Can You Hear Us? Voices Raised against Standardized Testing by Novice Teachers

Sumita Bhattacharyya, Mary Junot, Hillary Clark

Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.410091                

Abstract

The most common criticism of standardized testing is that teachers find themselves “teaching to the test” instead of teaching the various content and skill areas of the curriculum. In recent years, standardized tests have become the predominant tool used to determine a student’s progress, to promote or retain a student at the current grade level, and to identify if a learning disability exists. The main problem with standardized tests is that they inhibit the kind of education that matters the most, preparing young people with “higher order thinking skills” to compete in a global economy. Does “teaching to the test”, an integral part of standardized tests, really increase student capabilities and knowledge, or does it simply put more pressure on teachers and students? Teachers want their students to excel on their standardized tests for both their benefit, as well as the benefit of their students. High scores become even more important because the school district uses individual school test scores to evaluate each school. In many cases, school ratings are now linked to funding and teacher evaluation. Novice teachers are the next generation of educators who will be teaching school children. These enthusiastic, optimistic young professionals have a unique perspective that has not been tainted by the educational bureaucracy. In this paper some novice teachers who were presently teaching voiced their concerns and opinions against standardized tests.

Keywords

Standardized Testing; Must Cover Curriculum; Teaching to the Test; New Teachers’ Vulnerability

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa
[2]	Boser, U. (2000). Teaching to the test? Education Week, 19, 1-10.
[3]	Brumback, K. (2013). Former superintendent indicted in Atlanta school cheating scandal. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17520628-former-superintendent-indicted-in-atlanta-school-cheating-scandal?lite
[4]	Center for Teaching Quality (2007). Performance pay for teachers: Designing a system that students deserve. Hillsborough, NC: Author.
[5]	Clark, S. K. (2012). The plight of the novice teacher. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 85, 197-200.
[6]	Darvin, J. (2012). Novice teachers need real professional development. Principal, 91, 28-31.
[7]	Ezer, H., Gilat, I., & Sagee, R. (2010). Perception of teacher education and professional identify among novice teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 391-404.
[8]	Gayathri, A. (2012). US 17th in global education ranking: Finland, South Korea claim top spots. International Business Times. http://www.ibtimes.com/us-17th-global-education-ranking-finland-south-korea-claim-top-spots-901538
[9]	Haney, W., Madaus, G., & Lyons, R. (1993). The fractured marketplace for standardized testing. Boston, MA: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2196-5
[10]	Herman, L. J., & Golan, S. (1993). The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educational Measurement, Issue and Practice, 12, 20-25.
[11]	Hedges, L., & Nowell, A. (1998). Black-white test score convergence since 1965. In C. Jencks, & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (149-181). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
[12]	Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promoting, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[13]	Hom, C. (2003). High stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure? Theory into Practice, 42, 30-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4201_5
[14]	Huffington Post (2012). California education rankings: 23 schools stripped of API ratings for cheating. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/california-education-rank_n_2040412.html
[15]	Johnson, L. (2011). True teacher accountability. Education Week, 30, 28-32.
[16]	Keogh, J., Garvis, S., Pendergast, D., & Diamond, P. (2012). Selfdetermination: Using agency, efficacy and resilience (AER) to counter novice teachers’ experiences of intensification. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 46-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n8.3
[17]	Kohn, A. (2004). Test today, privatize tomorrow using accountability to reform public schools to death. Phi Delta Kappa, 85, 568-577.
[18]	Kulm, G., & Stuessy, C. (1992). Assessment in science and mathematics reform. In G. Kulm, & S. Malcom (Eds.), Science assessment in the service of reform (pp. 71-88). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[19]	Kumeh, T. (2011). Education: Standardized tests, explained. http://standardizedtests.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001747
[20]	Linn, R., & Herman, J. (1997). Standards-led assessment: Technical and policy issues in measuring school and student progress (CSE technical report 426). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
[21]	Madaus, G., & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on minority students: Evidence from one hundred years of test data. In G. Orfield, & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: The Century Foundation Press.
[22]	Morales, M. (2012). Sunset Park public school under investigation: Teachers give kids answers on state exams hoping to get perks. New York Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/sunset-park-public-school-investigation-teachers-give-kids-answers-state-exams-hoping-perks-article-1.1086341
[23]	National Center for Education Statistics (2008). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress in reading and mathematics 2008. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2008/2009479.asp
[24]	Neil, M. (2003). High stakes, high risk: The dangerous consequences of high-stakes testing. American School Board Journal, 190, 18-21.
[25]	Poham, W. J. (2001). Educational assessment: High quality testing for a high stakes world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[26]	Rebora, A. (2012). Teachers place little value on standardized testing. Education Week, 31, 14.
[27]	Sambar, C. (2001). Pros and cons of standardized tests. http://www.sambar.com/chuck/pros.htm
[28]	Schrag, P., (2000). High stakes are for tomatoes. The Atlantic Monthly, 286, 19-21.
[29]	Shepard. L. A. (1991). Will National Tests Improve Student Learning? Phi Delta Kappan. 233-234.
[30]	Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
[31]	Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20, 8-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020005008
[32]	Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000).Validity and accountability of highstakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 334-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051005002
[33]	Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347
[34]	Strauss, V. (2006). The rise of the testing culture. The Washington Post, A09.
[35]	The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (2007). The limits of standardized tests for diagnosing and assisting student learning. http://www.fairtest.org/search/node/The+Limits+of+Standardized+Tests+for++and+Assisting+ Student+Learning
[36]	Toppo, G. (2013). Frontline: D.C. schools downplayed cheating allegations. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/07/frontline-dc-schools-cheating/1814139/
[37]	Wallace, M. W., & Irons, E. J. (2010). The lived experience of public school teachers: Novice to expert. National Social Science Journal, 33, 166-172.
[38]	Wolf, D. P., LeMahiue, G. P., & Eresh, J. (1992). Good measure: Assessment as a tool for educational reform. Educational Leadership, 49, 8-13.