Standardized+Testing

=Standardized testing: What is the debate about?= Take a few minutes to view the following two videos that provide some insight into current debates about standardized testing. Then, continue to read on to explore some of the research and theory behind this debate.
 * Home || Introduction || Purpose of Assessment || Canadian Context || Standardized Testing || Assessment For Learning || Additional Resources || Discussion Question ||

media type="youtube" key="tSIgmSKH8vc" height="312" width="511" align="center"

media type="youtube" key="52oAF3s-zHw" height="312" width="512" align="center"

=**Article 1**= = ** High Stakes Testing and Curriculum Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis ** = The following comments are summarized thoughts regarding standardized testing and accountability take from the following article:

Au, W. (2009). High stakes testing and curriculum control: A quantitative metasynthesis. In D.J. Flinders & S. J Thornton (Eds.), //The curriculum studies reader// (3rd ed. pp. 286-302). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

The purpose of this research paper was to find out what the effect of high stakes testing is on curriculum. Wayne examined 49 qualitative research studies that were: - based on original, scholarly research - taking place in the United States - specifically addressing the relationship between high stakes tests and curriculum or instruction - included 15 elementary, 23 secondary, 11 Kindergarten- grade 12 Participants included: 845 educators (teachers/administrators), 96 schools, 38 districts in 19 different states There was a significant relationship between high-stakes testing and
 * What is “High stakes” testing?**
 * Tests that are a part of policy design that links the score on one set of standardized tests to grade promotion, high school graduation, and in some cases, teacher and principle salaries and tenure decisions
 * Also considered “high stakes” if ranking and categorization of schools, teachers and children are reported to the public.
 * Purpose **
 * Participants of Study **
 * Findings **
 * 1) changes in curriculum
 * 2) structure of knowledge contained within content
 * 3) type of pedagogy associated with communication of that content

These changes represent 3 types of control that high-stakes tests exert on curriculum: Over 80% of studies had curriculum content affected. The vast majority (69.4%) had curriculum narrow. i.e. “Teaching to the test” In 69.4% of the studies there was a strong relationship between high-stakes testing and teachers’ increasing the fragmentation of knowledge. i.e. Teaching in direct relation to the tests A significant number of participants (77.6%) reported their pedagogy changed in response to high-stakes tests. The majority (65.3%) increased the amount of teacher-centred instruction associated with lecturing.
 * 1. Content Control**
 * 2. Formal Control**
 * 3. Pedagogic Control**

The tests have the predominant effect of:
 * Conclusion **
 * **Narrowing curricular content**
 * **Increased fragmentation of knowledge forms into bits and pieces learned for the sake of the tests themselves**
 * **Compelling teachers to use more lecture-based, teacher-centred pedagogies**

=**Article 2**= ** What Does it Mean to Say a School is Doing Well? **

The following comments are summarized thoughts regarding standardized testing and accountability take from the following article: Eisner, E. (2009) What does it mean to say a school is doing well?. In Flinders & S.J. Thornton (Eds.), //The curriculum studies reader// (3rd ed. Pp 327-335). New York: RoutledgeFalmer

“The formulation of standards and the measurement of performance were intended to tidy up a messy system and to make teachers and school administrators truly accountable”


 * Aim:** To systematize and standardize so the public will know which schools are performing well and which are not.

The use of highly rationalized procedures for improving schools was part of this solution. 1. Depends on a clear specification of learning outcomes “If you don’t know where you’re headed, you will not know where you have arrived” (p.328)
 * 6 Features of Rationalization:**
 * Rubrics exemplify outcomes of educational practice
 * Standards are statements of our values

2. Measurement of the product or performance is assessed and represented.
 * Quantification is a way to increase objectivity
 * As standards have become increasingly general and ideological, measurability has become more difficult

3. Practice is predicted on the ability to control interventions and predict specific effects.
 * This is questionable

4. Rationalization downplays interactions between conditions of classrooms, personal qualities, expectations, orientations, ideas and temperaments of teachers and students

5. Rationalization promotes comparison
 * Comparison requires commensurability between curricula, cultural difference, instructional time, and teaching approaches

6. Rationalization relies on extrinsic incentives to motivate action.
 * i.e. bonuses

No room for surprise, imagination, improvisation or cultivation of productive idiosyncrasy.
 * Result of this type of reform:**


 * Consequences of this approach:**
 * curriculum gets narrowed
 * tests define our priorities
 * introduction of “core subjects” that marginalize other subjects (i.e. art)

” The function of schooling is not to enable students to do better in school. The function of schooling is to enable students to do better in life.” (p. 329)
 * “In our desire to improve our schools, education has become a causality.” (p. 330)**
 * “The message we send to students is that what really matters in education is their test scores.” (p. 329)**


 * It also changes the school climate by promoting a narrow means/ends orientation.**

However, there is not yet any efficient alternative to the testing procedures we now use.

=**Article 3**= = “Outside the core: Accountability in tested and untested subjects ”= The following comments are summarized thoughts regarding standardized testing and accountability take from the following article: Siskan, L. **Outside the core: Accountability in tested and untested subjects**. In D.J> Flinders & S. J Thornton (Eds.), //The curriculum studies reader// (3rd ed. Pp. 318 -326). New York: Routledge Falmer. =Accountability:=

· Assessment and standardized testing came about in the later 1900’s in America due to accountability policies; to ensure that schools were focused on achieving certain standards within their various States.

· Different subjects are chosen to be tested that are worth more or less weight in performance standards.

· Unfortunately because certain subjects are worth “less” weight or are not tested at all causes concern that many subjects and jobs are threatened as the emphasis is being placed on the success of the standards tests in subjects that are deemed “real” or more “academic”.

· Because some subjects such as second languages, art, drama, and music are single-subject departments, the teacher is often lumped together with a larger department where the subject matter have little in common. Often, these departments have a chairperson that knows limited knowledge about the subjects they oversee.

· Often the political and financial resources are minimal to support these single-department-type subjects and in turn the weight and relevance of the subject becomes questioned. Although some subjects may have high status like a music program, they are not seen on the list of subjects of what every high school student should know (Siskin p. 318-319). Whereas other subjects already hold a favorable position in the framework in order to more easily analyze school-level responses to accountability.

· The non-standards tested subjects such as Music which has long since held a cross-institutional connection, invokes national standards through state and city-wide competitions for example and is valued as a life-skill, is threatened in its departmental status within its own school system because it is not tested with the same emphasis and weight than say, Math and Science.

1. What should every student be required to know in the various subjects that they are taught?
 * Which leave us with four thoughts to consider **:

2. To Test or Not to Test? When confronting high-stakes accountability at the high school level, will there ever be an agreement on what all high school students should “know” in order to earn a diploma?

3. Do accountability policies weaken the disciplines that they were intended to perpetuate because of the need to teach towards “the test” instead of teaching in order to gain skill and better knowledge in particular areas?

4. Does standardized testing and accountability policies have a profound effect on Curriculum planners?