and decisions continuously. We cannot set up a controlled experiment, and wait for the
results, every time we must choose which laundry detergent to purchase, where to go on vacation or, for that matter,
whom to hire for a job or whom to admit to the last available place at university.
TESTING IS THE BEST OPTION AVAILABLE
1. Tests force students to pick up all sorts of knowledge that is vital to overall education.
Marc Holley, Doctoral Fellow at the University of Arkansas, February 29, 2008, Education Report Webpage, Accessed
8/12/08, http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.aspx?id=9300
Consider a test of reading comprehension. Teachers may prepare their students by working on sample problems.
Teachers may spend time instructing students on how to identify a passage’s main idea. They may also show them how
to use context clues to figure out unknown words. Further, teachers may show students how to identify supporting
evidence or conclusion sentences. These critical reading skills are precisely what teachers should be teaching anyway; in
this light, teaching to the test may not be such a bad thing after all.
2. Standardized tests are on-balance the best way to go.
Donald McAdams, Education Author, Summer 2002, Find Articles Webpage, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_2_2/ai_87209072
Obviously, test data can be given more weight than they deserve, and there is a danger that administrators might use
test data inappropriately to make personnel decisions. But there seems to be little evidence that this has happened and
a huge body of evidence that high-stakes tests of all kinds focus school systems on teaching and learning. So let the
psychometricians continue to improve techniques for value-added assessment. We need them to do so. And let
economists and statisticians continue to point out the flaws in these tests, so that policymakers don't misuse them.
Meanwhile, policymakers should deepen and broaden their commitment to standards-based reform and high-stakes
rests. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks.
3. Standardized tests are accurate barometers of academic knowledge.
Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the
Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm
The report finds that score levels on high stakes tests closely track score levels on other tests, suggesting that high
stakes tests provide reliable information on student performance. When a state’s high stakes test scores go up, we
should have confidence that this represents real improvements in student learning. If schools are “teaching to the test,”
they are doing so in a way that conveys useful general knowledge as measured by nationally respected low stakes tests.
Test score levels are heavily influenced by factors that are outside schools’ control, such as student demographics, so
some states use year-to-year score gains rather than score levels for accountability purposes. The report’s analysis of
year-to-year score gains finds that some high stakes tests are less effective than others in measuring schools’ effects on
student performance.
4. The alternative to standardized testing is far worse for education.
Richard Phelps, Education Author, June 3, 2008, Third Education Review Essays: Volume 4, Number 3, Accessed 8/12/08,
http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v4n3.htm
Without standardized tests (or standardized grading protocols) in education, we would increase our reliance on
individual teacher grading and testing. Are teacher evaluations free of standardized testing’s alleged failings? No.
Individual teachers can narrow the curriculum to that which they prefer. Grades are susceptible to inflation with
ordinary teachers, as students get to know a teacher better and learn his idiosyncrasies. A teacher’s (or school’s) grades
and test scores are far less likely to be generalizable than any standardized tests’ (See, for example, Gullickson &
Ellwein, 1985; Impara & Plake, 1996; Stiggins, Frisbee, & Griswold, 1989; Woodruff & Ziomek, 2004a, 2004b). (In Phelps,
2008, Table 1 lists some common fallacies proffered by testing opponents, along with citations to responsible
refutations.) According to the research on the topic, many U.S teachers consider “nearly everything” when assigning
marks, including student class participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment,
according to one researcher. Actual achievement vis-à-vis the subject matter is just one factor. One study of teacher
grading practices discovered that 66 percent of teachers felt that their perception of a student’s ability should be taken
into consideration in awarding the final grade (Frary, Cross, & Weber 1993).
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS ON-BALANCE GOOD
1. Standardized tests maintain a stable academic environment.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
Carnoy and Loeb examine whether strong accountability systems affect either retention rates (that is, students
repeating a grade) or dropout rates from the eighth to twelfth grades. In a study of high school exit exams from 1988 to
1992, Brian Jacob finds that the tests had an adverse affect on low-achieving students, increasing the likelihood that
they dropped out of school.11 Bishop finds the same effect but concludes that states could more than offset the
increase by building dropout rates into school accountability.12 Consistent with that idea, Carnoy and Loeb find no
evidence that accountability systems in the 1990s led to increased student retention or higher dropout rates.13
2. The narrowing of school curriculum is inevitable – standardized tests aren’t responsible.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
Critics assert that accountability systems serve to narrow the curriculum to topics that are tested, a charge based
primarily on case study evidence. Few studies have surveyed large numbers of schools on how accountability shapes the
school curriculum. Fewer yet have attempted to untangle the effects of testing in general from the effects of tests linked
to accountability. It is known that teachers shift instruction toward topics that appear on standardized tests, but this
effect was present in the 1980s, when test results triggered few consequences for teachers. Several studies from Rand
have examined classroom practices in the 1990s as states adopted test-based accountability schemes. Brian Stecher and
Sheila Barron, for example, compare the amount of time fourth- and fifth-grade teachers in Kentucky devoted to
different subjects. Fourth-grade teachers spent about four more hours a week on reading, writing, and science, subjects
tested in the fourth grade. Fifth-grade teachers, on the other hand, spent almost six more hours a week on subjects
tested in the fifth grade.25
3. Even if standardized tests result in narrowing curriculum, that’s a good thing.
Tom Loveless, Brookings Fellow, 2005, Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2005.1, p. 7-45
Although research suggests that narrowing of the curriculum does take place in response to accountability, the crucial
question, of course, is whether such narrowing is good or bad. One person's "narrowing of the curriculum" is another
person's "focusing on what is important." An emphasis on writing may be a sound educational strategy for Florida if it is
the subject on which that state's students need the most help. Moreover, long-standing philosophical disputes
concerning what schools should teach are often reflected in analysts' judgment of whether concentrating more on some
subjects at the expense of others is educationally sound. Educational traditionalists may applaud paring the curriculum
back to an emphasis on basic skills. Ideology plays a significant role in the politics of accountability.
4. High stakes testing is an accurate barometer of education.
Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Marcus Winters, Research Associate at the
Manhattan Institute, Greg Forster, Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute, February 2003, The
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Accessed 8/12/08, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_33.htm
The finding that high and low stakes tests produce very similar score level results tells us that the stakes of the tests do
not distort information about the general level at which students are performing. If high stakes testing is only being
used to assure that students can perform at certain academic levels, then the results of those high stakes tests appear
to be reliable policy tools. The generally strong correlations between score levels on high and low stakes tests in all the
school systems we examined suggest that teaching to the test, cheating, or other manipulations are not causing high
stakes tests to produce results that look very different from tests where there are no incentives for distortion.
Pro standardized testing is good
STANDARDIZED TESTING CHECKS DISCRIMINATION - EDUCATION
1. Standardized Testing is critical to fairness and to check discrimination
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.113, 2005
The term standardized test has quite possibly made more eyes glaze over than any other. Standardized tests have a bad
reputation, but it is an undeserved one. People accuse standardized tests of being unfair, biased, and discriminatory.
Believe it or not, standardized tests are actually designed to promote test fairness. Standardized simply means that the
test content is equivalent across administrations and that the conditions under which the test is administered are the
same for all test takers. Thus, standardized tests are designed to provide a level playing field. That is, all test takers are
given the same test under the same conditions. I am not going to defend all standardized tests, for surely there are
problems with some of them. The point here is that just because a test is standardized does not mean that it is "bad," or
"biased," or that it measures only "unimportant things." It merely means it is designed and administered using uniform
procedures. Standardized tests are used to provide objective information. For example, employment tests are used to
avoid unethical hiring practices (e.g., nepotism, ethnic discrimination, etc.). If an assessment system uses tests that are
not standardized, the system is likely to be unfair to many candidates. Those of you who had the pleasure of viewing the
old film Monty Python and the Holy Grail saw an excellent example of a nonstandardized assessment. In this film, a
guardian protected a bridge by requiring that three questions be answered before a traveler was permitted to cross.
Answering any question incorrectly resulted in being catapulted into the abyss. Thus, this was a high-stakes test. The
three questions asked of the first traveler were: What is your quest?, What do you seek?, and What is your favorite
color? The second traveler was asked the same first two questions, but was then asked for the air speed velocity of a
swallow. Clearly, the two assessments were not of equal content or difficulty. The second traveler who plummeted into
the abyss had a legitimate claim of test bias.
2. Standardized testing is not racially or ethnically discriminatory – any questions that result in racially biased results are
eliminated and test are being constantly updated to eliminate all bias
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.190, 2005
Although the models and techniques alluded to previously relate to entire tests and the review of such tests, testing
specialists have also attempted to identify individual test questions or items that are biased within what might be
otherwise fair tests. If such test items can be identified, they can be removed as components of tests. Further, if specific
types of questions could be identified as biased, then they too could be avoided when possible during the construction
of future tests. Such procedures have been developed and were known in the early 1980s as item bias detection
methods. More recently, they have been identified using a more neutral name, as indices of differential item functioning
(or dif). These techniques led to considerable research in the 1980s and the 1990s (see Angoff, 1982; Berk, 1982;
Holland & Wainer, 1993; Scheuneman, 1982; Tittle, 1982). Most professional test publishers now pre-test all items prior
to their operational use and evaluate these items for validity and fairness as well as their appropriateness in other
respects. When items indicate differential effects on specific societal groups, they are generally not included in the
actual tests that are used operationally. Berk's (1982) volume on test bias includes statements by a number of the larger
test publishers describing how they then used such procedures to "de-bias" the tests that they publish. Statements from
many of the largest test publishers—California Test Bureau/McGraw-Hill, Riverside Press, The Psychological
Corporation, Science Research Associates, The American College Testing Program, and the Educational Testing Service—
were included in that volume. In describing their procedures publicly, they were espousing standards of fairness to
which they were committed. Most test publishers also agreed to abide by the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education
3
, which further provided fairness standards to which they needed to be committed.
STANDARDIZED TESTING CHECKS DISCRIMINATION - EDUCATION
3. Standardized testing ensures quality education for all not biased teaching
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.43, 2005
It is not completely appropriate to categorize increased student learning as an unintended consequence. At least in
terms of the political or policy rhetoric often accompanying high-stakes tests, there are usually strong claims made
regarding the effects of testing on student learning. However, not all of those concerned about educational reform
would necessarily agree that increased learning should be expected. As I have argued elsewhere, a major reason that
high-stakes testing was introduced in the first place may have simply been to increase the uniformity (standardize) of a
state's curriculum as it is actually experienced by students (see Camilli, Cizek, & Lugg, 2001). 6 One particularly vivid
memory is of a parent-teacher conference we attended at the beginning of the school year. The teacher explained
enthusiastically that she would be implementing a "literacy-rich curriculum" for the youngsters. Included in the
children's classroom experiences would be a puppet-play (our son was in charge of making the props), a visit to a
museum to learn about early paper and book making, an on-site visit from a children's book illustrator, the making of a
literacy quilt, and more. The obvious—although unexpressed—question that occurred to us at the time was, "But when
will our son actually learn how to read?"This experience was instructive because, in other classrooms (even in the same
school district) other students at the same grade level experienced a much different curriculum—a curriculum decidedly
leaning toward instruction in letters, sounds, comprehension, oral and silent fluency, and so forth. The kind of early
reading program experienced by any given student depended in large measure on the teacher to whom the student
happened to be assigned.Some critics of high-stakes testing have suggested that these assessments may increase
students' test scores, but not students' learning. However, that argument has not been made clearly. More importantly,
a clear method for or logic regarding how to measure increases in learning in ways that would not show up in test score
gains has not been put forward.The most cynical observers have suggested either that no effects of testing are likely (as
in the commonly heard metaphor that frequent temperature taking has no effect on reducing a fever) or that testing
has adverse effects on learning (as in the previously cited publication of Amrein and Berliner, 2002).
4. Standardized testing does not discriminate along ethnic lines – cultural sensitive translators and counselors are
employed during test translation
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.197, 2005
Newer methods of test translation incorporate the use of culturally sensitive translators who not only translate the
assessment device linguistically, but from a cultural perspective as well. Idioms, for example, do not translate well.
Rather than rely on literal translations, it is better to hire culturally sensitive translators who can evoke comparable
rather than literally parallel content for test questions. Culturally sensitive changes, however, may alter the nature of
the questions. As a check, however, it is appropriate to evaluate the work of the translators with a panel of others who
are knowledgeable about the content covered by the assessment, fluent both in the original and target languages, and
thoroughly experienced in the two cultures.
STANDARDIZED TESTING CHECKS DISCRIMINATION - EDUCATION
5. Standardized testing does not discriminate against the disabled – modifications can be used in order to eliminate bias
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.199, 2005
Standardized admissions tests in higher education for applicants with disabilities is perhaps the only type of testing that
has been researched seriously with regard to the impact of accommodations (see, e.g., Willingham et al., 1988). The
general objective of any modified test administration is to: "provide a test that eliminates, insofar as possible, sources of
difficulty that are irrelevant to the skills and knowledge being measured" (p. 3). A large variety of accommodations in
testing format can be provided. Some accommodations are made in a group format; others are individualized, even for
tests that are generally group administered. Test forms are provided in regular (standard) format, or with improved (or
high resolution) type, large type, braille, or on audio-cassette. Time limits can be enforced, extended, or waived
altogether. Test takers may be offered extra rest pauses, a reader, a recorder, a sign-language interpreter, a tape
recorder to register answers, convenient test-taking locations and testing times, or other accommodations as needed to
meet their particular requirements. Accessibility to the test site is a basic requirement for individuals with many kinds of
disabilities. In extreme circumstances, changes in the abilities addressed and content covered in an examination may be
required (Geisinger, 1994b).
6. Not only is standardized testing not discriminatory but if fact works against discrimination in the classroom
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.37, 2005
Recent federal legislation enacted to guide the implementation of high-stakes testing has been a catalyst for increased
attention to students with special needs. Describing the impact of legislation such as the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act and the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), Thurlow and Ysseldyke (2001) observed that, "both Goals 2000 and
the more forceful IASA indicated that high standards were to apply to all students. In very clear language, these laws
defined 'all students' as including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency" (p. 389). The
No Child Left Behind Act reinforces the notion that the era of exceptions for exceptional students has ended. Rather, to
the greatest extent possible, all pupils will be tested to obtain information about their progress relative to a state's
content standards in place for all students. In accordance with these mandates, states across the United States are
scurrying to adapt those tests for all students, report disaggregated results for subgroups, and implement
accommodations so that tests and accountability reporting more accurately reflect the learning of all students. The
result has been a very positive diffusion of awareness. Increasingly at the classroom level, educators are becoming more
sensitive to the needs and barriers special needs students face when they take tests—even ordinary classroom
assessments. If not driven within the context of once-per-year, high-stakes tests, it is doubtful that such progress would
have been witnessed in the daily experiences of many special needs learners. Much research in the area of high-stakes
testing and students at risk has provided evidence of this positive consequence of mandated testing. One recent
example comes from the Consortium on Chicago School Research, which has monitored effects of that large, urban
school district's high stakes testing and accountability program. There researchers found that students (particularly
those who had some history of failure) reported that the introduction of accountability testing had induced their
teachers to begin focusing more attention on them (Roderick & Engel, 2001). Failure was no longer acceptable and
there was a stake in helping all students succeed. In this case, necessity was the mother of intervention.
STANDARDIZED TESTING CHECKS DISCRIMINATION - HIRING
1. Standardized testing is critical to effective and fair hiring
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.56, 2005
Second, some standardized tests are designed to provide information used in personnel selection (e.g., of job applicants
by employers, in admissions by universities). This information is typically measured in predictive validity coefficients—
usually simple Pearson correlation coefficients of test performance against some future performance measure (e.g.,
first-year college grades, supervisor job ratings)—or allocative efficiency coefficients (which would be more difficult to
illustrate). Although these selection benefits are disputed by some of those who oppose university admissions and
employment testing, there exists a mass of empirical evidence supporting the existence and significance of these
benefits. Indeed, there are so many empirical studies verifying the benefits of employment testing that meta analyses
have been conducted of the many meta analyses. These studies, conducted mostly by personnel (i.e.,
industrial/organizational) psychologists, number in the thousands (see, e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Hunter & Schmidt,
1982; Hunter and Schmidt, 1983; Hunter, Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Schmidt,
Hunter, McKenzie, & Muldrow, 1979). The number of studies supporting the existence and significance of benefits to
university admissions testing may not be as numerous but these studies are, nonetheless, quite common (see, e.g.,
Willingham, Lewis, Morgan, & Ramist, 1990; College Entrance Examination Board, 1988; and Cole & Willingham, 1997),
and have quite a long history. According to Manuel (1952):
2. Standardized testing checks education and employment discrimination
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.160, 2005
Many teachers view teaching of test-taking skills as a tawdry practice. They may avoid it or undertake instruction geared
to preparing students to demonstrate their knowledge in a particular format—multiple choice, essay, and performance
assessment—in a shamefaced or clandestine fashion. This unfortunate situation, largely engendered by critics of
standardized testing, impedes student performance and harms teacher morale. Yet, more than 20 years ago, McPhail
(1981) offered two worthy reasons for teaching test-taking skills: (a) "to improve the validity of test results" (p. 33) and
(b) "to provide equal educational, employment, and promotional opportunity" (p. 34) particularly for disadvantaged
students who often do not have access to additional educational resources enjoyed by their middle-class cohorts. This
rationale remains compelling today.
STANDARDIZED TESTING ENHANCES EDUCATION – GENERAL
1. Standardized testing enhances education and increases educators intimacy with their disciplines
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.40, 2005
Once a test has been mandated in, say, language arts, the first step in any high-stakes testing program is to circumscribe
the boundaries of what will be tested. The nearly universal strategy for accomplishing this is to impanel groups of
(primarily) educators who are familiar with the ages, grades, and content to be tested. These groups are usually large,
selected to be representative, and expert in the subject area. The groups first study relevant documentation (e.g. the
authorizing legislation, state curriculum guides, content standards). They then begin the arduous, time-consuming task
of discussing among themselves the nature of the content area, the sequence and content of typical instruction, learner
characteristics and developmental issues, cross-disciplinary relationships, and relevant assessment techniques. These
extended conversations help shape the resulting high-stakes tests, to be sure. However, they also affect the discussants,
and those with whom they interact when they return to their districts, buildings, and classrooms. As persons with
special knowledge about a particular high-stakes testing program, the participants are sometimes asked to replicate
those disciplinary and logistic discussions locally. The impact of this trickling-down can be beneficial. For example, at one
session of the 2000 American Educational Research Association conference, scholars reported on the positive effects of
a state testing program in Maine on classroom assessment practices (Beaudry, 2000) and on how educators in Florida
were assimilating their involvement in large-scale testing activities at the local level (Banerji, 2000). These local
discussions mirror the large scale counterparts in that they provide educators with an opportunity to become more
intimate with the nature and structure of their own disciplines, and to contemplate interdisciplinary relationships. This
is a good thing. And the impulse for this good thing is clearly the presence of a high-stakes test.
2. Standardized testing enhances education
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.43, 2005
Thus, at least in some quarters, increased student achievement attributable to the presence of high-stakes tests would
qualify as an unexpected consequence.Through the fog of negative assertions from education insiders, though, some
astute observers have been able to see the effects of testing clearly. A recent article in the Virginian-Pilot reported on
an evaluation of Virginia's rigorous accountability testing system [called the "Standards of Learning" (SOL)] over the
period since the SOL program was instituted in 1998. The evaluation revealed that:
•
4th- and 6th-grade Virginia students' scores on the norm-referenced Stanford Achievement Tests in
reading, language, and mathematics had increased over the time frame studied (scores for ninth grade
students remained stable);
•
statewide average SAT-Verbal and SAT-Mathematics scores rose; and
•
"more students have taken Advanced Placement tests and enrolled in rigorous International Baccalaureate
programs since the SOL program began" (Study Shows, 2003, p. 1).
STANDARDIZED TESTING ENHANCES EDUCATION – GENERAL
3. Standardized testing enhances education and checks dropout
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.44, 2005
Another recent example reports on increasing student achievement in Massachusetts. USA Today cites a review of that
state's standards-based reforms by Achieve, "the state using the nation's highest regarded test is reaping some of the
most impressive gains." The article concluded that "testing can improve student performance, especially when states
serve up high-quality education standards backed by relevant, high-quality tests" (Schools sharpen testing, 2001, p. A14).The news from Massachusetts is particularly enlightening, as that state has a relatively long track record with highstakes testing. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) is also one of the most transparent and
scrutinized programs of its kind. Recent news reports indicate that students are learning more of what that state hopes
for students to achieve as measured by its high school examinations. In 2002, 1 year after pass rates on the MCAS exam
rose significantly—a gain that was viewed skeptically by opponents of that high-stakes testing program—
•
overall achievement increased again. In spring 2002, 86 percent of sophomores passed the MCAS English
exam (up from 82% in 2001), whereas 75% passed the math exam (the same as in spring 2001) and 69% of
sophomores passed both sections (Hayward, 2002a);
•
achievement gaps narrowed. On the 2002 tests, the percentage of African-American students passing the
English section increased by 7% (although the pass rate for that group on the math exam slipped by 3
points). "The pass rate for Hispanics high-schoolers on the English exam jumped from 52 percent to 61
percent" (Hayward, 2002a); and
•
dropout rates remained stable. According to the Boston Herald newspaper, "The state's high school
dropout rate remained stable at 3.5% during the 2000-2001 school year, countering theories that the
MCAS tests would lead to an exodus" (Hayward, 2002b). The 3.5% rate was the same as for the 1999-2000
school year, and 1% less than for the 1998-1999 school year.
STANDARDIZED TESTING ENHANCES EDUCATION – ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
1. Standardized testing doesn’t eliminate other methods of teaching, in fact, it enhances it
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.56, 2005
For the sake of both brevity and clarity, I divide the benefits of testing into three groups. First, there is the benefit of
information used for diagnosis (e.g., of a student's or teacher's problems or progress). Standardized tests may reveal
weaknesses or strengths that corroborate or supplement a teacher's or principal's analysis. Information for diagnosis,
however, may be obtained from no-stakes standardized tests. For that, and other reasons, virtually no one disputes this
benefit, and so it is not a part of the literature review here.
2. Standardized testing increases parental choice and provides educational alternatives for those that oppose
standardized methods
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.37-8, 2005
Related to the increase in publicly available information about student performance and school characteristics is the
spawning of greater options for parents and students. Complementing a hunger for information, the public's appetite
for alternatives has been whetted. In many cases, schools have responded. Charter schools, magnet schools, home
schools, and increased offerings of honors, IB and AP courses have broadened the choices available to parents. And,
research is slowly accumulating which suggests that the presence of choices has not spelled doom for traditional
options but has largely raised all boats (see, e.g., Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000; Greene, 2001). It is almost surely the
case that legislators' votes and parents' feet would not be moving in the direction of expanding alternatives if not for
the information provided by high-stakes tests. And, because turnabout is fair play, the same tests are being used to
gauge the success or failure of these emerging alternatives (see e.g., Miron & Nelson, 2002).
STANDARDIZED TESTING ENHANCES EDUCATION - MOTIVATION
1. Standardized testing even if it is unsuccessful increases motivation and curriculum effectiveness
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.57, 2005
Third, there remain those benefits that accrue from the changes in behavior induced by the presence of a test, usually a
standardized test with stakes. Those behavior changes typically include increases in motivation (on the part of students,
teachers, administrators, or others), the incorporation of feedback information from tests, an associated narrowing of
focus on the task at hand, and increases in organizational efficiency, clarity, or the alignment of standards, curriculum,
and instruction. 2 Most any parent or taxpayer likely would consider increases in any of these behaviors to be positive,
to clearly be benefits. Many education researchers, however, consider them to be negative, and sometimes count them
as costs.
2. Standardized testing even if it is unsuccessful increases student effort and motivation
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.57, 2005
Fifth, a surprising number of studies—indeed, some of the most celebrated —whose summaries and conclusions report
negative results, reveal mostly positive results to the more intrepid reader willing to sift through the details. To find the
positive results, one must ignore the researchers' interpretations, read the fine print, and peruse the data tables on
one's own. For example, at least several studies exist that claim mostly negative results from the introduction of a highstakes test, essentially because the test induced a change in curriculum and instruction, a change some teachers,
administrators, or the researchers themselves did not like. A closer look at the study results, however, reveal that all
concerned—teachers, administrators, students, and parents—observed students working harder and learning more as a
result of the test.
3. Standardized testing increases teacher effectiveness and motivation
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.37-38, 2005
For years, testing specialists have documented a lack of knowledge about assessment on the part of many educators.
The title of one such article bluntly asserted educators' "Apathy toward Testing and Grading" (Hills, 1991). Other
research has chronicled the chronic lack of training in assessment for teachers and principals and has offered plans for
remediation (see, e.g., Impara & Plake, 1996; Stiggins, 1999). Unfortunately, for the most part, it has been difficult to
require assessment training for preservice teachers or administrators, and even more difficult to wedge such training
into graduate programs in education. Then along came high-stakes tests. What faculty committees could not enact has
been accomplished circuitously. Granted, misperceptions about tests persist (e.g., in my home state of North Carolina
there is a lingering myth that "the green test form is harder than the red one"), but I am discovering that, across the
country, educators know more about testing than ever before. Because many tests now have stakes associated with
them, it has become de rigeur for educators to inform themselves about their content, construction, and consequences.
Increasingly, teachers can tell you the difference between a norm-referenced and a criterion-referenced test; they can
recognize, use, or develop a high-quality rubric; they can tell you how their state's writing test is scored, and so on.
Along with this knowledge has come the secondary benefit that knowledge of sound testing practices has had positive
consequences at the classroom level—a trickle-down effect. For example, one recent study (Goldberg & Roswell,
1999/2000) investigated the effects on teachers who had participated in training and scoring of tasks for the Maryland
School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). Those teachers who were involved with the MSPAP overwhelmingly
reported that their experience had made them more reflective, deliberate, and critical in terms of their own classroom
instruction and assessment.
STANDARDIZED TESTING ENHANCES EDUCATION - MOTIVATION
1. Standardized testing , according to students own testimony, enhanced their work ethic and education
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.44, 2005
These rosy outcomes related to student learning and related concerns are corroborated by testimony from students
themselves. For example, in a recent study (Mass Insight Education, 2002) interviews were conducted with 140
randomly selected urban high school students regarding their perceptions about the MCAS. The results revealed that:
67% of students who failed the MCAS the first time they took it said that, as a result, they are working harder in school;
65% said that they pay more attention in class since failing the MCAS;
74% of students interviewed said that missing too much school is a "big reason" why students don't pass MCAS; 64%
said that not working hard enough in school and on homework is a big reason;
74% reported that they consider themselves to be more able in math, reading or writing because they have to
pass the MCAS in order to graduate; and • 53% said that they get more help and attention from teachers since getting
their MCAS results.
STANDARDIZED TESTING ENHANCES EDUCATION – NO ‘TEACHING TO TEST’
1. Standardized testing does not result in teaching to the test – in fact it encourages innovation in teaching and the
classroom
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.171, 2005
CRITICS of testing seem convinced that, given the high stakes now attached to some assessments, teachers will abandon
their professional responsibilities to teach a balanced curriculum in preference for a narrowly focused measurementdriven approach to instruction. No doubt, there are cases in which this has occurred. For example, in a survey of more
than 2,000 teachers in one state, 25% reported such questionable practices as directly teaching vocabulary words and
10% reported teaching items that would appear on the current year's test (Nolen, Haladyna, & Haas, 1992). However,
many widely advocated educational practices (e.g., cooperative learning, phonemic awareness, whole-language
instruction, or use of calculators) have been implemented by some teachers in ineffective, or even counterproductive,
ways. Such events, do not lead to a clamor to abandon these instructional innovations, but rather to calls for
emphasizing them more in teacher education and professional development programs. Logically, then should we not
urge that teachers need more preparation in how to appropriately prepare their students for assessment?
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS GOOD – CRITICISMS ARE BIASED
1. Their evidence is biased pro-test evidence is not supported and often censored
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.62, 2005
Despite some educators' lack of interest in, or outright censorship of, the evidence demonstrating high-stakes testing’s
beneficial achievement effects, some studies have managed to find their way into print, and I have started to build a
record of them. Thus far, I have looked in fairly accessible locations that can be found through computer searching and,
even then, only in education research sources. I have not searched the scholarly Psychology or Sociology literature, or
(mostly proprietary) business reports, where the largest body of relevant information is likely to be found. And, would
anyone like to wager against finding an abundance of reports demonstrating high-stakes testing’s beneficial
achievement effects in the military's research files?
2. The backlash against standardized testing is overstated in most teachers prefer standardized testing
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.62, 2005
In contrast to the dire pronouncements of those generally within the education profession, is the broad support for
testing found just about everywhere else. A report by the Business Roundtable (2001) found that any anti-testing
sentiment in the populace or "backlash" has been seriously exaggerated. In general, the American public maintains
broad, consistent, and strong support for measuring all students in ways that yield accurate, comparable data on
student achievement (Phelps, 1998). For example, one recent survey of 1,023 parents of school-age children found that
83% of respondents believe tests provide important information about their children's educational progress, and 9 out
of 10 wanted comparative (i.e., test) data about their children and the schools they attend. Two thirds of the parents
surveyed said they would like to receive standardized test results for their children in every grade; one half of those
parents indicated such tests should be given twice a year and the other half said that tests should be given once a year
(Driesler, 2001). There is evidence that concerns about the extent (Phelps, 1997) and cost (Phelps, 2000) of testing have
been seriously overestimated.
3. Their studies are biased in favor of academic researchers who make their money by criticizing the testing industry
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.59, 2005
Third, many, if not most, studies finding testing benefits are simply not to be found stored in the more common
research literature data bases. Research data bases tend to be biased toward the work of academic researchers, and
academic researchers may be biased against testing. Researchers with a predisposition against testing are more likely to
work in academe, where they are not required to perpetuate a practice of which they disapprove. Researchers with
more favorable dispositions toward testing are more likely to work in the field, for testing companies or state education
agencies, for example. Getting one's work published in an academic journal and listed in a widely available research
literature data base is far less important for the latter folk than for the former. Academics' perceived worth, promotion,
and tenure are largely determined by the quantity and status of their publications. Practitioners, by contrast, respond to
a quite different set of incentives. They must contribute to the mission of their organization, where spending the time to
run the gauntlet of academic journal review could be considered nothing more than a diversion. Many research studies
conducted by private firms are considered proprietary and never released. Testing program evaluations conducted by or
for state governments are typically addressed to state legislatures or state boards and are not written in the standard
academic journal style. They end up on a shelf in the state library, perhaps, and included in a state government
database, perhaps, but no where else. Many busy psychometricians write up their findings briefly, enough to get them
on the program of professional meetings where they can update their skills and keep in touch with their friends and
colleagues. But, as practitioners, they no more need to polish up those papers for academic journal publication than
would your neighborhood doctor or dentist, who likely treats research in a similar way.
STANDARDIZED TESTING ARE NOT OBJECTIFYING
1. Standardized testing is not objectifying or dehumanizing and are only a component of a person’s profile not its
entirety
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.32, 2005
By definition, decision making creates categories. If, for example, some students graduate from high school and others
do not, a categorical decision has been made, even if a graduation test was not used. The decisions were, presumably,
made on some basis. High school music teachers make decisions such as who should be first chair for the clarinets.
College faculties make decisions to tenure (or not) their colleagues. Virtually everyone concerned embraces decision
making with regard to testing in fields where public protection or personal health and safety are of concern, such as
medicallicensure or board examinations required for the practice of medicine. All of these kinds of decisions are
essentially unavoidable. Each should be based on sound information. And, the information should be combined with
other relevant, high-quality information in some deliberate, considered, defensible manner. In educational testing, it is
currently fashionable to talk as if high-stakes tests are the single bit of information used to make categorical decisions
that wreak hellacious results on both people and educational systems. But simple-minded slogans like "high stakes are
for tomatoes" are, well, simple-minded. 2 And, there is a straightforward, but accurate response to the oft-repeated
fiction that high-stakes tests should not be the single measure used for making important decisions such as awarding
high school diplomas : Tests aren't the only piece of information and it is doubtful that they ever have been. In the
diploma example, multiple sources of information are used to make decisions, and success on each of them is
necessary.
STANDARDIZED TESTING TEACHES REAL WORLD SKILLS
1. Standardized testing , is critical to real world job seeking skills
Richard P. Phelps, PhD, Editor Educational Horizons, Research Fellowship at Educational Testing Services and American
Education Finance Association, Defending Standardized Testing p.160, 2005
In the highly mobile twenty-first century, students migrate with their parents across state and national borders, attend
colleges thousands of miles from home, and apply for employment and graduate or professional studies in areas where
their transcripts and other credentials cannot be measured on a common metric by those making the selection
decisions. Standardized tests have become critical tools for decisions regarding college admission, college credits for
high school work, graduate or school professional admission, and licensure for many blue-collar and white-collar
professions. Put simply, no one becomes a physician, lawyer, teacher, nurse, accountant, electrician, fire-fighter,
cosmetologist, or real estate broker without taking a series of tests. Caring, effective teachers should want to prepare
their students for these future testing situations.
PRO PRAGMATISM IS A DESIRABLE VALUE
1. Pragmatism infuses hope into politics.
Colin Koopman, McMaster University, 2006, "Pragmatism as a Philosophy of Hope: Emerson, James, Dewey, Rorty,"
Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Vol. 20, No. 2, accessed 9/20/09,
<http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=104&sid=917d0dd3-6735-4854-8682219a0ed66dd3%40sessionmgr104>
I understand pragmatism, and find it at its best, as a philosophical way of taking hope seriously. Pragmatism develops
the philosophical resources of hope. One implication is that traditional philosophical categories look different when
seen pragmatically, where they are inflected with, and interpreted through, hopefulness. It is thus that traditional
philosophical concepts—such as truth—are widely understood to be severely reconstructed by pragmatism. Yet the
motivations for, and philosophical significance of, these reconstructions remain obscure so long as the meliorism at the
heart of pragmatism is left unexplained.
2. Pragmatism is the best way for humanity to move forward progressively.
Colin Koopman, McMaster University, 2006, "Pragmatism as a Philosophy of Hope: Emerson, James, Dewey, Rorty,"
Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Vol. 20, No. 2, accessed 9/20/09,
<http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=104&sid=917d0dd3-6735-4854-8682219a0ed66dd3%40sessionmgr104>
At the heart of pragmatism is thus a resolute hopefulness in the abilities of human effort to create better future
realities. James fi nds this too in Emerson. It is not a cheap optimism, an “indiscriminate hurrahing for the Universe,” but
rather a fi rm belief that “the point of any pen can be an epitome of reality.” James thought of this deeply democratic
meliorism as “Emerson’s revelation” and he lauded it as “the headspring of all his outpourings” (1903, 455). And while it
may seem an overstatement to say that Emerson is democratic, I take courage for this thought in the precedent set by
pragmatism’s most-respected visionary of democracy. Dewey hoped, also in 1903, that “the coming century may well
make evident what is just now dawning, that Emerson is not only a philosopher, but that he is the Philosopher of
Democracy. . . . When democracy has articulated itself, it will have no diffi culty in finding itself already proposed in
Emerson” (1903, 190, 191).
3. Pragmatism rejects sweeping decisions in favor of case-by-case scenarios.
Richard Posner, judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and a Senior Lecturer at
the University of Chicago Law School, 2004, "Legal Pragmatism," METAPHILOSOPHY Vol. 35, Nos. 1/2, January, accessed
9/21/09, <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=10&hid=104&sid=917d0dd3-6735-48548682-219a0ed66dd3%40sessionmgr104>
Only in exceptional circumstances, however, will the pragmatic judge give controlling weight to systemic consequences,
as legal formalism does. That is, only rarely will legal formalism be a pragmatic strategy. Sometimes case-specific
circumstances will completely dominate the decisional process. This is especially true when an individual case has
momentous consequences, or when it turns on the resolution of a truly novel legal issue so that a decision either way
will not disturb settled expectations concerning what the law is.
4. Pragmatism favors small compromises over attempts at radical change.
Richard Rorty, philosopher at University of Virginia, 1992, "A PRAGMATIST VIEW OF RATIONALITY AND CULTURAL
DIFFERENCE," Philosophy East and West, October, accessed 9/22/09,
<http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=104&sid=917d0dd3-6735-4854-8682219a0ed66dd3%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9609300050>
Such a preference for small concrete compromises over large theoretical syntheses would accord with Dewey's
pragmatic view that theory is only to be encouraged when likely to facilitate practice. My own hunch is that attempts to
erect large theoretical oppositions between, or effect large theoretical syntheses of, the "spirit" or the "essence" of
distinct cultures1 are only stopgaps and makeshifts. The real work of building a multicultural global utopia, I suspect,
will be done by people who, in the course of the next few centuries,(n26) unravel each culture, into a multiplicity of fine
component threads, and then weave these threads together with equally fine threads drawn from other cultures,--thus
promoting the sort of variety-in-unity characteristic of rationality3. The resulting tapestry will, with luck, be something
we can now barely imagine: a culture, which will find the cultures, of contemporary America and contemporary India as
suitable for benign neglect as we find those of Harapa or Carthage.
PRO: INCREMENTALISM IS DESIRABLE
1. Overhauling the system is always more risky than small reforms; this solves for unintended and unpredictable
negative consequences.
Wayne Hayes, Professor of Public Policy at Ramapo College, 2002, "Incrementalism," The Public Policy Web, October 18,
Accessed 9/20/09, http://www.geocities.com/~profwork/pp/formulate/inc.html
Overhaul, the opposite of incrementalism, introduces formidable risk and many decision makers prefer a risk-aversion
strategy which prevent unanticipated and possible irreversible policy outcome. The criterion brought to bear is not goal
maximizing, but administrative satisficing, slight improvement as compared with past performance. Incrementalism and
inaction consume fewer resources than a more systemic solution, especially an unproven one. Large budget deficits, or
merely the memory of such deficit spending, dampen enthusiasm for tackling problems on a grand scale.
2. Incrementalism upholds checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism; it solves budgetary constraints
and functions better organizationally.
Wayne Hayes, Professor of Public Policy at Ramapo College, 2002, "Incrementalism," The Public Policy Web, October 18,
Accessed 9/20/09, http://www.geocities.com/~profwork/pp/formulate/inc.html
In addition to the limits of rationality, there are significant political and organizational forces which promote
incremental decision making. Some are: Constitutional checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism.
Recall my earlier point that the Founders intended to secure liberty and prevent tyranny, not to design a streamlined
method of policy determination and implementation. Interest groups and subgovernments promote incremental
change in the status quo. They control the micro-agenda, limit the scope of alternatives, shut out unsympathetic voices,
and skew the decision making in favor of vested interests and past practice. In such an environment, the built-in political
process of negotiation, bargaining, and compromise among many legitimate participants in the policy arena is virtually
the only way to get things done. Further, the very character of large-scale, complex organizations fosters
incrementalism: fragmentation, inertia, bureaucracy, conflicting goals, and financial constraints.
3. Incrementalism is better when dealing with scarce resources.
Wayne Hayes, Professor of Public Policy at Ramapo College, 2002, "Incrementalism," The Public Policy Web, October 18,
Accessed 9/20/09, http://www.geocities.com/~profwork/pp/formulate/inc.html
Government-induced change typically carries a price tag, but budgets are scarce and complex. Budgetary constraints
prevent the initiation of new policies or the expansion of existing programs. The budget-making process is notoriously
cumbersome and resistant to reform, as we shall see when we turn our attention to budgeting. Finally, the legal system
operates around a set of established principles which also reinforce incrementalism: Precedent, especially evident in the
holdings of the Supreme Court. Due process under the law, which provides legal standing to many interested parties
and provides the opportunity to use litigation as a redress: New and bold policies get tied up in court.
3. Incrementalism allows better negotiating and conflict resolution.
Heidi Burgess, Founder and Co-Director of the University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium; Guy Burgess, CoDirector of the Conflict Resolution Information Source; and Michelle Maiese, research staff at the Conflict Research
Consortium, 2004, "Incrementalism," Beyond Intractability, July, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/incrementalism/
For example, disputes about facts or procedures can present serious difficulties that prevent negotiations about more
substantive issues from getting off the ground. While improved procedures or fact-finding efforts are unlikely to resolve
the conflict completely, they are incremental steps that have benefits themselves (for instance, better understanding of
the situation and/or a procedure that is more likely to be considered fair). If enough incremental improvements can be
made, that eventually allows the conflict to become "ripe" for successful negotiation. Even if ripeness cannot be
achieved, the character of the conflict can be changed substantially.
PRO: INCREMENTALISM IS DESIRABLE
1. Incrementalism allows conflict resolution when opposing sides can't reach genuine resolution.
Heidi Burgess, Founder and Co-Director of the University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium; Guy Burgess, CoDirector of the Conflict Resolution Information Source; and Michelle Maiese, research staff at the Conflict Research
Consortium, 2004, "Incrementalism," Beyond Intractability, July, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/incrementalism/
The incremental approach often offers the best way to reduce the destructiveness of confrontations over intractable
issues. This approach begins by identifying any conflict problems that increase the conflict's overall destructiveness or
threaten the parties' ability to make wise decisions or advance their interests. Parties are then provided with
information about options for dealing with each problem. While it is usually impossible to correct all problems, the goal
is to help people fix as many of the problems as possible. This often serves to reduce the magnitude of problems that
cannot be eliminated. Although many incremental "treatments" require the cooperative efforts of contending parties,
others can be implemented unilaterally. Similarly, while some treatments are relatively easy to implement, others
require that the parties develop new dispute-handling skills or secure the assistance of outside professionals. Unlike
other forms of dispute resolution, the incremental approach can work in situations where resolution-based approaches
are unworkable. It also makes sense in cases where it is unrealistic to expect major changes in dispute-handling process
or decision-making institutions.
2. Incrementalism solves policy problems better than sweeping overhaul; if problems develop, incrementalism can stem
their escalation.
Heidi Burgess, Founder and Co-Director of the University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium; Guy Burgess, CoDirector of the Conflict Resolution Information Source; and Michelle Maiese, research staff at the Conflict Research
Consortium, 2004, "Incrementalism," Beyond Intractability, July, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/incrementalism/
The incremental approach also recognizes our limited ability to understand and solve complex problems. It also
recognizes that certain kinds of long-term change are best sustained through gradual adjustments rather than complete
overhaul. Small or incremental moves are often more effective than trying to resolve the whole conflict all at once. In
part this is because solutions that address isolated aspects of the conflict are typically far less controversial than
comprehensive peace agreements. But it is also because the incremental approach is inherently cautious, which may
impart a sense of ease among the disputing parties. Because trust is often low, parties often need to take small steps to
create initial trust and establish a positive atmosphere in which subsequent vital issues may be broached. In addition,
attempting to deal with difficult issues in smaller pieces can help to make conflict more manageable and thereby stop it
from escalating.
3. Incrementalism provides better policy options because problems can be broken down into smaller, more easily
addressable components.
Heidi Burgess, Founder and Co-Director of the University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium; Guy Burgess, CoDirector of the Conflict Resolution Information Source; and Michelle Maiese, research staff at the Conflict Research
Consortium, 2004, "Incrementalism," Beyond Intractability, July, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/incrementalism/
The incremental approach recommends that parties analyze the full scope of conflict, identify those conflict problems
that are having the most severe adverse effects, and develop small-scale interventions designed to limit those specific
problems. In some cases this will involve a negotiated resolution of some of the sub-issues before moving on to the
more substantive issues in contention. In other cases, it will involve a unilateral change in behavior. In order to deal with
complex conflicts, parties must think about the best way to order or sequence the issues in a particular dialogue or
resolution process. The "gradualism method" is a strategy whereby the intermediary attempts to move the parties from
simpler issues to more complex ones. The tactic of "fractionalization," or breaking down big issues into smaller
components, is often employed. Issues can be fractioned by reducing the number of parties involved in the
negotiations, limiting the immediate issues being considered, or limiting the issues of principle being considered. Once
agreements are reached on more limited items, parties can attempt to deal with additional issues. As mediator Bernard
Mayer explains, "The art of fractionalization is to divide a conflict into manageable chunks that are neither too small nor
too large and that do not isolate any major issue in a way that makes creative problem-solving more difficult."
WE CAN FIX TESTING INCREMENTALLY
1. No Intrinsic Flaws in Testing: Problems with testing are the result of poor educational infrastructure: The tests
themselves are not to blame.
John Losak, Educational Researcher, Miami-Dade Community College, 1987, "Mandated Entry- and Exit-Level Testing in
the State of Florida: A Brief History, Review of the Current Impact, and a Look to the Future," January, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1e/7e/31.pdf
It should also be said that the imposition of a standardized testing program on shaky infrastructure would probably do
no more than reflect the weakness of the infrastructure. If the purpose of the examination is to provide guidance with
regard to the strength or weakness of the curriculum, then that may be a useful purpose for the testing program.
However, the testing program per se, will not improve the quality of a poor infrastructure but may provide some
guidance with regard to reforms which are needed in order for the curriculum to improve and hence for student
learning to improve.
2. Integrated assessment testing works; it helps students understand the big picture
George Ashline, St. Michael’s College, 2005, "Integrating Exit Questions into Instruction," News Bulletin, National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, October 2005, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=618
Assessment should be more than a summative quiz or test to measure students learning. Rather, assessment should be
integrated into instruction to provide regular feedback that can be used to guide further instruction as well as enhance
student understanding. It should be used in multiple formats to measure not only procedural but deeper conceptual
understanding. One assessment strategy that we have successfully used in professional development courses and
initiatives for in-service mathematics teachers in Vermont* is to present periodic exit questions. Such questions have
helped us measure participants’ understanding of the mathematical concepts that we have covered during our sessions.
3. Formative questions during the creation process solve.
George Ashline, St. Michael’s College, 2005, "Integrating Exit Questions into Instruction," News Bulletin, National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, October 2005, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=618
These formative questions are presented and answered in a short period of time at a natural breaking point in
instruction, and provide immediate feedback about participant understanding of the “big picture.” They also provide an
opportunity to modify instruction and address any widespread confusion or difficulty. We have also used a variation of
the exit question strategy in the form of entrance questions which enabled us to gauge participants’ prior understanding
of course content.
TESTING DOESN'T INCREASE SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
1. Mastering basic skills addresses socioeconomic inequality: Testing does this best
Andrew C. Zau and Julian R. Betts, Public Policy Institute of California, 2008, "Predicting Success, Preventing Failure: An
Investigation of the California High School Exit Exam," PPIC Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_608AZR.pdf
Concern about inequality in educational outcomes seems well placed: Wage inequality in the United States has
skyrocketed over the last 25 years, and by numerous measures those with “fewer” skills have performed particularly
poorly in the labor market (Katz and Murphy, 1992). At the same time, American students in middle and high school
tend to score at the middle of the pack or below when measured against students from other developed nations in
international tests of math, reading, and science.2 Motivated by these issues, high school exit exams such as the
CAHSEE set a minimum competency standard intended to ensure that every high school graduate has mastered at least
basic skills.
2. Students will work harder to pass.
Andrew C. Zau and Julian R. Betts, Public Policy Institute of California, 2008, "Predicting Success, Preventing Failure: An
Investigation of the California High School Exit Exam," PPIC Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_608AZR.pdf
Economists have written extensively on the theory of pass/fail standards (see, for example, Costrell, 1994, and Betts,
1998). Figure 3.1, adapted from Betts and Costrell (2001), shows the theoretically predicted effects of raising a pass/fail
standard. We can think of the CAHSEE as just such an increase in passing standards. The figure shows the proportion of
students by each level of academic achievement. Before the standard is increased, students are distributed in a familiar
bell-shaped curve. But after the passing standard increases, some students who would have graduated at the lower
standard will now fail unless they study harder. The likely outcome is that many students newly at risk of failing will
work harder and move up in the distribution of achievement.
3. Testing pulls at-risk students up; it doesn't pull them down.
Andrew C. Zau and Julian R. Betts, Public Policy Institute of California, 2008, "Predicting Success, Preventing Failure: An
Investigation of the California High School Exit Exam," PPIC Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_608AZR.pdf
Although the “upward bump” is very clear, there is no evidence from these figures of a group of students who gave up
academically and thus moved down in the distribution. Notably, a statewide survey by Wise et al. (2006, p. 67) supports
the hypothesis that the threat of failing the CAHSEE prompted struggling students to work harder. They found that
among students who had failed the ELA or math portion in grade 10, 52 percent reported that they were working harder
at this material as a result. Smaller numbers of students reported increasing effort in other ways as well.
HIGH STAKES TESTING CAN BE APPROPRIATELY USED
1. Research into test improvement can solve problems and overcome biases.
American Psychological Association, 2001, "Appropriate Use of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools," APA
Online, May 2001, Accessed 9/20/09, http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/testing.html
Calls to improve educational outcomes by measuring student and school performance are based on good intentions.
And, as previously stated, tests, when used appropriately, can be valid measures of student achievement. However, test
users must ensure that results are truly indicative of student achievement rather than a reflection of the quality of
school resources or instruction. It is only fair to use test results in high-stakes decisions when students have had a real
opportunity to master the materials upon which the test is based. Therefore, in conjunction with supporting the use of
tests to evaluate performance, public policymakers should also support research on the consequences of such testing,
and localities should work to provide the resources necessary for schools to provide quality educational opportunities
and achieve real student growth and learning, not just "teaching to the test" skills acquisition. Test results should also
be reported by sex, race/ethnicity, income level, disability status, and degree of English proficiency for evaluation
purposes.
2. Tests can be reformed at the point of development, increasing fairness.
American Psychological Association, 2001, "Appropriate Use of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools," APA
Online, May 2001, Accessed 9/20/09, http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/testing.html
The measurement validity of a test is an extremely important concept. Measurement validity simply means whether a
test provides useful information for a particular purpose. Said another way: Will the test accurately measure the test
taker's knowledge in the content area being tested? When tests are developed and used appropriately, they are among
the most sound and objective knowledge and performance measures available. But, appropriate development and use
are critical. Fairness in testing begins when tests are being developed. Test developers should provide to those using
their tests (school systems, for example) specific information about the potential limitations of the test, including
situations in which the use of the test scores would be inappropriate.
3. Existing tests can be applied more appropriately.
American Psychological Association, 2001, "Appropriate Use of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools," APA
Online, May 2001, Accessed 9/20/09, http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/testing.html
For example, a test that has been validated only for diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of individual students should
not be used to evaluate the educational quality of a school. Furthermore, those using a particular test should have an
appreciation for how the test performance of some students--students with a disability or those with limited Englishspeaking ability, for example, should be interpreted.
4. Tests do not require extra teaching time: Canada proves exit exams can work without taking up more teaching time
or resources.
John Bishop, Department of Human Resource Studies at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell University, 2008, "Curriculum-Based External Exit Exam Systems," CPRE Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/pb-08.pdf
Curriculum-based provincial exit exams taken by twelfth grade students had some influence on achievement and the
behavior of Canadian 13-year-old students, their parents, teachers, and school administrators. Schools in exit exam
provinces scheduled more hours of math and science instruction, assigned more homework, had better science labs,
were significantly more likely to use specialist teachers for math and science, and were more likely to hire math and
science teachers who studied the subject in college. Eighth grade teachers in exit exam provinces gave tests and quizzes
more frequently. Hours in the school year, class size, and teacher preparation time were not significantly affected.
TESTING GENDER GAP ISN'T SIGNIFICANT
1. The gender stereotype is dissipating; more women are taking math all over the nation.
Alice Park, staffwriter, 2008, "The Myth of the Math Gap," Time, July 24, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1826399,00.html
Janet Hyde, a psychologist at University of Wisconsin, and her (all-female) collaborators culled data from federally
mandated annual math tests administered to 7.2 million second- through 11th-grade students in 10 states. They found
little difference between boys' and girs' average math scores. Hyde also searched for a gender difference in the outlying
scores — that is, whether more boys were among the top math scorers than girls — but again found negligible
difference, although boys did still slightly outnumber girls in the 99th percentile. The equalizing of math scores may
reflect the simple fact that more female students are now taking math courses, says Hyde, whose study, funded by the
National Science Foundation, appears in the current issue of Science.
2. More girls in upper math classes will bust the stereotype.
Alice Park, staffwriter, 2008, "The Myth of the Math Gap," Time, July 24, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1826399,00.html
But Hyde notes that more and more girls are continuing to study math through high school and college, which points to
the fact that female students are increasingly aware of the careers that are open to them. These students are making
forward-looking decisions about what courses to take in high school, Hyde says, based in part on what they want to do
next. The next step, she says, is attracting more women to the graduate and career levels in math. "Mathematics and
science departments need to work on making graduate departments more women-friendly for not just the students but
for the faculty as well," says Hyde, by encouraging more women into their ranks where they can serve as role models for
future generations of female students. "What I am hoping is that as this cohort of girls, who are taking calculus in
school, pass through the system, they will get more gender equity in the highest level research jobs in science and
math," she says.
NO DECREASED GRADUATION RATES
1. Studies prove exit exams don't decrease graduation rates.
Robert Holland, senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, 2004, "Exit Exams Don't Increase Dropouts, Study Finds," School
Reform News, July, accessed 9/21/09,
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15224/Exit_Exams_Dont_Increase_Dropouts_Study_Finds.html
Critics of high-stakes testing have argued that public high school exit exams cause many students, particularly minoritygroup members, to drop out in frustration without gaining a diploma that would be valuable to them in the job market.
However, a new study by Manhattan Institute scholars finds the exit exams administered by 24 states have had no net
effect on graduation rates. "Our findings should provide optimism to those who wish to use exit exams to provide
quality control for high school diplomas," concluded scholars Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters. "The results of our
analysis show that exit exams may allow states to distribute more meaningful diplomas to the same percentage of
students as before."
2. Ten year study disproves the contention that exit exams decrease graduation.
Robert Holland, senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, 2004, "Exit Exams Don't Increase Dropouts, Study Finds," School
Reform News, July, accessed 9/21/09,
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15224/Exit_Exams_Dont_Increase_Dropouts_Study_Finds.html
Greene and Winters used two respected methods of calculating graduation rates for each state from 1991 to 2001. In
addition to finding required graduation testing had no impact, their analysis indicated neither class-size reduction in
secondary schools nor increased per-pupil spending result in higher graduation rates.
3. Tests aren't demanding enough to lower graduation rates.
Robert Holland, senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, 2004, "Exit Exams Don't Increase Dropouts, Study Finds," School
Reform News, July, accessed 9/21/09,
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15224/Exit_Exams_Dont_Increase_Dropouts_Study_Finds.html
The scholars acknowledged many news media stories about individual students who completed their class work but
were denied a diploma because they couldn't pass a state test. However, they noted many factors contribute to the
tests having essentially zero effect on graduation rates. One factor is that such tests typically require very low levels of
proficiency. A 2004 Fordham Foundation study of 30 states' accountability systems rated as "poor" the rigor of staterequired standardized tests. In addition, states give students extra instruction and multiple chances to clear this low
hurdle before actually denying them diplomas. "Most students who are serious about graduating high school should be
able to pass such an exam if given enough tries, even if only by chance," the researchers concluded.
The relatively few students who do give up may well be cancelled out statistically by a like number of students who did
graduate because the tests gave their schools an incentive to improve and to address the needs of at-risk students, they
added.
4. Continuation schools help students who fall through the cracks to graduate.
Kathleen Sutphen, principal of Chana Continuation High School, 2008, "In defense of California's continuation high
schools," Association of California School Administrators, accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/AboutACSA/Councils/EducationalOptions/IndefenseofCaliforniasconti
nuationhighschools.aspx
It is easy to point a finger at continuation schools and other alternative school campuses, but a quick analysis of the
attributes that commonly define a continuation high school student body must be examined to obtain a true picture of
the way in which students are referred to these types of schools and the challenges that these students and their
teachers face as they all work hard toward the goal of graduation. Continuation students most commonly enroll as an
outcome of being referred from their comprehensive high school where they are failing their classes. As such, most of
our students, and the majority of continuation high school students statewide, have significant academic challenges and
a pattern of failure at their previous school of enrollment. These students are already defined as likely high school
dropouts before they enroll at a continuation campus. It is for that exact reason, the likelihood of being a high school
dropout, that these students are referred for enrollment. Continuation schools are stopgap educational institutions
specifically designed to address the academic needs of California’s most at-risk students and those most likely to drop
out of high school. In addition to academic literacy issues, many continuation students have experienced a series of
behavioral issues and/or poor attendance at their previous schools of attendance.
TESTS ARE GENERALLY GOOD
1. Tests accurately determine proficiency, send a positive pro-educational message and identify the need for remedial
training.
John Losak, Educational Researcher, Miami-Dade Community College, 1987, "Mandated Entry- and Exit-Level Testing in
the State of Florida: A Brief History, Review of the Current Impact, and a Look to the Future," January, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1e/7e/31.pdf
In summary, standardized testing programs for entry-level placement and exit examinations can be effective societal
vehicles for assurance that certain basic concepts have been learned before an associate degree is awareded and for
further assuring that students who are in need of remedial efforts do in fact receive remedial courses. Further, there is
evidence that the initiation of such a testing program conveys a message of positive educational value to many
constituencies in higher education including students, faculty, and lay citizens.
2. Tests improve faculty morale and community support, and send a message of increased expectations, which
historically correlates to improved learning.
John Losak, Educational Researcher, Miami-Dade Community College, 1987, "Mandated Entry- and Exit-Level Testing in
the State of Florida: A Brief History, Review of the Current Impact, and a Look to the Future," January, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1e/7e/31.pdf
I do believe, however, that there are important spinoff effects as we have found in the State of Florida which would
encourage one to use common examinations of the sort being used in Florida. These spinoff effects that we have found
at our institution, where I have conducted some research in this area, incude improved faculty morale, strong student
support, and strong community support, all of which reflect a positive attitude toward higher education. Moreover,
there is strong historical evidence that student learning is affected by the level of expectation that instructors and
others have of the students. We have carried the message to our students, through a variety of practices, including
standardized assessment, that we are expecting more of them and there is good evidence that the students are indeed
performing up to the higher levels of expectation.
3. Testing fulfills the need for accountability to taxpayers and policymakers.
Thomas Toch, co-director of Education Sector, 2007, "What Should Be Done about Standardized Tests?" Freakonomics
Blog. The New York Times, December 20, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/what-should-be-done-about-standardized-tests-a-freakonomicsquorum/
This testing is valuable. Without it, parents, taxpayers, and policymakers would have a tough time knowing how well
schools were performing. That was the case prior to the advent of the “standards movement” in public education in the
1990s, when states began setting standards, testing students, and publicizing the results. Students could fall through the
cracks, and many did, but educators didn’t have strong incentives to help them because without tests that measured
students’ performance against clear standards, there was no way of holding teachers and principals accountable for
their students’ success.
4. Testing is on-balance better than promoting students without a test.
Thomas Toch, co-director of Education Sector, 2007, "What Should Be Done about Standardized Tests?" Freakonomics
Blog. The New York Times, December 20, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/what-should-be-done-about-standardized-tests-a-freakonomicsquorum/
Exit exams, which students must pass to graduate, make sense. “Social promotion,” or advancing unprepared students,
has been commonplace in schools and colleges for a long time. But such tests pose tough questions. Two-thirds of the
nation’s public high school students currently must pass exit exams in reading and math in order to graduate. But the
majority of the tests measure ninth- or tenth-grade-level basic skills; passing them doesn’t mean students are ready for
the workplace, much less prepared for college. Yet many state lawmakers have been wary of setting the bar higher for
fear of large numbers of students failing. But is it fair to give students what amounts to a counterfeit passport to college
or work? And do such tests spur high school teachers and principals to aim high with their students? To both questions,
the answer is, “No.”
TESTING IS GENERALLY GOOD
1. Testing increases support networks and resources for students in need.
Kerry Benfield, staffwriter, 2009, "Educators Blast Proposal to Drop Exit Exam," The Press Democrat, June 17, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090617/articles/906179827?Title=Educators-blast-proposal-todrop-exit-exam
O’Connell, who did not return a call for comment Wednesday, thrashed the budget committee proposal in a statement
released late Tuesday, calling the exit exam the greatest high school advance made in California in a generation. “The
argument that our expectations should be lowered because of budget cuts to public education heaps insult on injury to
students and teachers who are being impacted by the budget crisis,” he said. “This exam helps focus attention and
resources on students who are struggling,” he said. “We will do a grave injustice to our students if we do not ensure
that they have the minimal skills needed to survive in the increasingly competitive global economy.” In Santa Rosa City
Schools, courses have been adopted to support students who have failed the exit exam, and summer school priority is
given to students who are approaching graduation but have not passed the test.
2. California validates testing: More students pass the test each year.
Theresa Harrington and Linh Tat, Staffwriters, 2009, "More California High School Students Passing Exit Exams," Oakland
Tribune, September 2, Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_13256668?source=rss
Each year, more California students pass the state's high school exit exam on their first try as sophomores, meeting the
requirement needed graduate with diplomas, according to test results released Wednesday. "We are making progress,
but our collective ability to make this upward trend continue will indeed be tested this year as our schools are forced
and asked to do more with less," said Jack O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction. "I'm concerned with
lost learning opportunities." The test ensures that all students who earn diplomas have minimum English and math
skills, O'Connell said. Statewide, 79.2 percent of 10th-graders passed the English portion of the test in one attempt, up
more than 2 percentage points from the class of sophomores in 2008. Last year's sophomores did well on the math
portion, with 79.8 percent acing the test in one sitting, up 4.3 percent from class of 2008 scores. In Alameda and Contra
Costa counties, more than 80 percent of sophomores passed both exams.
3. Canada proves testing improves teacher expectations and qualifications.
John Bishop, Department of Human Resource Studies at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell University, 2008, "Curriculum-Based External Exit Exam Systems," CPRE Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/pb-08.pdf
Apparently, even low-stakes curriculum-based external exit exam systems such as the New York States Regents exams
had an effect. When student demography was held constant, New York State students performed significantly better
than students from other states on the SAT test and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Thirteen-year-old
students from Canadian provinces with curriculum-based external exit exam systems knew more science and
mathematics than students from other provinces. Canadian schools in provinces with external exit exams were more
likely to employ specialist teachers of mathematics and science, to hire math and science teachers who studied the
subject in college, to have high-quality science laboratories, to schedule more hours of math and science instruction, to
assign more homework in math and science and other subjects, and to have students perform or watch experiments in
science class. Canadian external exams have not lowered the quality of instruction; they appear to have enhanced it.
RACIAL/ETHNIC GAP IS NOT SIGNIFICANT
1. Research disproves bias and predictive value links to testing.
Scott Jaschik, Editorial Staffwriter, 2007, "A Defense of Standardized Tests," Inside Higher Ed, February 23, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/23/tests
Kuncel said that the review for his study found no evidence of bias in test questions, or any difference in predictive
value for different racial or ethnic groups. The study says that while there is evidence that some tests underpredict the
performance of women in college, there is no similar evidence for graduate and professional school. Those who want to
know why black and Latino students don't score as well need to stop looking at the tests, Kuncel said. "These tests are
acting as a thermometer for other societal issues," he said.
2. Tests predict just as well for minority students as white.
Scott Jaschik, Editorial Staffwriter, 2007, "A Defense of Standardized Tests," Inside Higher Ed, February 23, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/23/tests
The last year hasn't been a good one for the standardized testing industry, what with SAT scoring errors and more
colleges dropping the test as a requirement. But on Thursday, the journal Science published a study backing the
reliability of standardized testing in graduate and professional school admissions. The study, a "meta-analysis"
examining thousands of data sets on a range of tests, found that test scores are a better way to predict graduate and
professional school success than are college grades, which may be influenced by grade inflation or the relative
competitiveness of different student bodies. The study concluded that the most reliable way to admit students to
graduate and professional school is a combination of using test scores and college grades. In addition, the study found
that these tests predict just as well for minority and white students.
3. California proves more minorities pass the test each year.
Theresa Harrington and Linh Tat, Staffwriters, 2009, "More California High School Students Passing Exit Exams," Oakland
Tribune, September 2, Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_13256668?source=rss
As has been shown in recently released STAR and ACT test results, an achievement gap exists between ethnic groups in
California. More than 95 percent of white and Asian students passed the exams by the end of their senior years,
compared with about 86 percent of Hispanic teens and 81 percent of blacks. However, test results showed more black
and Hispanic students are passing the tests on their first attempts than in the class of 2008, indicating a narrowing gap.
About 65 percent of first-time Hispanic students passed the tests in 2008, compared to more than 70 percent in the
class of 2011. Black students' scores rose from about 57 percent in math and 65 percent in English for first-time testtakers in the class of 2008 to 64 and 68 percent, respectively, in the class of 2011.
4. Empirical evidence disproves the attribution of black educational conditions to racism.
Linda Chavez, president of Stop Union Political Abuse, 2009, "A Nation of Cowards," Human Events, February 20,
Accessed 9/21/09, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30800&keywords=racism+education
But does racial discrimination explain why black high school graduates, on average, read four grade levels lower than
whites? Is employment discrimination wholly to blame for the differences in average earnings between whites and
blacks? Is racism responsible for the fact that blacks are more likely than whites to be the victims of violent crimes?
Then how do you explain that in 2005, according to Holder's own Department of Justice, black males between the ages
of 14-24 represented only 1 percent of the population but committed almost 28 percent of homicides, and their victims
were overwhelmingly other blacks? How about out-of-wedlock birth rates? Does racial discrimination explain why 70
percent of black children are born to single women, compared with 25 percent of white children? In fact, many of these
problems are interrelated -- and they have virtually nothing to do with discrimination or racism. Sure, many inner-city
black children attend lousy schools that do a poor job of teaching them to read and write. But those school districts are
often run by black superintendents in cities governed by black elected officials, not some modern-day incarnation of the
Ku Klux Klan. Nor is money the explanation. Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, for example, spend more to educate their
largely black and Latino students than the surrounding suburbs do on their largely white student populations.
ATTACKING TESTS MASKS THE PROBLEM
1. Policymakers and the public scapegoat testing when the real problem is the irrelevance and misapplication of the
educational system.
Linda Chavez, president of Stop Union Political Abuse, 2003, "Not Teaching to the Test -- Not Teaching, Period," Human
Events, June 4, Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=788&keywords=testing
For many high school seniors around the country, there was no Graduation Day this year. Despite good attendance and,
in some instances, decent grades, thousands of high school seniors failed to pass mandatory state graduation exams
implemented over the last decade to improve standards in education. Nearly half of all states now require, or are in the
process of implementing, graduation tests to ensure that students who have been passed from grade to grade actually
learned basic skills during their 12 years of public education. Now, some policymakers and politicians -- not to mention
the affected students and their parents -- are crying foul. In Florida, black activists have even called for a boycott of the
state unless Gov. Jeb Bush reverses the requirement that students pass a state exam before they receive a diploma. So
who's right -- those who claim the tests prevent worthy seniors from receiving a diploma to which they're entitled, or
those who argue that without some objective measure of what students have actually learned, a high school diploma
isn't worth the paper it's printed on? Rene Martinez, who will have to pass the California Exit Exam next year if he is to
graduate from Roosevelt High School in East Los Angeles, says the test is not only unfair, "it makes me feel dumb," he
told The Los Angeles Times last month. "It makes me feel like I should know all of this stuff, but I don't," he said,
complaining of overcrowding at his school and poorly trained teachers. Only 22 percent of low-income California seniors
passed the math test last year, the Times reported. Robyn Collins, a high school senior from Sparks, Nevada, has
maintained a 3.0 ("B") average but can't pass the state's math test required for graduation, even though she has taken it
five times. "I'm not a stupid kid," Collins told The Washington Post recently. "It is just that in my opinion, the stuff on the
test doesn't equate to anything that I've learned in school." Students like Martinez and Collins are right to be angry -but the tests aren't the problem. Most states require students to demonstrate only rudimentary knowledge of high
school math, language arts, science and social studies in order to graduate. In some states, a student can "pass" the test
by answering less than half the questions correctly, and virtually all states allow students multiple attempts to take the
tests. Some teachers -- and especially, their unions -- complain that graduation exams force them to "teach the test,"
rather than helping their students learn "how to think." The high failure rate among high school seniors suggests that
many teachers aren't doing a good job on either score.
2. Focusing on testing diverts our attention from larger structural and cultural impediments to education.
Linda Chavez, president of Stop Union Political Abuse, 2003, "Not Teaching to the Test -- Not Teaching, Period," Human
Events, June 4, Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=788&keywords=testing
At least when teachers instruct students on the specific facts and skills that will be covered by graduation tests, we can
be reasonably assured the students will actually learn something. But modern theories of education favor "higher-order
thinking" and "problem-solving" skills over rote memorization and drills, which may be why so few store clerks can
make correct change today without the aid of fancy cash registers. Parents who are angry that their children won't get
into college or earn enough to support themselves because of the exams ought to stage a revolt, but not the kind being
sponsored by anti-testing groups around the nation. Several organizations now advocate abandoning so-called highstakes testing; and in some states, groups have organized to boycott the test. The Los Angeles Unified School Board
voted unanimously in April to oppose implementation of the statewide test for graduation next year, but this is like
shooting the messenger instead of facing the problem. A far better solution would be for parents -- and other taxpayers
-- to refuse to support schools that fail to teach. Funding for education has increased exponentially over the last 40
years, but the quality of education hasn't kept pace. Requiring students to pass graduation exams before receiving their
diplomas was supposed to make schools more accountable. So far, the only ones being held responsible are the
students. If we're willing to deny diplomas to seniors who can't demonstrate they've earned them, maybe we ought to
deny paychecks to school administrators and teachers who aren't doing their jobs.
TESTING INCREASES ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
1. Testing allows the targeting of at-risk groups, increasing their academic achievement.
Andrew C. Zau and Julian R. Betts, Public Policy Institute of California, 2008, "Predicting Success, Preventing Failure: An
Investigation of the California High School Exit Exam," PPIC Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_608AZR.pdf
Although we can never forecast exactly who will pass the CAHSEE, the evidence we have gathered suggests that we can
predict passage by grade 4 almost as well as we can by grade 9. So there is nothing stopping middle or even elementary
school administrators from using some of the strongest predictors, such as test scores and grades, to begin providing
additional assistance to students at risk. Indeed, we found that some information available in the earlier grades may be
unusually good predictors of student outcomes. For example, math test scores in the elementary grades actually predict
passage of the math portion of the exit exam better than do math scores in the later grades. (This is probably because
the CAHSEE’s math section is pitched at only a grade 8 level.) In general, academic grade point average (GPA) is the
strongest predictor of eventual success or failure on the CAHSEE. The wealth of student behavior information that
teachers, at least in San Diego, provide on the report cards of elementary school students is also highly predictive of
trouble down the road on the CAHSEE.
2. Exams allow greater accountability.
The Fresno Bee, 2009, "Exit exam continues to offer new incentives for success," September 6, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/1626952.html
But a blanket exemption, as Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell has said, is "an irresponsible and
shortsighted shift in education policy that threatens to shortchange the quality of education for our students with
disabilities." It "does nothing to help prepare them for success after high school." For all students, the exit exam
requirement has been doing what it is supposed to -- providing new incentives for parents, teachers and students to pay
attention and demand better results.
3. Nations with exit exams consistently have higher rates of academic achievement.
John Bishop, Department of Human Resource Studies at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell University, 2008, "Curriculum-Based External Exit Exam Systems," CPRE Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/pb-08.pdf
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study provides 1994-95 data for seventh and eighth grade students
from 40 countries. Twenty-two national school systems were classified as having curriculum-based external exit exams
for both mathematics and science: Austria, Bulgaria, Columbia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Hong Kong, Hungary,
Iran, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Scotland, Singapore, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, and Thailand. The countries that do not have exit exams in either math or science were Belgium, Cyprus,
Greece, Philippines, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. A multivariate analysis controlling for the nations’ wealth and location
in East Asia found that 13-year-olds in nations with curriculum-based external exit exam systems had significantly higher
achievement—1.3 U.S. grade level equivalents in science and .9 U.S. grade level equivalents in mathematics. A similar
analysis of the 1991 IEA Reading study found that the reading literacy of 14-year-olds in nations with curriculum-based
external exit exam systems were about one grade level equivalent ahead of students in nations without them.
4. High-stakes students consistently outperform low-stakes students, producing better schools and better teachers.
John Bishop, Department of Human Resource Studies at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Cornell University, 2008, "Curriculum-Based External Exit Exam Systems," CPRE Policy Briefs, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/pb-08.pdf
Review of the evidence suggests that claims that curriculum-based external exit examination systems significantly
increase student achievement are probably correct. Students from countries with medium- and high-stakes systems
outperformed students from other countries of a comparable level of economic development. In addition, qualifications
for entry into secondary school teaching were higher in nations with a curriculum-based external exit exam system.
Con Standardized Testing is bad
STANDARDIZED TESTING ONLY BENEFITS THE FEW
1. Standardized tests disproportionately punish minority students.
Alfie Kohn, Lecturer on Education, September 27, 2000, Education Week Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Those allegedly being helped will be driven out. When rewards and punishments are applied to educators, those who
teach low-scoring populations are the most likely to be branded as failures and may decide to leave the profession.
Minority and low-income students are disproportionately affected by the incessant pressure on teachers to raise scores.
But when high stakes are applied to the students themselves, there is little doubt about who is most likely to be denied
diplomas as a consequence of failing an exit exam—or who will simply give up and drop out in anticipation of such an
outcome. If states persist in making a student's fate rest on a single test, the likely result over the next few years will be
nothing short of catastrophic. Unless we act to stop this, we will be facing a scenario that might be described without
exaggeration as an educational ethnic cleansing.
2. Studies prove that standardized testing still disproportionately favors Caucasians.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
Much work has been done to document and analyze the performance gaps between Whites and Asians relative to
Hispanics and African Americans on both tests in general and high-stakes tests in particular. Generally, studies have
found that although differences in test scores have narrowed over time, substantial disparities still exist. For example,
Hedges and Nowell (1998) found that African Americans have been greatly underrepresented among the highest test
scorers on standardized tests, and that underrepresentation has not diminished over time. Similarly, Madaus and Clarke
(2001) document that, based on 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, the average
proficiency for White 13-year-olds was about the same level achieved by 17-year-old African Americans, and that
Hispanics also continue to underperform relative to their White counterparts.
3. Standardized tests only benefit the privileged.
Alfie Kohn, Lecturer on Education, September 27, 2000, Education Week Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
The tests may be biased. For decades, critics have complained that many standardized tests are unfair because the
questions require a set of knowledge and skills more likely to be possessed by children from a privileged background.
The discriminatory effect is particularly pronounced with norm-referenced tests, where the imperative to spread out
the scores often produces questions that tap knowledge gained outside of school. This, as W. James Popham argues,
provides a powerful advantage to students whose parents are affluent and well-educated. It's more than a little ironic to
rely on biased tests to "close the gap" between rich and poor.
4. Standardized testing punishes students with disabilities.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
Analyses of test score differences between regular education students and students classified in special groups, such as
English Language Learners (ELLs) or students with disabilities, also show that without appropriate accommodations (and
sometimes even with them), the latter two typically underperform (DeStefano, 1998; LaCelle-Peterson, 1998). 2 For
example, the work of McNeil and Valenzuela (2001) found that children in Texas with limited English proficiency were
being "especially handicapped in their ability to exhibit their knowledge by the [Texas Assessment of Academic Skills]
TAAS exit test" (p. 147). Students with disabilities in New York, regardless of the type of accommodations received, still
greatly underperformed on the Regents exams relative to their nondisabled counterparts (Koretz & Hamilton, 2001).
Such documented disparities must be carefully considered when weighing these tests' impacts.
5. Standardized tests punish the poor.
Alfie Kohn, Lecturer on Education, September 27, 2000, Education Week Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Guess who can afford better test preparation. When the stakes rise, people seek help anywhere they can find it, and
companies eager to profit from this desperation by selling test-prep materials and services have begun to appear on the
scene, most recently tailoring their products to state exams. Naturally, affluent families, schools, and districts are better
able to afford such products, and the most effective versions of such products, thereby exacerbating the inequity of
such testing. Moreover, when poorer schools do manage to scrape together the money to buy these materials, it's often
at the expense of books and other educational resources that they really need.
STANDARDIZED TESTING CAUSES HIGH DROPOUT RATES
1. The best studies indicate that standardized testing increases the dropout rate.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
Determining the impact high-stakes testing may have on dropout rates is complicated. The confounding influences of
factors ranging from the end of social promotion, to immigrant status, to changes in graduation requirements make it
difficult to pinpoint a single influence as the root cause of a student's decision to leave school before graduating. That
said, a growing body of research is attempting to more clearly disentangle the impact of high-stakes exit testing on
dropping out (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). There is some empirical work to argue that no relationship exists between highstakes testing and dropping out (Bishop & Mane, 2001). There is a larger body of research, however, that suggests such
exit tests are related to an increase in the numbers of students dropping out, particularly for students already at risk
(Catterall, 1989; Kreitzer, Madaus, & Haney, 1989; Madaus & Clarke, 2001). In one of the most recent large-scale studies
on this issue, Haney (2000) studied the impact of the TAAS on school completion in Texas and found evidence to suggest
that the exit exam was associated with an increase in dropout rates, especially among African Americans and Hispanics.
High-stakes testing, then, may increase the numbers of students leaving high school without a diploma—a minimum
certification necessary in today's labor market.
2. Standardized testing increases the likelihood of dropouts and is net-detrimental to education.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
Instruction has changed as well, with schools devoting time to test preparation strategies as opposed to content, and
teachers are displeased (McNeil, 2000a; Patterson, 2002). McNeil (2000a, 2000b) has noted the increased attention to
test preparation materials and pep rallies as the stakes of tests have gotten higher, crowding out other instructional
objectives. Boston high school principal Linda Nathan (2002) questions the spending of curriculum dollars on testpreparation materials that only help students become better test takers and make little contribution to their overall
education. Nathan argues that she would rather spend the money on reducing class sizes, an expenditure that fits more
appropriately into her philosophy of education. Because the default philosophy of high-stakes testing is so strong,
however, Nathan is unable to ignore the need to devote resources to preparing students for the graduation exam. She
decries the effects on the individual experiences of students, whose only reason for dropping out of high school is the
high-stakes graduation test itself. Not only does the default philosophy lead to conflict, but it leads to practices that
defeat the goals of equity that are the foundation of the high-standards movement. Beyond Nathan's experience, there
is concern that on a national level, high-stakes graduation tests are leading to higher dropout rates among the lowestachieving students and having no quantifiable effect on other measurements of achievement (Jacob, 2001).
3. Case studies prove that standardized testing increases the dropout rate.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
Districts and states are beginning to increasingly rely on mandated high-stakes tests to make promotion decisions.
Chicago Public Schools is perhaps the most well known of such a district-level implementation, where policy makers
mandated minimum performance on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) in order to be promoted. In its first year, 15%,
13%, and 8% of the students at grades 3, 6, and 8, respectively were retained based on ITBS test scores, even after
mandatory summer school (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). While Chicago represents only district-level data, findings such as
these highlight key issues that states may face on an aggregated level. Further, the statewide use of high-stakes testing
for promotion decisions has to be considered in the broader context of current retention trends in which a large share
of American school children are already retained (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). Again, minorities, ELLs and students with
disabilities are likely to be the most vulnerable to such policies (Shepard, 1991). In considering whether retention is
detrimental in and of itself, existing research once again provides some insight. Data indicate that repeating a grade
generally does not improve achievement, and it often increases the dropout rate (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Shepard &
Smith, 1989).
STANDARDIZED TESTING RESULTS IN BAD EDUCATION
1. Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
Much of the research on state testing programs addresses their effects on what is taught. A common finding is that
teachers report giving greater attention to tested content areas. For example, of the 722 Virginia teachers surveyed by
McMillan, Myran, and Workman (1999), more than 80% indicated that the state Standards of Learning (SOL) test had
impacted their instruction, particularly with regard to the content focus of daily lessons. Overall teacher responses led
the study authors to conclude that, "teachers are placing greater emphasis on covering the content of the SOL" (p. 10).
Often, increased attention toward tested content has led to a decreased emphasis on nontested curricular areas. For
example, a study in Arizona indicated that teachers did not place as much emphasis on nontested subjects such as social
studies and science (Smith, Edelsky, Draper, Rottenberg, & Cherland, 1991). In Kentucky, 87% of teachers surveyed
agreed that the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) had "caused some teachers to de-emphasize
or neglect untested subject areas" (Koretz, Barron, Mitchell, & Stecher, 1996a, p. 41). Teachers in North Carolina
reported similar results (Jones et al., 1999).
2. Standardized tests lead to hollow and incomplete forms of knowledge.
Jonathan Pollard, Writer for World Prosperity, Ltd., 2002, Standardized Testing Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.standardizedtesting.net/
Test results don't necessarily indicate achievement, but rather, tend to be much more accurate indicators of the size of
a student's house or the income of the student's parents. Research has indicated that the amount of poverty found in a
community, and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the classroom, account for the
great majority of differences in test scores from one area to another. Rather than providing the opportunity for students
to demonstrate a higher level of reasoning ability, or carry out any form of extended analysis, standardized tests stress a
more superficial level of reasoning, and are most typically extensive exercises in short term memory.
3. Standardized tests enforce a shallow type of thinking.
Alfie Kohn, Lecturer on Education, September 27, 2000, Education Week Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Fact 4. Standardized-test scores often measure superficial thinking. In a study published in the Journal of Educational
Psychology, elementary school students were classified as "actively" engaged in learning if they asked questions of
themselves while they read and tried to connect what they were doing to past learning; and as "superficially" engaged if
they just copied down answers, guessed a lot, and skipped the hard parts. It turned out that high scores on both the
CTBS and the MAT were more likely to be found among students who exhibited the superficial approach to learning.
Similar findings have emerged from studies of middle school students (also using the CTBS) and high school students
(using the other SAT, the college-admission exam). To be sure, there are plenty of students who think deeply and score
well on tests—and plenty of students who do neither. But, as a rule, it appears that standardized-test results are
positively correlated with a shallow approach to learning.
4. Standardized testing undermines the quality of students’ education.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
Not only can these highly pressured school environments have a negative impact on teachers, but they can also affect
students negatively. Students can experience stress, anxiety, loss of self-efficacy, decreased motivation, and frustration
resulting from pressures associated with high-stakes testing. Over one third (35%) of teachers from high-stakes states
and 20% of teachers from low-stakes states strongly agreed that students were extremely anxious about taking the
state test. However, far greater percentages of teachers from high-stakes states (80% compared to 49% of teachers in
low-stakes states) perceived students to be under intense pressure to perform well. Almost one third (28%) of teachers
from high-stakes testing programs reported that their state test had caused students in their district to drop out of high
school, while only 9% of teachers in low-stakes states reported that their state test was having this impact on high
school students. These findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting high-stakes testing may negatively
impact teacher and student morale and motivation; ultimately contributing to increased departures from the teaching
profession and/or increased high school dropout rates (Haney, 2000; Reardon, 1996; Smith, 1991).
STANDARDIZED TESTING CAUSES INCOMPLETE EDUCATION
1. Standardized testing only serves to teach students how to take the test.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
Standards-based reforms are also supposed to help teachers identify the most important goals in their curricula, and
testing can do that, but only if test scores are reported in relation to goals and if structures are in place to use those
scores to improve curricula. In their study, Elmore and Fuhrman (2001) found that in order to use assessments
effectively, schools need internal accountability first, and by that they mean developing answers to fundamental aspects
of accountability: "what they expect of students academically, what constitutes good instructional practice, who is
responsible for student learning, and how individual students and teachers account for their work and learning" (p. 69).
Elmore and Fuhrman found that in most schools under the gun of high-stakes testing, teachers are working harder,
spending more time, and exerting more effort preparing students for testing. However, [End Page 55] schools are not
fundamentally improving what they are doing, Elmore and Fuhrman contend; instead they are devoting inordinate time
with concern about students' scores and not enough to students' learning.
2. Standardized testing does not cause a well-rounded education.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
The research shows that the negative impacts of high-stakes testing on students are potentially severe. But we have not
addressed a possibly redeeming factor: whether the exams serve their intended purpose of improving student learning.
As the argument goes, high-stakes tests "focus student attention on the knowledge and skills that are deemed most
important to learn" (Linn & Herman, 1997, pp. 2, 5). This important knowledge and skill set, however, often becomes
myopically defined as a narrow, test-defined set of skills (Madaus & Clarke, 2001). Students focus on mastering only
those competencies measured on the exam to the exclusion of others that may be educationally important but untested
(e.g., collaboration, research project design). Teachers foster those efforts by teaching to the content and tradition of
the test (Madaus, 1988). Test scores go up and more students pass the exam.
3. Requiring standardized tests only teaches students how to take the test, not how to be truly educated.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
An increased emphasis on test preparation is one of the possible outcomes of the pressure teachers feel to improve
student performance. Of 470 [End Page 19] elementary teachers surveyed in North Carolina, 80% indicated that "they
spent more than 20% of their total instructional time practicing for the end-of-grade tests" (Jones et al., 1999, p. 201).
Similarly, a survey of reading teachers in Texas revealed that on average teachers spent 8 to 10 hours per week
preparing students for the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) (Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001). The most
common test preparation activities reported by Texas teachers included demonstrating how to mark the answer sheet
correctly, providing test-taking tips, teaching test-taking skills, teaching or reviewing topics that would be on the test,
and using commercial test-preparation materials and tests from previous years for practice (Hoffman et al., 2001, p. 6).
4. Standardized testing is net-detrimental for education.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
As empirical evidence suggests, however, increased high-stakes test scores do not equate to increased learning (Cannell,
1989; Koretz, Mitchell, & Stetcher, 1996). For example, work by researchers at RAND found that, while TAAS scores in
Texas indicated large increases in academic achievement across all ethnoracial groups, NAEP scores during the same
time period suggested otherwise. While Texas students improved significantly more on a fourth-grade NAEP math test
than did their counterparts nationally, the size of this gain was smaller than their gains on TAAS. Further, such gains
were not present on the eighth-grade math test. In particular, where TAAS scores suggested a rapid narrowing of the
achievement gap between Whites and students of color, NAEP trends showed a larger and increasing gap (Klein, [End
Page 32] Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stetcher, 2000). These findings suggest that high-stakes tests are not necessarily
leading to increased learning. Similarly, Amrein and Berliner (2002) gathered comprehensive evidence from 18 states
using high-stakes testing to suggest that in all but one analysis, student learning was indeterminate, remained at the
same level as before the policy was implemented, or actually went down after the testing policy was instituted. These
high-stakes tests, then, may be increasing risks with no increased benefits to student learning.
STANDARDIZED TESTING HURTS STUDENT MORALE
1. Testing erodes student morale and kills personal confidence.
Carol Hyman, Media Relations Officer, January 7, 2003, California Berkeley Press Release, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/01/07_tests.html
The current "testing and sorting" culture in U.S. schools, which holds children accountable for scoring well on
standardized tests, erodes rather than enhances education in America, according to new research by a University of
California, Berkeley, psychology professor. Rhona Weinstein says students are being tested on too narrow a range of
achievements, that money spent on testing could be used for better purposes, and that teachers are suffering from
pressure to "teach to the test. "Worst of all, says Weinstein, who has spent years studying how a high or low
expectation about a child's academic ability can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, is that increased emphasis on testing
diminishes the opinions that low-performing youngsters have of themselves.
2. Standardized tests are a harmful and inaccurate barometer of a student’s intelligence.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
One concern stemming from the reported emphasis on specific test preparation activities centers on the validity of the
test scores as a measure of student achievement. Specific test preparation activities, coaching, and instruction geared
toward the test can yield scores that are invalid (Haladyna, Nolen, & Haas, 1991; Koretz et al., 1991; Linn, 2000; Madaus,
1988). For example, one would expect that if student scores are improving on the state test from year to year, scores on
other tests that measure the same content and/or skills should show similar improvement. When trends in student
performance levels on similar standardized tests are not consistent, the accuracy of a particular test as an indicator of
student achievement is questionable. For example 50% of Texas teachers surveyed did not think that the rise in TAAS
scores "reflected increased learning and high quality teaching" (Hoffman et al., 2001, p. 8). Based on comments
provided by the responding teachers, the authors concluded that teachers regarded improvement on the TAAS as a
"direct result of teaching to the test" (Hoffman et al., 2001, p. 9). Consequently, student performance on a highly
consequential test may not generalize to other measures of achievement. For example, several studies have compared
student performance on the state test with performance on other standardized tests that assessed similar content
knowledge and/or skills. Koretz and Barron (1998) found that score gains on the KIRIS mathematics test were
substantially larger than score gains for Kentucky students on the math portion of the National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP), suggesting that improved performance on the KIRIS math test did not necessarily reflect broader gains
in student knowledge. Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, and Stecher (2000) found similar results when they compared results
on the TAAS to the performance of Texas students on NAEP.
3. Standardized testing undermines student morale.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
Other studies have raised similar concerns about the impact these tests have on students. Increased levels of anxiety,
stress, and fatigue are often seen among students participating in high-stakes testing programs. All three can have
detrimental effects on student performance. In a survey of North Carolina educators, 61% reported that their students
were more anxious as a result of the state test (Jones et al., 1999). Similarly, one third of [End Page 20] teachers
surveyed in Kentucky indicated that student morale had declined in response to the KIRIS (Koretz et al., 1996a).
4. The narrowing of curriculum as a result of the testing culture is highly damaging to student education.
Carol Hyman, Media Relations Officer, January 7, 2003, California Berkeley Press Release, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/01/07_tests.html
While Weinstein agrees that proficiency in subject matter is important, "we do not yet have the curricula, instructional
strategies and tests in place to match that standard," she says. But more importantly, she says, educational reform
needs to move beyond subject matter knowledge alone, toward the development of a broader array of abilities,
including social and emotional competencies, as well as creativity. "We need to be concerned about motivating students
to learn, not simply to perform on tests," she says. "Multiple areas of competency must be taken into account when a
child is being evaluated. In order to create an 'enabling' culture, we need to widen, not narrow, the choice and
leadership of children and teachers in educational reform. "We need to challenge and support students and teachers if
we truly want a society in which no child is left behind."
STANDARDIZED TESTS HURT TEACHERS
1. Reliance on standardized tests hamstrings teachers, hurting overall education.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
A "default" philosophy of education is a term used to describe what results from a lack of reflective, engaged dialogue
by educators and school communities about their goals and practices. The default philosophy underlying high-stakes
testing is a philosophy of education in which tests designed to be part of a system of accountability drive the curriculum,
limit instructional innovation, and keep educators from establishing their own priorities and visions. The philosophical
underpinnings of high-stakes testing help to explain the conflicts that result.
2. Teacher morale is severely undercut in the standardized testing culture.
Carol Hyman, Media Relations Officer, January 7, 2003, California Berkeley Press Release, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/01/07_tests.html
Teachers, too, suffer in this environment. "Teachers are straight-jacketed by this sorting culture of achievement," says
Weinstein. "Teachers need the freedom and support to teach children who learn in a variety of ways." "Teachers are
being pressured to do things that will not ultimately help students," she adds. "When students fail, there will be more
tracking, special education placements, retention and mandated summer school - methods that the research evidence
has suggested are not helpful."
3. Standardized testing is resulting in the loss of good teachers.
Alfie Kohn, Lecturer on Education, September 27, 2000, Education Week Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Fact 8. Many educators are leaving the field because of what is being done to schools in the name of "accountability"
and "tougher standards." I have no hard numbers here, but there is more than enough anecdotal evidence—
corroborated by administrators, teacher-educators, and other observers across the country, and supported by several
state surveys that quantify the extent of disenchantment with testing— to warrant classifying this as a fact. Prospective
teachers are rethinking whether they want to begin a career in which high test scores matter most, and in which they
will be pressured to produce these scores. Similarly, as The New York Times reported in its lead story of Sept. 3, 2000, "a
growing number of schools are rudderless, struggling to replace a graying corps of principals at a time when the
pressure to raise test scores and other new demands have made an already difficult job an increasingly thankless one."
It also seems clear that most of the people who are quitting, or seriously thinking about doing so, are not mediocre
performers who are afraid of being held accountable. Rather, they are among the very best educators, frustrated by the
difficulty of doing high-quality teaching in the current climate.
4. Standardized testing creates worse teachers.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
While intended to motivate teachers and students to achieve optimal performance levels, the high-stakes nature of
state testing programs can have quite the opposite effect. With regard to teachers, researchers have cautioned that
placing a premium on student test performance can reduce instruction to test preparation, thus limiting the range of
educational experiences to which students are exposed and minimizing the skill that teachers bring to their craft
(McNeil, 2000; Smith, 1991). In other words, the implementation of the state test may, in effect, lead to a deprofessionalization of teachers. Studies also indicate that high-stakes assessments increase stress and decrease morale
among teachers. According to Jones et al. (1999) more than 77% of the teachers surveyed indicated decreases in
morale, and 76% reported teaching was more stressful since the implementation of the North Carolina state-testing
program. Similar results were found in Kentucky and Maryland. Over half of the Maryland teachers and about 75% of
Kentucky educators indicated that morale had declined as a result of the state test (Koretz et al., 1996a; Koretz et al.,
1996b). In addition, 85% of Texas teachers surveyed by Hoffman, Assaf, and Paris (2001) agreed with the statement
"some of the best teachers are leaving the field because of the TAAS."
STANDARDIZED TESTING USES A FLAWED PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
1. Standardized testing creates a flawed philosophy of education.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
The rush to accountability in the form of high-stakes testing has had multiple effects on public schools. In this article I
draw attention to one impact that has been rarely addressed—the effect that high-stakes testing has had on the
philosophies of education in operation in schools. By philosophy of education, I mean a vision for the purpose and value
of education. The impact of high-stakes testing is rather substantial, I will suggest, because high-stakes testing brings
with it a "default" philosophy of education. In the current context of schooling, the default philosophy is one that places
inordinate value on the scores achieved on high-stakes tests, rather than on the achievement that the scores are meant
to represent. Because of the power of this default philosophy, teachers in the current climate may find themselves
doing things that fall short of their visions of themselves as educators, such as spending extra time drilling students on
practice tests, de-emphasizing or eliminating untested subject matter, or teaching to the test (Jones et al., 1999).
2. Relying on standardized testing alone fails – only a more holistic approach can solve.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
Rather than rely on a single measure, other relevant information such as grades and teacher recommendations should
be considered in determining promotion or graduation (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). Such a student-level accountability
model balances test performance with other indicators of achievement and allows one measure to offset another.
Further, given the disparate test score performance among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics documented
earlier, using a compensatory system seems increasingly logical. As Jencks (1998) argues, test score differences between
Whites and minorities may be real, "But inability to measure the other predictors of performance, on which Blacks [and
Hispanics] seem to be far less disadvantaged, poses a huge social problem" (p. 84). If tests are not assessing certain
qualities indicative of future professional success, it seems advisable to decrease (not increase) reliance on them.
3. Standardized testing carries an ideology that smothers other philosophies of education.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
From a scientific standpoint, high-stakes tests cannot do all that policy makers want them to do. Because of the high
stakes attached to the tests, policy has had the unintended effect of encouraging a default philosophy of education: a
vision of education that values highly what can be measured, and more problematically, it values most highly the
measurement itself. Eisner (2001) calls this confusion of the role of tests "rationalization." This does not mean that
schools are philosophically doomed. However, when this default philosophy of education dominates, other possible
philosophies of education are more difficult to articulate and implement. That is probably the most unfortunate aspect
of high-stakes testing, because conversations in communities about the meaning and value of education cannot take
place without performance on standardized tests taking center stage.
4. Their pro-testing studies are flawed – new approaches are needed.
Alfie Kohn, Lecturer on Education, September 27, 2000, Education Week Webpage, Accessed 8/11/08,
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Fact 2. Noninstructional factors explain most of the variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared.
A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the combination of four
such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty
rate) accounted for a whopping 89 percent of the differences in state scores. To the best of my knowledge, all such
analyses of state tests have found comparable results, with the numbers varying only slightly as a function of which
socioeconomic variables were considered.
5. Standardized testing destroys alternative philosophies of education.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
Based on the current research about high-stakes testing, it has become very difficult for educators to discuss the
purpose and value of education. As I have argued, this narrowing of the conversation requires attention at the national
and state level to lower the [End Page 57] stakes of testing, because it puts in place a default philosophy of education
that is indefensible. At the school and school district level, it is essential that schools maintain dialogue about the
purpose and value of schooling among the various members of the school community and not allow themselves to
settle for the default philosophy of education associated with high-stakes testing.
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS NET-DETRIMENTAL
1. Standardized testing sucks up too much time on developing irrelevant skills.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
Also a source of concern is the substantial allocation of instructional time for specific test preparation. Teachers from
high-stakes states reported spending far more time than did their counterparts in low-stakes states preparing students
for the state test, teaching test-taking skills, and using test preparation materials and released items from the state.
These types of test preparation activities may call into question the validity of state test scores, which were originally
designed to provide an objective, accurate measure of achievement, thus rendering any decision based on test scores
(e.g., award school accreditation or high school diplomas) questionable.
2. Standardized testing erodes academic achievement.
Michael G. Gunzenhauser, Professor at Oklahoma State University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 51-58
In this article, the author argues that high-stakes testing may lead to a default philosophy of education that holds in high
regard a narrow bundle of knowledge and skills. A default philosophy is defined as the vision of education that results
from a lack of reflective, engaged dialogue among educators and school communities about their goals and practices. In
the context of high-stakes testing, one predominant default philosophy results from an inordinate focus on the tests
themselves. As has been shown in research studies throughout the United States, this creates a context in which
conversations about the meaning and value of education cannot take place without performance on standardized tests
taking center stage. Within this context, dialogue is more difficult, and other possible philosophies of education become
harder to articulate and implement. When the default philosophy of education dominates in a school, school district, or
state, the possibilities for improving education reform and innovation are limited.
3. Standardized testing does not help prepare students for jobs.
Catherine Horn, Research Associate at Harvard University, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 30-41
At best, the high-stakes MCAS tests are ensuring proficiency in only a subset of skills defined as essential for work in the
new millennium. At worst, the MCAS assessments may be leading to the underpreparation of students for the 21st
century workforce. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) states, "The content of the test and the
cognitive processes engaged in taking the test should adequately represent the curriculum. High-stakes tests should not
be limited to that portion of the relevant curriculum that is easiest to measure" (2000, para. 10). Looking to the 10th
grade MCAS ELA test as an example, however, the test developers seem to have done just what AERA warns against.
Only the most readily testable standards are included on the assessment. Given that research suggests
contentmeasured on high-stakes tests ultimately defines the curriculum, valuable skills may be lost because they are
not tested and therefore not taught.This is even more troubling in the context of the disproportionately high rates of
failure among African Americans, Hispanics, limited English proficient students, and students with disabilities. An
increasingly diverse workforce may not be ready for what it will be asked to do.
4. Standardized testing makes education a negative experience for all involved.
Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston
College, 2003, Theory Into Practice, 42.1, p. 18-29
Not only are teachers' views regarding the state test's negative impact on the quality of education and the emphasis on
specific test preparation disconcerting, the perceived human impact of the state test is also worrisome. The results
suggest that, especially in high-stakes states, both students and teachers experienced test-related pressure. Eight in 10
teachers in high-stakes states reported that students were under intense pressure to perform well on the state test.
While pressure on teachers may materialize by placing greater emphasis on test preparation, it may also have significant
professional costs. For example, almost twice as many teachers in high- versus low-stakes states indicated teachers at
their school wanted to transfer out of grades in which the state test was administered. Similarly, teachers in high-stakes
states were far more likely to report the state test has caused students in their district to drop out of high school. These
results suggest there is a potential for a substantial human cost resulting from highly consequential testing programs, of
which the effects on future opportunities, particularly for students, are profound.
Con Standardized Testing is Bad
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS DISCRIMINATORY - MINORITIES
1. Standardized testing discriminates against, minority races, women and low income individuals
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.201, 1999
The standardized tests in which Americans have placed so much trust have not proven to be particularly trustworthy
indicators of individual human potential. In a word, they’ve been awful. Generally, the poor ability of the exams to tell
us much about later performance has been true both for people who score well on standardized tests and those who do
not. Test scores stratify largely along race, class, and even gender lines, whether it’s an IQ test of young children or the
SAT for college admission. Pick a multiple choice test, and one finds that whites tend to score better than blacks; men
typically score better than women; and those from middle to upper-middle-class backgrounds are apt to fare
considerably better than people from families of low or moderate socioeconomic circumstances.
2. Standardized testing discriminates against African-American ways of knowing
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.218, 1999
What’s more, studies of brain asymmetry and cognitive styles of American Indians indicate that, like African Americans,
they may rely on right-brain, simultaneous mental processing more often than whites. Studies of this type have often
referred to American Indians’ relatively superior performance on tests of special and visual skill, considered a rightbrain strength dependent on the ability to process information through simultaneous, parallel channels. For example,
one study of schoolchildren in Hardin, Montana, compared fifty-seven Native American and sixty white children in terms
of their relative strengths at sequential and simultaneous mental processing, using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children, which was developed to measure just such relative cognitive styles. As expected, the Native American children
as a group proved to be significantly more skilled at the simultaneous processing tasks involving such special and visual
abilities. White children, however, were better as a group at the sequential mental tasks.(19)
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS DISCRIMINATORY - WOMEN
1. Standardized test discriminate against women – Ireland proves
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.205, 1999
In the search for clues as to why males do better than females on standardized test but generally fail to keep up with
girls and women in the classroom, researchers have turned their gazes on the multiple-choice format itself. Is there
something in the nature of the exams and the divergent thinking styles and behavioral traits with which males and
females tend to approach the tests that might explain the discrepancy? Indeed, might women and girls outperform
males if the testing format were reversed, permitting free responses such as essays and short term answers instead of
multiple-choice items? The answer is an unqualified yes, a pattern has been replicated in numerous recent studies. A
typical investigation of this type comes to us form Ireland, where researchers Niall Bolger and Thomas Kellaghan sought
to determining the likely effects of test format on performance gaps between some 740 fifteen year old boys against
750 girls the same age. In particular, the scholars examined gender differences on a common multiple-choice
achievement test used in the Republic of Ireland, and compared those scores to another common “free-response”
exam, validated for high reliability, that permitted test takers to construct their own responses. The researchers took
care to ensure that the subject matter and specific questions were identical on both tests in order to isolate the effects
of the different testing formats. Whether the subject was language or mathematics, the same result held: Boys
outscored the girls on multiple-choice achievement test, and the girls outperformed the boys on the free-response
exams. Bolger and Kellaghan could only speculate as to why this pattern held, but they cautioned that girls shouldn’t be
educationally punished simply owing to test format. “Whatever the explanation for our findings, they raise issues for
educational policymakers regarding the choice of method of measurement in examinations.” The authors say. “This is
particularly important if the results of examinations are used, as they are in a number of European countries, including
Britain and Ireland, to make important decisions about a student’s educational and vocational future.”(3)
2. Standardized test discriminate against women – AP tests proves
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.206, 1999
The gender and ethnic differences were dramatic as well. In relative terms, the AP’s multiple-choice tests favored men
and Asians in particular; at the same time, the essay portions favored women, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and
those for whom English was a second language. Some particulars: The some 28,000 women in the study two and a half
times as likely to write superior essays as to score highly on the multiple choice format. Blacks were three times more
likely to fall in the high-essay/low multiple-choice group. And, astoundingly, students whose English wasn’t their best
language wrote superior essays-in English- two and a half times as often as they scored very well as on the multiplechoice items.
3. High stakes testing disadvantages women – test anxiety
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.206, 1999
With respect to the gender discrepancies, there may be several possible explanations. Many scholars believe certain
tendencies in thinking styles and behavioral traits of girls and women don’t add up to a particularly efficient match for
the speeded, pressurized nature of the multiple-choice format found on most achievement and aptitude tests. Girls and
women may tend to be more focused on the process of learning rather than scoring points in the gamey context of most
test. Sometimes lacking the “full speed ahead” confidence of many males, females might teend to be more anxious and
frustrated in testing situations. Results gleaned from more than 560 studies have lent empirical support to that
hypothesis, generally finding that females suffer more test anxiety than males even after controlling for levels of
academic achievement.
4. Standardized testing discourages women from entering math and science fields
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.206-7, 1999
As Cathy Kessel and Marcia Linn of UC-Berkeley put it regarding standardized tests in mathematics: “Some students
view the test as more a measure of trick-detection than a measure of mathematics skill. Females report this as one
more reason to conclude that math is frustrating rather than interesting.”(6)
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS DISCRIMINATORY – LOW INCOME
1. Standardized testing discriminates against low income students
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.213, 1999
Evidence and examples from a variety of standardized testing settings suggests that, in our mad rush to sort one human
from another, American institutions have indeed sacrificed broader and more meaningful measures of human ability
(such as the LFT exam at the University of Helsinki) on the altar of speed and efficiency. Indeed, this premium on rapid
response occurs as soon as young children are tested for their intelligence, in order, for instance, to gain admission into
many American preschools and kindergartens. Readers may recall the discussion in Chapter 3 about the sorting of young
children on the basis of IQ to qualify them for admission for admission to both public and private schools. I argued that
it’s wrong for institutions of any stripe to sort young children on the basis of IQ, because doing so often simply reflects
and reinforces built-in advantages provided to children of privileged backgrounds, and in essence denies access to other
children largely on the basis of being born to less educated and well-to-do parents. Sorting with IQ tests provides
enormous advantages to children raised in highly verbal, stimulating households. When children are raised by highly
educated and articulate parents, they are provided with lots of practice with words, sentences, and ideas; with practice
comes speed; and with speed, it turns out, comes higher scores on IQ tests that place a premium on speed of response.
2. Standardized testing discriminates against low income individuals
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.8, 1999
Standardized tests scores tend to be highly correlated with socioeconomic class. Although standardized tests have a
relatively bleak record of predicting success in school and work, we know that they do tend to correlate exceedingly well
with the income and education of one's parents. Call it the "Volvo Effect." The data is so strong in this regard that one
could make a good guess about a child's standardized test scores by simply looking at how many degrees her parents
have and what kind of car they drive. For now, consider some evidence from just the SAT. Recent data show that
someone taking the SAT can expect to score an extra thirty test points for every $10,000 in his parents' yearly income. In
a study of California high school students, parent education alone explained more than 50 percent of the variation in
SAT scores. ( 3 ) And, according to recent U.S. Department of Education examinations of the backgrounds of students
who made the SAT cut (a minimum score of 1,100) for highly selective colleges, fully one-third of these high scorers
came from the upper-income brackets; that's compared to well under a tenth of high SAT scorers who emerge from the
lower economic rungs.
STANDARDIZED TESTING UNDERMINES EDUCATION - CREATIVITY
1. Standardized testing actively discourages creativity and alternative methods of thinking
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.205, 1999
Further unpeel the layers of this conundrum and one is left with this basic question: Is there something in the nature of
standardized tests themselves – particularly in the very multiple choice format that permits high levels of
standardization, reproducibility and ease of scoring – that rewards some kinds of thinking processes and penalizes other
types? Also, might a portion of the historical differences in standardized test scores among various groups of Americans
be attributable to fundamental differences among them in their common ways of thinking and knowing? Is it possible
that somebody might have difficulty on such standardized tests because, in fact, she’s in a sense smarter than the test
itself? Standardized testing is far from the objective process that many Americans might believe. In fact, it’s rooted in
certain epistemological value judgments about knowing and ways of knowing. Commonly, when Americans talk about
the “fairness” of a given standardized test with respect to possible, ethnic, cultural, or gender biases, for instance, they
look no further than the test items themselves, scrutinizing them as if they were magic beads to determine whether
they offend, ignore, or marginalize particular groups of people. Indeed, test makers’ public accountability to make
unbiased tests is achieved by means of just such a process. Largely unquestioned in both internal examinations and
public discussions of test bias, however, is the very structure of timed-constrained, multiple-choice tests and the
particular kinds of thinking processes these tests encourage and reward. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting some New
Age, postmodern paradigm in which there’s no such thing as objective truth, that anything goes, or that all ways of
thinking and knowing are equally valid. I am, however, suggesting that so called objective tests formatted in the
multiple-choice mode are decided not objective simply because their bubble in answers can be scanned and scored by a
computer. They are subjective in the same sense that a historically decisive, or a newspaper reporter reporters’ choices
about what’s news and what’s not news. For the measurement of human talent, this is by no means a trivial problem,
particularly when the sorts fo talents and abilities lost in the shuffle, or discouraged from revealing themselves in most
standardized testing exercises, may be more valuable than the stuff that actually does get measured.
2. Standardized testing discourages methodical and thorough thought processes
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.206, 1999
Evidence also suggests that risk averse girls and women tend to approach standardized tests with a deliberateness and
carefulness that makes them less willing than males to guess at multiple-choice questions, which puts them at a
disadvantage when incorrect answers are not penalized. Similarly, females taking standardized tests may tend to rely to
a greater extent than males on the more methodical techniques and skills acquired in the classroom-organizing,
synthesizing, analyzing – instead of shortcuts and tricks that males more frequently use.
3. Standardized testing encourages passive learning and lack of engagement in education on the part of students
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.220, 1999
The implications of such findings bear not only on how kids are taught. Teaching in ways consistent with their cognitive
strengths would be meaningless if school systems were then to give the same old standardized tests to all children as a
universal measure of what they have learned. The speeded, multiple-choice structure of most standardized tests is
historically rooted in a particular paradigm of education that largely has defined learning and teaching as rote
memorization of facts and formulas; the hegemony of abstract knowledge over real-world application and performance;
and rigid, militaristic hierarchies placing students in the role of passive observers. In such a paradigm, learning is
artificially constructed for schoolchildren rather than something children construct for themselves by their own initiative
and desire. Speeded, multiple-choice tests well serve the entrenched systems of passive learning. Indeed when learning
becomes passive, it is easily standardized.
STANDARDIZED TESTING UNDERMINES EDUCATION - CREATIVITY
4. Standardized testing destroys education and makes schools function more like factories rather than centers that
inspire creativity
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.118, 1999
It's a narrative most Americans would surely want to believe in. But I'm afraid I must be the bearer of some unsettling
news. Beneath heartwarming stories of remarkable improvements in test scores in the most unlikely places, the
accountability machine's jagged edges and nasty contradictions come into full view. Beneath accountability politics that
are State of the Union speeches, inflammatory reports of the looming end of Western civilization as we know it, and
newspaper headlines about the test-score horse race in communities across the country, one sees the machine's ugly
effects: achievement gains that are delusional and learning that is dumbed-down and distorted to fit questions on a
state-issued standardized test. Beyond what most of the public sees of the new era of school accountability, we find
that learning and teaching have been so narrowly constricted as to be reduced entirely to the collective success of
schools, districts, and states on standardized tests, so that officials can trot out comparative test scores showing that all
the kids are the statistically impossible "above average." Teachers are poised to become little more than production-line
workers, technical functionaries of a political culture who merely feed their students the correct data needed to pass
the next test. Schools are fast becoming quasi-profit centers, not unlike a publicly-held corporation accountable to
shareholders for quarterly profits and returns on the New York Stock Exchange. But instead of shareholders demanding
maximum sales and net profits, states are holding schools accountable for maximizing growth in test scores.
5. Standardized testing undermines creativity in education and teaching
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.126, 1999
As long as high-stakes testing dominates the educational landscape, meaningful education reform will be hard to
achieve because accountability testing squelches innovation and creative approaches to teaching and learning, the
British Columbia researchers concluded. "If you take the view that the high school presently is an institution badly in
need of reform and further speculate that teachers require some freedom to experiment and take risks to bring about
this reform, then the existence of large-scale testing as currently practiced effectively reduces the chances that such
reform will occur."
6. Standardized tests reward passive, superficial learning, drive instruction in undesirable directions, and thwart
meaningful educational reform.
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.8-9, 1999
Teachers, researchers, and other educators have expressed widespread disenchantment with the results of several
decades of standardized testing in American public schools. Evidence strongly suggests that standardized testing flies in
the face of recent advances in our understanding of how people learn to think and reason. Repeatedly in the research
over the past few years, especially in the grade school arena (K-12), one finds evidence that traditional tests reinforce
passive, tote learning of facts and formulas, quite contrary to the active, critical thinking skills many educators now
believe schools should be encouraging. Many suspect that the speeded, multiple-choice tests are themselves powerful
incentives for compartmentalized and superficial learning. At the K-12 level, teachers often don't believe the tests
accurately measure their students' abilities, and do believe that widespread practice of "teaching to the test" renders
test scores virtually meaningless. In 1994, the journal Educational Policy published a study on teachers' views of
standardized tests. Just 3 percent of teachers in one sample agreed that such tests are generally good, "whereas 77
percent felt that tests are bad and not worth the time and money spent on them." According to the study, about eight
in ten teachers believe their colleagues teach to the tests. ( 4 ) Preoccupied with winning the standardized testing game
for the sake of kudos from parents, principals, and state legislators, schools have often neglected reforms that would
promote deeper and more active ways of thinking and learning than multiple-choice tests typically capture. The Office
of Technology Assessment concluded in its report, Testing in American Schools: "It now appears that the use of these
tests misled policymakers and the public about the progress of students, and in many places hindered the
implementation of genuine school reforms."
STANDARDIZED TESTING UNDERMINES EDUCATION – PERVERSE INCENTIVES
1. Standardized testing creates a perverse incentive where learning and doing well in school is discouraged
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.118, 1999
Suppose the federal government wants to mete out funding to schools based on test results. What would happen, say,
if the government bolstered financial assistance to schools based entirely on poor performance on standardized tests?
That is, the lower a school's test scores, the more funding it would receive from the government. Such a policy certainly
makes certain sense if achievement is positively related to economic conditions of schools. Economically poor schools,
having the worst achievement test scores, would receive the most federal funding under such a rule. Suppose, further,
that schools' test scores were widely published in school report cards and teachers got big bonuses based on how much
federal funding schools received. That's not entirely unreasonable either -- higher budgets mean more dollars for
teacher salaries. What would happen to test scores under this scenario, assuming no other changes in the fundamentals
of schooling? Such a scenario is unlikely indeed, but one could make some educated guesses on what would happen.
Firms hawking test-preparation materials and computer software to track a child's performance on certain test items
might not get past the front door of most school systems; teachers would spend insignificant amounts of time teaching
test-taking skills to students or going over sample tests; school principals would hold staff meetings reminding teachers
of educationally sound teaching, threatening to fire any teachers caught teaching subjects via worksheets and drills
aligned to specific test items. Some perverse effects might also be observed, such as teachers discouraging the topscoring pupils from coming to school on test day. At the extreme, some teachers might even resort to outright cheating
by erasing correct answers. Cheating, however, is risky behavior. By far, the most common effect from such substantial
incentives for low test results would be very little directed effort on the part of schools aimed at boosting children’s' test
score.
STANDARDIZED TESTING UNDERMINES EDUCATION – TEACHING TO THE TEST
1. Standardized testing results in teaching to the test undermining education
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.125, 1999
But now, let's get slightly more real. Turn that improbable scenario on its head to get a far more realistic picture of
incentives and disincentives placed on schools for standardized test results. In the environment in which most American
schools must operate, poor test scores are severely punished and high ones are, of course, rewarded. What, then, are
the effects on teaching and learning in such an environment? As opposed to the conscious efforts of schools to
assiduously avoid certain kinds of teaching in the hypothetical scenario, one might suppose that the opposite would be
true. Teachers would teach in ways specifically designed to boost scores. In fact, that's exactly what will and what does
happen, according to mounting evidence contained in many in-depth studies by dozens of credible researchers. Beyond
the view of most members of the public is the realm of academia and scholarly journals. Although somewhat obscure,
they're good places to find dispassionate examinations of the real effects of big-stakes standardized testing in schools.
Indeed, the disconnection between the real damage to American schools of such testing and its virtually unmitigated
expansion in recent years is nothing less than mindboggling. The most common effect of big-stakes testing programs,
the evidence shows, has been teaching to tests. Teaching to a test often has various manifestations, whether it be
teaching math by rote formulas and worksheets that match test items, or teaching writing by coaching students on
which workbook line to divide sections of an essay. In all its various incarnations, teaching to big-stakes tests has made
our children dumber than they would have otherwise been, the evidence farther suggests.
2. Standardized testing results in teaching to the test – all studies indicate that teachers are forgoing effective
curriculum for test practice in nearly 70% of cases
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.126, 1999
Not unexpectedly, the researchers found that some eight in ten of the teachers surveyed "said that they feel
'substantial' or 'great' pressure from the district administration to raise test scores," and two-thirds of the teachers "said
they felt such pressure from newspapers and the media." Moreover, according to the authors, 69 percent of teachers
frequently drilled their students on item types teachers knew would be on the state's test. The most common negative
statement about standardized testing from teachers in the survey: "the complaint that standardized tests lead to 'too
much teaching to test content and test format.'" What is more, Shepard and Dougherty tell us, "The most telling finding,
concerning the influence of test preparation on instruction, was that 68 percent of the teachers reported conducting
these test preparation activities 'regularly,' that is 'throughout the school year,' rather than limiting them to a few days
or weeks before testing." ( 8 ) Such results have been widely duplicated in other rigorous studies. Researchers find that
teaching to tests has little to do with outright cheating. Instances of cheating, of course, do occasionally emerge, such as
the infamous Stratfield School in Fairfield, Connecticut, where officials discovered the real reason for the school's
remarkable, award-winning test scores: erasures of wrong answers and other indicators of "widespread tampering" with
standardized tests, as the New York Times put it. ( 9 )
3. Standardized testing results in teaching to the test instead of actual teaching because teacher’s jobs are on the line
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.126, 1999
As another example, Joan Herman and Shari Golan, in a project for the UCLA Center for Research, Evaluation and
Student Testing, looked at nine mediumsized school districts in nine states across the country. Teachers in the study
reported feeling "strong pressure from district administrators and the media to improve their students' test scores."
Where significant public and official pressure is placed on the tests, teaching specifically to those tests in some fashion
inevitably follows. One might quibble with Herman and Golan over the semantics of "teaching the test," but they nevertheless found that teachers frequently gave students worksheets to drill students on test content as well as practice
tests. Overall, these teachers spent about a month of each school year busying students just in test preparation, and
even. more so if schools' test scores were declining. ( 11 ) A sensible question is, So what? What does it matter that the
media and elected officials put great pressure on teachers to spend a lot of time teaching students what's on a
standardized test? And so what if they do so? That's what accountability and high standards are all about, after all. Now
comes the insidious part of the effects-of-testing story, one often glossed over or ignored by the public, elected officials,
and the media, but which has perhaps the most devastating impact on real learning and achievement.
STANDARDIZED TESTING UNDERMINES REAL WORLD SUCCESS - WORKPLACE
1. Standardized testing actually makes students less able to success in the real world
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.208, 1999
Depending on the model of intelligence one chooses to use. Moltz might be said to have, say, a certain “practical
intelligence.” As Yale psychologist Robert Starnbergh might phrase it. And in Andrake’s deep concern for realism, she
may exhibit one of the “multiple intelligences” that Harvard’s Howard Gardner has theorized. Whatever term of art is
used to described them, the point to be made here is that Moltz’s and Andrake’s fundamental approaches to thinking
and perceiving would appear to be a disadvantage for them on standardized tests-owing not to a lack of ability but to
the nature of the tests themselves. It ahs also been said that most standardized achievement and aptitude test tap just
one of the various kinds of “intelligences.” Particularly the sort of logical-analytical intelligence, or abstract problemsolving ability, while altogether ignoring other varieties of intelligence. Clearly, one can make a persuasive case for this
weakness in most standardized tests by looking at the tests’ contents, which focus almost exclusively on verbal and
quantitative gymnastics. Further, the very standardization and format of most tests create its own unique internal logic
that has virtually no relevance to anything beyond the logic of the test itself. This is why the tests have proven to be
abjectly poor predictors of achievement in school and success in the workplace. Hence, having well-developed logical
and analytical abilities might be necessary to perform at high levels on most standardized tests; but having such
abilities, by themselves, are insufficient for meaningful success and achievement beyond the confides of the abstract
testing exercise. What’s worse, a growing body of evidence, suggests, the internal logic of standardized tests appears to
engender its own styles of thinking that, more often than not, would probably wind up getting students flunked from
Moltz’s research methods class, or cause teachers like Andrake to fall flat on their faces in a real teaching situation.
Evidence of this generally indicates that the standardized testing format Americans have grown accustomed to appears
to promote a sort of superficial pseudo-thinking style that probably has little real-world utility.
2. Standardized testing discourages deep understanding of concepts and is dangerous as students are given the power
over lives such as in medical schools that require creativity
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.220, 1999
The ecology of the American merit system places most value on people with particular thinking styles that shine on fastpaced, logical, and reflexive tasks. The merit system devalues individuals who strive to deeply understand and who
prefer to create something new rather than repeat something already told them. Like the process of natural selection,
some individual traits thrive while others are threatened with extinction. But unlike a natural system, the American
merit system has artificially decided on selection rules that ultimately determine which traits win out. Improbable?
Perhaps this paints too dim a picture. But one can find examples of just such a standardization of minds occurring in
contemporary American. Again, take the medical profession of how a particular example of how the merit system’s
selection rules have promoted a certain conformity in thinking styles. Medical educators have long been troubled by the
restricted range of abilities, talents, and interests of medical students who are chosen to be doctors, based on
exceedingly narrow selection rules on merit and accomplishment, which are based on test scores and science grades.
Selection rules have engendered a sort of standardized medical student, a trend that medical schools have seemed
helpless to counteract. Norman Anderson, as admissions dean at John Hopkins School of Medicine, once remarked that
the very “educational independence of medical schools is eroding as psyhometricians and statistical theory gain an even
greater influence in determining who is fit to study medicine and how they will be trained.”(19)
STANDARDIZED TESTING UNDERMINES REAL WORLD SUCCESS - WORKPLACE
3. Standardized testing undermines workplace diversity
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.220, 1999
So the argument for diversity in schools and the workplace takes on a new light. When examined through the lens of
cognitive styles, people can be diverse in a number of ways besides ethnic origins, having differences in ways of
thinking, knowing, and solving problems, differences that could actually improve the quality of American schools and
workplaces if they were to be included in the merit system’s gate-keeping rules. Indeed, one possible solution to the
nation’s conundrum over racial preferences in affirmative action policies would be for institutions to take a color-blind
view of diversity. Institutions might encourage differences in ways people learn and think, shedding the one-size-first-all
view of merit which pervades higher education. Even conservatives and psychometricians who have trouble buying into
this perspective on diversity would do well to recall the writings of their own Arthur Jensen, the scholar noted for his
controversial views on intelligence and race, whose work inspired the publication of The Bell Curve. “An education
system that puts inordinate emphasis on only one mode or style of learning will obtain meager results from the children
who do not fit this pattern,” Jensen wrote in a much discussed 1969 article in the Harvard Education Review. “Diversity
rather than uniformity of approaches and aims would seem to be the key to making education rewarding for children of
different patterns of ability. The reality of individual differences thus need not mean educational rewards for some
children and frustration or defeat for others.”(21)
STANDARDIZED TESTING IS OBJECTIFICATION
1. Standardized testing is a political and economic form of human objectification
Sacks, Peter, author, essayist and social critic Standardized Minds p.220, 1999
When thinking becomes standardized, people are easily objectified, their skills and talents translated into the language
and mechanisms of commercial enterprise. “Testing,” remarks Wolff-Michael Roth of Simon Frazier University, “is part
of a network that turns students into commodities.” (20) When deconstructed to its elemental features and placed into
its broadest context, mental testing boils down to a political and economic act fo rule making that implies winners and
losers – hardly the enlightened tool for the wise use of human capabilities that is often claimed by the testing
establishment.
Con HIGH STAKES TESTING UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
1. Testing fails educationally because it abstracts experience from the students, converts education into learning for the
sake of the material rather than the life of the student, and threatens to destroy democracy by killing its educational
foundations.
Kevin D. Vinson, Assistant Professor of Education and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction
at Loyola College in Maryland; Rich Gibson, associate professor at San Diego State University; and E. Wayne Ross,
Associate Professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at
Binghamton. "High-Stakes Testing and Standardization: The Threat to Authenticity," 2001, Progressive Perspectives,
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Winter, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/monographs/ProPer3n2.html
But in terms of high-stakes standardized testing, what does all this mean? Of what relevance is a concept such as
psychologization? Dewey’s assertion was that educators first must realize that subject matter itself be abstracted
fundamentally from the experiences of the child. It must, moreover, be re-internalized and not left hanging lifelessly
before the learner as a disconnected and externally created intelligence. It must not be forced on students as
something inherently worthwhile, regardless of its meaning. In the case of standardized testing, though, the opposite
condition occurs. Content is selected with indifference to the multitude of learner experiences. It is, further, produced
externally, in an identical way for everyone (dismissing, therefore, the potential importance of diversity of experiences).
Meaning indeed is irrelevant, and understanding unimportant. “Acquire the content for its own sake, and reproduce it
on command,” that is the “secret” message of mandated testing. Induce “achievement” by deceiving students (and
parents and teachers?) into accepting the essential gravity and false attractiveness of the subject matter. Or, better yet,
convince the public that meaning and motivation don't matter. An alternative, yet critical perspective, rests on a mode
of interpretation constructed directly out of and upon Dewey’s (1916/1966) famed delineation of democracy and of
democratic education. From this viewpoint, high-stakes standardized testing represents not only an inadequate method
of pedagogy per se, but also a threat to democratic society—that is, a contradiction, an un- or antidemocratic means of
preparing children for an engaged democratic social and political life.
2. Standardized testing replaces common interests with systems of hierarchically-imposed "interests" that confer
legitimacy on ruling-class ideas and destroy the diversity of thought.
Kevin D. Vinson, Assistant Professor of Education and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction
at Loyola College in Maryland; Rich Gibson, associate professor at San Diego State University; and E. Wayne Ross,
Associate Professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at
Binghamton. "High-Stakes Testing and Standardization: The Threat to Authenticity," 2001, Progressive Perspectives,
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Winter, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/monographs/ProPer3n2.html
Whereas Dewey’s democracy called for “more numerous and more varied points of shared common interest,”
mandated standardized testing in fact reduces and limits them, creating a system of “interests” organized around
exclusion and not inclusion. Our potentially real, shared interests become artificial, determined by powerful and
peripheral forces, with "their" interests established as “our” interests. What counts as shared and mutual extends no
farther than that which is consistent with, or deemed proper with the context of, the normalized and dominant content.
Further, standardized testing (and educational standardization period) contradicts the democratic ideals of “freer
interaction” and “varied intercourse.” Standardized testing confines legitimate “interaction” to test-driven teaching and
learning. It reduces meaningful “intercourse” to that which is officially and formally sanctioned. Lastly, standardization
directly challenges the principles of “greater diversity of stimuli” and “variation in action.” Such dynamism and
difference are destroyed as teachers are forced to follow scripts and teach to the test, and as students acquire the
notion that learning means nothing more than achieving “desirable” scores. In effect, the stimuli are identical, and the
actions strikingly the same. For in effect, the conditions and characteristics of standardized testing contradict those of
democracy, leaving instead—in democracy's wake—an institutionalized externally produced mechanism of
authoritarian social and intellectual conformity, a regime of “top-down” pedagogical control. They ignore or dismiss,
the imperatives of such critical and limiting factors as time, money, and class size, promoting in the end a privileged
individualism over a commitment to collectivity, community, and care.
Con DEMOCRACY REQUIRES EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY
1. Democracy requires the formation of mutual interests and the liberation from social control. Education is a key node
for these values.
Kevin D. Vinson, Assistant Professor of Education and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction
at Loyola College in Maryland; Rich Gibson, associate professor at San Diego State University; and E. Wayne Ross,
Associate Professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at
Binghamton. "High-Stakes Testing and Standardization: The Threat to Authenticity," 2001, Progressive Perspectives,
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Winter, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/monographs/ProPer3n2.html
In his monumental work Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Dewey
(1916/1966), in some of the best known words in the entire history of Western educational philosophy, presented his
construction of democracy. In pursuing “the democratic ideal,” he wrote that: The two elements in our criterion both
point to democracy. The first signifies not only more numerous and more varied points of shared common interest, but
greater reliance upon the recognition of mutual interests as a factor in social control. The second means not only freer
interaction between social groups (once isolated so far as intention could keep up a separation) but change in social
habit—its continuous readjustment through meeting the new situations produced by varied intercourse. And these two
traits are precisely what characterize the democratically constituted society. (pp. 86-87)
2. The formation of a democratic social life is based on truly educated and ideologically diverse citizens.
Kevin D. Vinson, Assistant Professor of Education and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction
at Loyola College in Maryland; Rich Gibson, associate professor at San Diego State University; and E. Wayne Ross,
Associate Professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at
Binghamton. "High-Stakes Testing and Standardization: The Threat to Authenticity," 2001, Progressive Perspectives,
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Winter, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/monographs/ProPer3n2.html
John Dewey: Upon the educational side, we note first that the realization of a form of social life in which interests are
mutually interpenetrating, and where progress, or readjustment, is an important consideration, makes a democratic
community more interested than other communities have cause to be in deliberate and systematic education. The
devotion of democracy to education is a familiar fact. The superficial explanation is that a government resting upon
popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated. Since a
democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and
interest; these can be created only by education. But there is a deeper explanation. A democracy is more than a form of
government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience [italics added]. The
extension in space of the number of individuals who participate in an interest so that each has to refer his [or her] own
action to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his [or her] own, is equivalent
to the breaking down of those barriers of class, race, and national territory which kept men [sic] from perceiving the full
import of their activity. These more numerous and more varied points of contact denote a greater diversity of stimuli to
which an individual has to respond; they consequently put a premium on variation in his [or her] action [italics added].
They secure a liberation of powers which remain suppressed as long as incitations to action are partial, as they must be
in a group which in its exclusiveness shuts out many interests.
Con HIGH STAKES TESTING ENTRENCHES HIERARCHY AND OPPRESSION
1. Testing imposes a banking model of education, treating students as depositories at the bottom of an ideological
hierarchy.
Kevin D. Vinson, Assistant Professor of Education and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction
at Loyola College in Maryland; Rich Gibson, associate professor at San Diego State University; and E. Wayne Ross,
Associate Professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at
Binghamton. "High-Stakes Testing and Standardization: The Threat to Authenticity," 2001, Progressive Perspectives,
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Winter, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/monographs/ProPer3n2.html
A second concern—in addition to the potential threat posed to democratic and authentic pedagogy—emanates from
the extent to which high-stakes standardized testing promotes a set of conditions that are at once unjust, unequal, and
conforming. By insisting that legitimate learning necessarily presents itself in and on the basis of test scores, such
testing refuses to admit and accept differences (individual as well as cultural) in knowledges, values, experiences,
learning styles, economic resources, and access to those dominant academic artifacts that ultimately contribute to both
the appearance of achievement and the status of cultural hegemony upon which standards-based reforms depend. In
effect, standardized testing encourages a singular and homogeneous public schooling—one antithetical to such
contemporary ideals as diversity, multiculturalism, difference, and liberation—vis-à-vis an underlying and insidious
mechanism or technology of oppression, one in which the interests of society’s most powerful (the minority) are
privileged at the expense of those of the less powerful (the majority). In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, radical Brazilian
educator and activist Paulo Freire (1970) referred memorably to such standardization schemes as “banking” education,
in which schooling turns [students] into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the teacher…. The more
completely [the teacher] fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she [or he] is. The more meekly the receptacles
permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are …. Education [thus] becomes an act of depositing, in which
the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor… the scope of action allowed to the students extends
only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits (p. 53). Moreover, Freire (1970) identified such banking
approaches with the fundamental conditions of oppression. As he wrote: "One of the basic elements of the
relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition of one
individual's choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms
with the prescriber’s consciousness. Thus, the behavior of the oppressed is a prescribed behavior, following as it does
the guidelines of the oppressor" (pp. 28-29).
2. Testing imposes a model of education where the consciousness of the student merges with the consciousness of the
oppressors, prescribing rather than inviting.
Kevin D. Vinson, Assistant Professor of Education and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction
at Loyola College in Maryland; Rich Gibson, associate professor at San Diego State University; and E. Wayne Ross,
Associate Professor in the School of Education and Human Development at the State University of New York at
Binghamton. "High-Stakes Testing and Standardization: The Threat to Authenticity," 2001, Progressive Perspectives,
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Winter, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/monographs/ProPer3n2.html
Freire’s (1970) critique applies neatly to the climate and functionality of current standardization-based pedagogies.
With respect to banking, under such programs students and teachers are held “accountable” only to the extent that
they conform to the dictates of high-stakes mandated tests, which, in turn, work to drive (if not outright determine)
classroom behavior relative to aim or purpose, content, and teaching method (e.g., Hartocollis, 1999; Libit, 1999a;
Steinberg, 1999). Even more clearly, perhaps, is the degree to which standards and standards-based reforms represent a
case of prescription. In fact, such systems mirror Freire’s (1970) insights almost to the letter. Within any complex of
educational standards (including standardized tests), some individual or group's decisions are imposed externally on the
actual classroom lives of teachers and students. Over time, the “consciousness of the person prescribed to” merges or
“conforms with the prescriber’s consciousness” such that “the behavior of the oppressed is a prescribed behavior”
indeed. The prescriber(s) choose/s for others, convinces them that the decision is consistent with the totality of all their
interests, and then works to ensure (here, via testing) the strict compliance of the prescribed to’s behavior with the
initial, test-regulated decision.
Con PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED IS NECESSARY
1. Educators concerned with liberation must swim against the tide and reject dehumanizing influences on their
students.
Wayne Cavalier, Congar Institute for Ministry Development, 2002, "The Three Voices of Freire: An Exploration of His
Thought over Time," Religious Education, Summer, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=107&sid=1c8ef24e-bfc2-4f95-8bb31c595c54b9ea%40replicon103
Recognizing that liberating educators are swimming against the stream of dominant ideology, Freire affirms that they
must therefore have certain virtues in order to accomplish their dream. His emphasis here goes hand-inhand with his
pronounced recognition of the limitations of liberating education, limitations which he points out are present due to the
very power of that education. Because of its power, the dominating forces attempt to limit the space in which liberating
education can be practiced. Under these circumstances, Freire talks about necessary and unnecessary fear. He
recognizes the need for fear, but calls the educator to test the limits of fear and to push to those limits the space
occupied by liberating education. The emphasis here is not so much on the limitations of the role of the teacher as
intervener, but on the recognition of the limitations that are going to be in place anyway, and a call to act responsibly in
the face of those limitations. This confirms Freire’s conviction that intervent on in the learners’ reality is necessary to
the role of the educator (1987, 177). Perhaps it is in his dialogue with Tennessee critical educator Myles Horton (1905–
1990) that Freire comes closest to identifying the best criterion for judging the ethical quality of intervention by the
liberating educator. In response to Horton’s question about what Freire considers to be legitimate authority, Freire
states the following: “ . . . this is the road in which we walk, something that comes from outside into autonomy,
something that comes from inside. That is the result” (1990, 187). Unfortunately, Freire does not pursue this thought
here. Still the criterion is clear: if the intervention of the educator does not lead to the autonomy of the learner, then it
is not liberating education.
2. We need to promote Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed to push back against poverty, powerlessness, illiteracy, and
racial and ethnic marginalization.
Ronald David Glass, Assistant Professor at Arizona State University West, College of Education, 2001, "On Paulo Freire’s
Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education," Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 2, March,
Accessed 9/20/09,
http://aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3002/AERA3002_Glass.pdf
A pedagogy of the oppressed is as needed today as when Freire first articulated it. Global economic forces and domestic
politics press U.S. public education toward ever more narrow and conservative agendas, thus reinscribing and justifying
poverty and powerlessness through their association with particular (il)literacies and failure on standardized tests
(Shannon, 1998). Low-income Americans face an increasing education gap as the testing stakes get raised and as public
school resources are more broadly privatized. Vouchers and school choice plans reinforce and extend educational,
economic, and social inequality (Carnoy, 2000). At the same time, voter initiative campaigns marginalize the voices of
non-English speakers in schools and reinvigorate an exclusionary linguistic colonialism (Macedo, 2000). All these effects,
coupled with the growing income gap between the rich and poor (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2000), promise
predictable negative consequences for historically disadvantaged population , and even more so when there is a
downturn in the overall economy. The dominant (neo)conservative discourse blames the victims of these policies for
their own suffering, suggesting that a moral poverty prefigures their social and economic predicaments (Bennett, 1996),
and the ideological attack on public schools and teachers threatens deeply grounded democratic possibilities in the
culture (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Meanwhile, the reformism of the (neo)liberals produces little change in either urban
schools or their larger context (Anyon, 1997), and thus little change in the daily lives of the poor who are concentrated
there. Most multicultural education approaches fail to address injustice and the challenges of transforming inequitable
power relations (McCarthy, 1990; Nieto, 2000), and even antiracist pedagogies can succumb to accommodation to the
status quo (Flecha, 1999). Without a clear focus on the politics of schooling and the need for community organizing to
build and sustain meaningful reform, little has been accomplished even in urban districts where people of color occupy
educational and civic leadership positions (Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux, 1999).
Con PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED IS GOOD FOR EDUCATION
1. We must reject every instance of hierarchical pedagogy whenever we have the opportunity.
Wayne Cavalier, Congar Institute for Ministry Development, 2002, "The Three Voices of Freire: An Exploration of His
Thought over Time," Religious Education, Summer, Accessed 9/20/09,
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=107&sid=1c8ef24e-bfc2-4f95-8bb31c595c54b9ea%40replicon103
It must be remembered that Freire is writing as an intellectual and as a member of the middle class, despite his
childhood experience of poverty. As such, he is convinced of the role that he and others like him can and must play in
the transformation of society. Therefore, the concept of intervention as a responsibility of educators is central to his
theory. Without this concept, his theory is groundless. As he points out in this regard: “The pedagogy of the oppressed,
which is the pedagogy of people engaged in the fight for their own liberation, has its roots here” (1970, 38; c.f. 1973,
16–20). Still, the requirement of consistency moves him to qualify this point. Since there is no room in his theory for
paternalism and since responsible participation is the goal of his practice, the educator must aim to include those who
gain consciousness of their subjectivity in the development of the educational process: “No pedagogy which is truly
liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their
emulation models from among the oppressors” (1970, 39).
2. Freedom is inherently possible in the human condition; dehumanization destroys freedom. Overcoming such limiting
forces begins in the educational context.
Ronald David Glass, Assistant Professor at Arizona State University West, College of Education, 2001, "On Paulo Freire’s
Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education," Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 2, March,
Accessed 9/20/09,
http://aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3002/AERA3002_Glass.pdf
Freire argued that the struggle to be free, to be human and make history and culture from the given situation, is an
inherent possibility in the human condition. The struggle is necessary because the situation contains not only this
possibility for humanization, but also for dehumanization. Dehumanization makes people objects of history and culture,
and denies their capacity to also be self-defining subjects creating history and culture. These dehumanizing forces reside
in both the material and psychic conditions of persons and situations, so freedom requires people to engage in a kind of
historico-cultural political psychoanalysis.
Freire argues that overcoming the limits of situations is ultimately an educational enterprise that he calls a practice of
freedom, a permanent form of cultural re-creation that enables the fullest possible expression of human existence.
3. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed Checks Political Extremism.
Ronald David Glass, Assistant Professor at Arizona State University West, College of Education, 2001, "On Paulo Freire’s
Philosophy of Praxis and the Foundations of Liberation Education," Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 2, March,
Accessed 9/20/09,
http://aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3002/AERA3002_Glass.pdf
Freire’s critical “pedagogy of possibility” offers theoretical and practical alternatives to both the (neo)conservative and
(neo)liberal discourses and practices (McLaren, 1999). At the classroom level, curricula aimed at empowering young
children and developing their capacities to resist interpersonal bias and promote equality have been finding wider
audiences (Derman-Sparks, 1989; Schniedewind & Davidson, 1998), and more teacher educators are encouraging critical
pedagogical practices among their students, generating even wider effects (Wink, 2000).1 The organic literacies of the
working class are being harnessed to contest the deforming messages of the dominant school culture (Cushman, 1998;
Finn, 1999), and workers are finding critical literacy skills useful in workplace struggles (Hull, 1997). Social movements
and activists have translated Freire’s ideas into organizing programs with broad applicability (Arnold, Burke, James,
Martin, & Thomas, 1991; Findlay, 1994).2 Although systemic school reform efforts based on Freire’s theory have been
limited largely to the Brazilian context (Freire, 1993; O’Cadiz, Wong, & Torres, 1998), at least one major project is
underway in the U.S.3 Beyond all this, Freire continues to be mustered to service in a wide range of theoretical battles,
from the politics of difference, to cultural studies, to feminism and race matters (Steiner, Krank, McLaren, & Bahruth,
2000).
Con RACISM MUST BE REJECTED
1. Solutions to racism must be collective.
Julie Quiroz-Martinez, co-principal of Mosaic Consulting, Oakland California, 2006, "Youth Organizing Tackles the
'Racism You Can't Name,'" Poverty & Race, November/December, Reposted at Poverty and Race Research Action
Council, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=1097&item_id=10190&newsletter_id=90&header=Symposium:%20Structu
ral%20Racism
Because racism affects people as a group and not just individually, anti-racist approaches must also operate at the
collective level. For example, Reggie Moore of Milwaukee’s Urban Underground describes how racism informs the way
young people in UU’s after-school leadership development program shape their community action projects: The
selection of civic participation projects is based on the personal connection or experience youth have with an issue
based on their race. We have focused on Black voter turn- out, police-involved shootings, police in schools, and teen
homeless, all looking through a racial lens. Invariably, this collective action involves a highly developed participatory
process of issue identification that acknowledges young people’s collective experience of racism. Our report found that
not only do groups develop campaigns with a racial justice lens, but perhaps most importantly, they do so through a
participatory process in which youth research, respond to and ultimately reframe issues that affect their lives.
2. Rejecting racism unconditionally is both ethically and pragmatically required.
Albert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris, 1997, Racism, p. 165.
Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of
others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed.
All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so
that they treat you with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both
that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again
someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal -- indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the
refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality.
3. We should struggle against racism even if we're not sure of the outcome.
Albert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris, 1997, Racism, p. 165.
Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If
this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we
can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
3. We must all challenge racism at every available opportunity: Each struggle is key
Joseph Barndt, minister, 1991, Dismantling Racism, p. 155.
To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and limitations, ghettos and prisons.
The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the
victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people seperate from each other in our seperate prisons. We
are all prevented from achieving human potential that God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by
poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhumane and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privelage,
and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have also seen that the
walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and
possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be
destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to dear down once and for all,
the walls of racism.
CON: WE MUST REJECT SEXISM
1. Dismantling patriarchy should be prioritized over conflicting political goals because no other social justice can be
achieved in a patriarchal framework.
Niraja Gopal Jayal, Professor of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2007, "Left Behind? Women, Politics,
and Development in India," Brown Journal of World Affairs, Spring/Summer, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=8&hid=2&sid=1bc30811-3e5c-4265-bca7a8fd863c826b%40sessionmgr4
We know that the political capacities of states depend, at least partially, on the support and cooperation of societal
forces. Scholarship on state-society relations in the field of industrial development, for instance, has shown that state
interventions are more likely to work when there is a synergy between political and economic power. The ineffectual
nature of some state interventions that we have surveyed here points to structural inequalities in society—supported by
the entrenchment and resilience of patriarchal ideology—which resist the project of gender equality.
2.Sexism is based on institutions and policies, not merely beliefs.
Sarah M. Stitzlein, Department of Education, University of New Hampshire, 2008, "Private Interests, Public Necessity:
Responding to Sexism in Christian Schools. Educational Studies, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=18&hid=2&sid=1bc30811-3e5c-4265-bca7a8fd863c826b%40sessionmgr4
Sexism is composed of beliefs and values that assert, either explicitly or implicitly, that one gender is inferior to another
by virtue of biology, social position, historical role, intelligence, or, in this case, religious doctrine. Typically, females are
viewed as inferior, resulting in dehumanization and domination of the members of this group, as well as the group as a
whole. This ethos is expressed formally through institutional bodies and their codes, or informally through tradition and
patriarchal relations. More than simply the beliefs of individuals, sexism is a systemic system of oppression based on
social and political privilege.
3. Governments have a positive obligation to prevent sexism.
Sarah M. Stitzlein, Department of Education, University of New Hampshire, 2008, "Private Interests, Public Necessity:
Responding to Sexism in Christian Schools. Educational Studies, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=18&hid=2&sid=1bc30811-3e5c-4265-bca7a8fd863c826b%40sessionmgr4
In the following, I contend that the state should, at minimum, prohibit sexist teachings in all schools and should,
desirably, encourage (but not require) religious schools to take a stand against sexism. Sexism should be prohibited
because it results in the dissatisfaction or violation of girls’ temporal interests. These include secular pursuits, career
aspirations, worldly desires, freedom from coercion, health, intellectual liberty, and the like. Often these are closely
related to a girl’s self-esteem, happiness, social respect, autonomy, and sense of well-being. Because the state may not
dictate the religious interests of a child, the state is concerned with these secular interests, interests that often overlap
with constitutional protections.
4. We all have a responsibility to fight to overcome patriarchy.
Niraja Gopal Jayal, Professor of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2007, "Left Behind? Women, Politics,
and Development in India," Brown Journal of World Affairs, Spring/Summer, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=8&hid=2&sid=1bc30811-3e5c-4265-bca7a8fd863c826b%40sessionmgr4
It is clear that neither legal nor institutional reform by itself can accomplish greater gender justice or equality. The
undermining of patriarchal values would appear to be a necessary condition for this, which is a project that can only
emanate from society rather than the state. This is a task for the women's movement—to unify women's interests qua
women, rather than as members of this or that identity-group.
TESTING IS UNFAIR
1. Testing hurts students who are struggling with poverty or other life issues, as well as students with alternative styles
of learning.
Grace Chen, editorial staff, 2008, "The Pros and Cons of Public School Exit Exams," Public School Review, October 21,
Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/53
As Pytel asserts, the standardized tests often punish students who are dealing with personal and/or cognitive struggles,
as they are designed to only assess students of “average” academic ability; however, regardless of one’s circumstance
or natural ability, all students are required to take state-mandated tests. Adding to this, Terri Sessoms, from the
International Center for Leadership in Education, argues that students all have unique learning styles; as a result,
“Teachers take these learning styles into account when teaching new concepts. Students may watch a presentation
(visual), take notes as teacher instructs (auditory) and complete a project based on the same information (kinesthetic).”
2. Testing favors left-brained students.
Grace Chen, editorial staff, 2008, "The Pros and Cons of Public School Exit Exams," Public School Review, October 21,
Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/53
Despite these learning differences, however, “The standardized exit exams that many states are adopting favor the leftbrained students. These students tend to learn by lecture, memorize easier, and don’t become confused with the
answer choices. Right-brained students don't do as well on these tests in spite of knowing the topic. They see every
answer as a possibility under the right conditions. In spite of knowing the information, they are likely to select an
incorrect answer.” Ultimately, the testing policies were initiated in order to ensure that schools and students were
performing successfully. Ideally, these tests are supposed to help school and state leaders figure out new ways to
provide students with more beneficial lessons and learning opportunities. Despite these goals, however, as Pytel argues,
“While demanding exit exams may sound good initially, these exams do not truly reflect the knowledge students hold.
The exams don’t prepare the students for the real world where they are allowed to use manuals (and) ask questions.”
3. ESL and Learning-disabled students will get lower scores; accommodations will only worsen the problem, producing
unrealistically high scores.
West Ed Policy Brief, 2003, "Making Sure Exit Exams Get a Passing Grade," May, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/PO-03-01.pdf
Other concerns focus on English language learners and students with disabilities (including special education students),
traditionally allowed exemption from high-stakes assessments. Some states allow accommodations in the
administration of exit exams6 or offer alternative assessments to ensure that these groups can participate in a
meaningful way. Research shows that accommodations can produce unrealistically high scores for some special needs
students, raising questions of fairness and validity.7 However, states that choose not to allow accommodations,
alternative assessments, or exemptions risk making the test unfair to these students, many of whom would otherwise
have earned a diploma.
TESTING DOESN'T INCREASE COLLEGIATE OR EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK
1. Graduation tests do not increase work or college skills.
FAIRTEST.ORG, 2008, "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas, May 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08
Graduation tests do not promote the knowledge, skills and habits needed for success in college or skilled work.
According to college professors and employers, high school graduates must be able to analyze conflicting explanations,
support arguments with evidence, solve complex problems that have no obvious answer, reach conclusions, conduct
research, and engage in the give-and-take of ideas (National Research Council, 2002). Also needed are attributes such as
good study skills, time management, awareness of one’s performance and persistence. Since exit exams do not measure
most of these important attributes, test scores have little value for colleges or employers. (Peter D. Hart, 2008).
2. Exit exams do not increase students' value in the labor market.
FAIRTEST.ORG, 2008, "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas, May 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08
Graduation tests do not make high school diplomas more valuable to employers. There is no evidence that exit exams
make diplomas more meaningful in the labor market. In fact, recent research found no positive impact on employment
status or wages in states with high school exit exams. There was also no impact on numbers of high school graduates
going to college (Warren et al., 2007). Most state standards-based high school tests are not aligned with college-level
work or employment. Most tests just try to measure basic academic skills. They rely primarily on multiple-choice
questions, some adding a few short written pieces. They rarely require students to apply their learning or engage in
higher-level thinking. According to Stanford Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, “Most jobs in today's knowledge-based
economy require that we find, assemble and analyze information, write and speak clearly and persuasively; and work
with others to solve messy problems,” none of which are measured by multiple choice exams (Darling-Hammond, 2005).
College requires similar skills.
3. Test preparation trades off with the development of college skills.
FAIRTEST.ORG, 2008, "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas, May 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08
Test preparation overshadows the development of college-level skills. A focus on learning out-of-context facts to pass
exit exams detracts from preparing students for the work required in college. A survey of professors and employers by
Achieve (2005), which promotes standards and tests, found many high school graduates are weak in comprehending
complex reading, oral communication, understanding complicated materials, doing research, and producing quality
writing.
4. Exit exams don't solve college-level remediality.
FAIRTEST.ORG, 2008, "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas, May 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08
The widespread adoption of exit exams has not resulted in more high school graduates prepared for college. Exit exam
policies now influence the education of 65% of U.S. public high school students, yet colleges report increasing need for
remedial education. Federal statistics indicate that 40% of college students take at least one remedial course, reducing
their probability of graduating (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). Texas colleges reported in-state high
school graduates needed more, not less, remediation after high-stakes testing was introduced (Haney, 2000).
TESTING DEHUMANIZES STUDENTS
1. Testing destroys focus on individual talent, undermines diversity, kills the imagination and undermines student selfconfidence.
Andy Henion, University staffwriter, 2009, "Standardized testing hurting U.S. education, new book contends," Michigan
State University News, September 1, Accessed 9/20/09, http://news.msu.edu/story/6755/
America’s increasing reliance on standardized testing as a yardstick for educational success is a flawed policy that
threatens to undermine the nation’s strengths of creativity and innovation, according to a provocative new book from a
Michigan State University scholar. By grading student success on government-set standards in a limited number of
subjects such as math, reading and science, Yong Zhao argues the United States is eager to “throw away” one of its
global advantages – an education that respects individual talents and does not dictate what students learn or how
teachers teach. Zhao’s book, due out in late September and published by ASCD, is called “Catching Up or Leading the
Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization.” He acknowledges his thesis is “diametrically opposed to the more
popular view of what American education should be like in the 21st century.” “Right now we seem to be stuck with the
idea of standards as the panacea to fix all of America’s education problems,” said Zhao, University Distinguished
Professor of education. “I don’t deny that the U.S. education system has problems, but I don’t feel the problems can be
solved by standards and high-stakes testing. Rather, standards and high-stakes testing run the risk of ruining the
advantages and great tradition of the system.” Ironically, Zhao set out to write a book about the “repeated failures” of
testing and standardization in his native China. But while Chinese officials are trying to “undo the damages” of that
system, the Obama administration seems inclined to continue the limited standards-focused policy established by
George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, Zhao said. “I realized that what China wants is what America is eager to
throw away,” Zhao writes in the book’s preface. Zhao has secured millions of dollars in grant funding from U.S. and
Chinese organizations to study and implement educational technology and reform. He travels frequently around the
United States to speak to educational groups about the need for diverse, globally focused education. But while most
educators agree with him about the need for change, Zhao said they often complain they’re stuck “teaching to the test”
to meet state-mandated requirements in select subjects. Zhao has seen the effects of national standards first-hand. Five
years ago he pulled his son out of the 10th grade at a mid-Michigan public school and sent him to a New Jersey boarding
school after the youngster failed to post a top writing score on a standardized test and dwelled over how to do better.
“My heart sank as he was explaining to me how he would improve,” Zhao writes of his son, who graduated from the
boarding school and is now attending the University of Chicago. “The essence of his strategy was to stop being creative
and imaginative.” Zhao believes the federal government should stop endorsing standardized testing and instead reward
schools for offering a diverse set of opportunities – from art to auto shop. He said accountability should be “inputbased” rather than “output-based,” with schools being graded on whether they provide safe and clean facilities and a
learning environment that provides global learning opportunities. “I would measure what the schools offer rather than
what the schools produce in terms of students, because students’ learning outcomes are affected by so many factors,”
he said. “Most importantly, we need to instill confidence – restore confidence – in our teachers and in our schools,
because right now the accountability rhetoric in essence is telling us we don’t trust our educators – that they are not
good enough, they are lazy, and that’s not the case.”
2. High-stakes testing limits curricula, destroys creativity and the joy of learning, and increases illness in children.
Julie Blair and Jeff Archer, staffwriters, 2001, "NEA Members Denounce High-Stakes Testing," Education Week, July 11,
Accessed 9/20/09,
http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/07/11/42neatest_web.h20.html
&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/07/11/42neatest_web.h20.html&levelId=2100
Members of the nation’s largest teachers’ union raised their voices in opposition to high-stakes standardized tests not
once, not twice, but at least five times during their annual four-day meeting here last week, ultimately strengthening
the National Education Association’s policy against such endeavors. Educators passionately denounced such exams
during the July 4-7 forum, stating that high-stakes standardized tests limit curricula and snuff out both creative teaching
and the joy of learning. Teachers from around the nation shared stories of children becoming so stressed that they
became physically ill on test days or emotionally inaccessible for weeks after taking them.
TESTING IS RACIALLY BIASED
1. California proves that exit examinations exacerbate structural racism.
Julie Quiroz-Martinez, co-principal of Mosaic Consulting, Oakland California, 2006, "Youth Organizing Tackles the
'Racism You Can't Name,'" Poverty & Race, November/December, Reposted at Poverty and Race Research Action
Council, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=1097&item_id=10190&newsletter_id=90&header=Symposium:%20Structu
ral%20Racism
The California High School Exit Exam provides a graphic illustration of structural racism and a compelling story of youth
organizing to challenge it. California legislators passed the exit exam into law in 1999 with the stated goal of improving
academic performance in public schools. This year, the exit exam’s real teeth were finally bared. Beginning in 2006,
California schools are required to deny diplomas to high school seniors who don’t pass the exam. Not surprisingly, most
students who fail are black and brown youth concentrated in the worst public schools. In fact, in what as known as the
Williams lawsuit settlement (Williams v. State of California), the State of California acknowledged that these schools lack
the books, qualified teachers and basic health and safety standards needed for a good education.
2. Differences in test scores prove the exit examinations favor white students in wealthier districts.
Gary Delgado, scholar-in-residence at the Institute for Social Change at UC Berkeley and executive director of the
Applied Research Center in Oakland, 1999, "High School Exit Exams Are Racist," Los Angeles Times, March 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/02/local/me-13110
Forget context. Forget the fact that 40 other states spend more per student than California. Ignore the reality that 20%
of California students have a first language other than English, and that, in a nativist fit, we have all but outlawed
bilingual education. Never mind that the schools, reflecting patterns of housing segregation, continue to be racially
segregated, and that the least experienced teachers end up teaching the most disadvantaged students. And disregard
the effects of the already questionable practice of "ability group" tracking, again based on tests, which tends to exclude
black and Latino students from the intellectually challenging, college-bound classes. Given these inequities, the last
thing we need is a test that only will prove the obvious: Most students of color get an education that doesn't measure
up to that received by most white students. Exit exams take the irrational logic of personal responsibility and apply it to
schools. Students can work hard, receive passing grades, meet their graduation requirements--and still be denied their
diploma.
3. Florida, Texas and California prove racial bias exists in exit examinations.
Gary Delgado, scholar-in-residence at the Institute for Social Change at UC Berkeley and executive director of the
Applied Research Center in Oakland, 1999, "High School Exit Exams Are Racist," Los Angeles Times, March 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/02/local/me-13110
It's not as if we can't predict the effect these exams will have on students. Florida and Texas have already been sued for
the racial bias of their exit exam system, and racial impact isn't the only issue. In Texas, for example, where 85% of
students who fail to pass the final administration of the test are Mexican American and African American, teachers are
now "teaching to the test" instead of fostering critical thinking skills or helping students to gain substantive knowledge.
While politicians in Texas and Florida may claim that they were unaware of the potential negative racial impact of exit
exams, California lawmakers have no excuse. We have the data and we know the potential negative consequences of
the exit exam proposal. At this stage, advocating a policy that has been shown to enhance patterns of institutional
racism is, in itself, a racist act.
EXIT EXAMS DON'T INCREASE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OR INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
1. Districts and policymakers will respond to the failure rate by lowering the bar.
West Ed Policy Brief, 2003, "Making Sure Exit Exams Get a Passing Grade," May, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/PO-03-01.pdf
Often, however, exit exams are implemented without adequate commitment to ensuring student success or sufficient
attention to the costs of student failure. In such cases, one unplanned outcome may be high failure rates, especially for
poor and minority students. Another risk is increased dropout rates, fueled by the frustration of students who have
failed or who simply expect to fail. Due to these risks, some states have postponed this graduation requirement to give
students and teachers more time to prepare. Other states issue alternative diplomas to allow graduation when students
have met all requirements other than passing the exit exam.
2. The cry of "accountability" doesn't solve the problem of testing being deeply flawed.
Grace Chen, editorial staff, 2008, "The Pros and Cons of Public School Exit Exams," Public School Review, October 21,
Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/53
With the rising trend of graduation and EOC exit exams, the Center of Education Policy predicts: “more students will be
required to take more difficult end-of-course exams in order to graduate, signaling that state leaders are not entirely
satisfied with exit exams, which are minimum competency tests.” While these exit exams were instated to ensure
student accountability, many educators and school leaders are concerned about the potentially harmful impacts of such
tests.
3. Talk of "accountability" ignores poverty and urban decay.
Grace Chen, editorial staff, 2008, "The Pros and Cons of Public School Exit Exams," Public School Review, October 21,
Accessed 9/19/09, http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/53
Specifically, Barbara Pytel explains that students with specific learning disabilities or academic struggles are often
overlooked when it comes to standardized testing: “Taking a tough stand while pounding on a podium in the presence
of other legislators does not make learning disabilities and learning styles disappear. Mandating accountability does not
find homeless children a home, does not make drive by shootings disappear, does not make dads appear in a single
parent home and it doesn’t improve language skills for ESL students (English as a Second Language).”
3. Raising standards achieves nothing; systemic inequalities are still in place.
FAIRTEST.ORG, 2008, "Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas, May 2, Accessed
9/19/09, http://www.fairtest.org/gradtestfactmay08
High school graduates would not be better prepared if schools were to “raise standards” by making exams harder.
Tougher multiple-choice questions won't address the real gap between tests and college or employment requirements.
Such strategies also ignore research on human motivation, assuming that simply “raising standards” and threatening
punishment (withholding diplomas) will make students and teachers work harder. Most modern businesses no longer
try to boost productivity by threatening employees with punishment (Oakes and Grubb, 2007).
STEREOTYPE EFFECT HURTS WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN TESTING
1. Stereotypes, bias and anxiety mean tests hurt females and non-white students.
Mitchell Landsberg, staffwriter, 2009, "High school exit exam hinders female and non-white students, study says," Los
Angeles Times, April 22, Accessed 9/19/09, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/22/local/me-exit-exam22
California's high school exit exam is keeping disproportionate numbers of girls and non-whites from graduating, even
when they are just as capable as white boys, according to a study released Tuesday. It also found that the exam, which
became a graduation requirement in 2007, has "had no positive effect on student achievement." The study by
researchers at Stanford University and UC Davis concluded that girls and non-whites were probably failing the exit exam
more often than expected because of what is known as "stereotype threat," a theory in social psychology that holds,
essentially, that negative stereotypes can be self-fulfilling. In this case, researcher Sean Reardon said, girls and students
of color may be tripped up by the expectation that they cannot do as well as white boys. Reardon said there was no
other apparent reason why girls and non-whites fail the exam more often than white boys, who are their equals in
other, lower-stress academic assessments. Reardon, an associate professor of education at Stanford, urged the state
Department of Education to consider either scrapping the exit exam -- one of the reforms for which state Supt. of Public
Instruction Jack O'Connell has fought the hardest -- or looking at ways of intervening to help students perform
optimally.
2. Indiana and other states prove disproportionate failure rate by minorities.
West Ed Policy Brief, 2003, "Making Sure Exit Exams Get a Passing Grade," May, Accessed 9/19/09,
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/PO-03-01.pdf
Graduation and other high-stakes tests can focus attention on how a system is failing to serve all students. However,
critics say that a high-stakes exit exam places the onus, wrongly, on students, whose schools may not have offered them
sufficient opportunities to learn what is needed to pass the exam. The worry is that poor and minority students will be
disproportionately denied regular high school diplomas,4 a concern that has been born out in some states. In Indiana,
65 percent of all students passed the mathematics portion of the exam, but only 31 percent of African Americans and 46
percent of Latino students passed.
3. Studies confirm the stereotyping effect.
Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson, psychologists, 1995, "Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Accessed 9/22/09,
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/69/5/
Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1
and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not
their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial
stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in
relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude
Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these
participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the
stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic.
4. Stereotype threat is especially harmful because it's not due to any failing on the part of the victim.
Carrie Conaway, psychologist, 2002, "A Psychological Effect of Stereotypes, Regional Review, Accessed 9/21/09,
<http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2005/q1/section3c.pdf>
But according to social psychologists, it is those most invested in their achievement who are most likely to fall prey to a
kind of unconscious behavior known as stereotype threat. This threat is pernicious because it is not due to active
discrimination by employers, teachers, or other external evaluators; rather, it comes from within. It emerges in
situations where people worry that their poor performance on some measure might be attributed not to their individual
ability, but to a negative stereotype about a group they belong to—women, African-Americans, athletes, liberals, any
group at all. Members of these stereotyped groups worry that their individual results will serve as a referendum on the
abilities of everyone in their group, and the stress and self-doubt this brings on demonstrably reduces their
performance—creating the very outcome they were striving to avoid. For example, knowing that women are perceived
as indecisive, a successful woman leader may still act indecisively, not because she actually is incapable of making a
decision, but because the fear that others will perceive her that way slows down her decision-making process.