"Our children are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in our history and unparalleled anywhere else in the world... The result is that most of today's discourse about education has been reduced to a crude series of monosyllables: 'Test scores are too low. Make them go up.'"
- Alfie Kohn, The Case Against Standardized Testing [1]
Popular discourse surrounding education reform frequently (mis)equates "standards" with "standards-based instruction." Under the guise that school improvement will come about through the implementation of a rigorous curriculum, many supporters of "high standards" rely on standardized testing as the silver bullet with which to close the achievement gap. This "leave no child behind" lingo would seem to cater to notions of fairness and equity, arguing that all students should have access to high-quality instruction. Yet in practice, it often leaves many children behind and falls short of the kind of true reform that's part of the kind of "standards-based instruction" promoted by the Investigations curriculum.
The history of standardized testing in the United States is an important aspect of this debate, as it points to the original intentions of testing children and helps explain some of the current racial, gender, and class disparities in test scores. The first standardized tests given in the United States came about during the early part of the twentieth century. Lewis Terman, an educator at Stanford University and the principle designer of the Stanford-Binet intelligence test, advocated for the use of IQ testing as a way to track students. [2] By the mid-1920s he had convinced many school districts to use high-stakes tests to sort out the "inferior" students for special education and to identify "superior" individuals for "gifted" programs. Underlying the tests was a belief Terman held that people from certain racial backgrounds, namely Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and African Americans, were intellectually inferior due to their genetic code. Many of these ideas were revisited more than 70 years later with the publication of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's book The Bell Curve.
The original purpose for administering standardized tests -- to sort students according to perceived ability level -- still happens today. Students are tested and then placed into different "tracks," or held back a grade, or put into an accelerated program, or kept from graduating, and so on. Many of these "high-stakes" uses for testing have substantial consequences for the elementary classroom, such as:
- less time is spent on the curriculum and more time spent teaching to the test
- monetary rewards/penalties given to teachers and schools based on test results
- more time is devoted to computation instead of problem solving skills
- students are taught only the math content that is on the test(s)
- students are discouraged from inventing their own strategies and are only taught the standard algorithm, since invented strategies may not be as "efficient" (this is of particular concern for timed tests)
- money is directed to testing efforts instead of good curriculum materials
- government threatens to shut down schools that don't perform well on the state exam
- students of color and low-income students disproportionately fail many state tests, and therefore are not allowed to graduate or are retained
The impact of high-stakes testing on lower-income communities and students of color is particularly devastating. On exams such as Massachusetts' MCAS, Florida's FCAT, and Texas' TAAS (all of which have graduation requirements in place), students of color and low-income individuals have failed the tests at high rates and will consequently lose out on earning a high school diploma. Even if a student is "just" retained for not passing the exam, the results can be serious -- a strong correlation exists between being retained for one or more years and later dropping out of school. Such practices exacerbate existing educational inequities, and fail to substantively improve teaching and learning.
Data from Texas illustrates this point. Texas' accountability exam TAAS (now termed TAKS) has been a requirement for graduation since 1992-93. In 1998, 70% of all students passed the grade 10 TAAS exam. When that number is broken down by racial groups, we see that 85% of White students, but only 55% of Blacks and 59% of Latinos passed the exam. The dropout rate for Black and Latino students also increased significantly since the implementation of the graduation requirement for TAAS.[3] Just 50% of minority students and 70% of Whites in Texas have been progressing from grade 9 to high school graduation since the initiation of the TAAS testing program. In other words, the use of this high-stakes test has created deep educational divides between students who receive a high school diploma and those who don't.
Despite the serious equity issues present with many state and national assessments, students will continue to be required to take the tests and teachers will be required to administer them. This reality means that teachers using Investigations, or any standards-based mathematics curriculum, must grapple with balancing implementation of the curriculum and preparing students for standardized tests.
The good news is research has demonstrated that the best way to help students prepare for standardized tests is to fully implement a reform math curriculum. A comprehensive study of students in Chicago Public Schools conducted by the Consortium on Chicago School Research supports this claim.[4] The scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (a timed, multiple-choice exam of basic skills) of 110,000 students in grades 2-8 were compared from 1996 to 1997. In schools where teachers used interactive instruction* frequently, students learned 5.1% more than the city average in mathematics. However, in schools where interactive methods were used less frequently, students learned 4.5% less in mathematics. Although the one-year advantage may seem small, the effect can accumulate -- over the eight elementary school grades the effect in mathematics amounts to more than half of an additional year of learning.
The findings from the Chicago research are particularly important for teachers using a reform mathematics curriculum. All too often educators get the message that they must put aside the "regular" curriculum and teach to the test in order to maximize student scores. Yet the Chicago research shows the positive value in continuing to use an inquiry-based curriculum -- even on standardized tests of basic skills.
A second piece of this assessment puzzle is a recognition that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to test preparation -- some students need more support while others don't need as much. Different students also need support in different areas and with various types of questions. In much the same way a teacher has to individualize classroom instruction based on varying student needs, it may also be useful to consider individualizing ways to help students prepare for standardized tests. Several questions can help guide this process:
- What are the ways the curriculum already helps students solve this problem? What are some of the gaps you may need to fill in?
- Is the format of the math problem similar to or different from what students are used to seeing? If it's different, then what are some of the things you can do in your classroom to familiarize students with the format?
- Is there any math vocabulary that some or all students won't be familiar with?
- Are there any cultural assumptions/biases built into a particular mathematics problem? How can you help your students deal with contexts that may be new to them?
- What role do speed and efficiency play in solving a particular problem?
Improving education for all students is not something that will happen through the current testing regime, which may seem politically expedient and cost-effective compared with other options but which too often maintains -- and, in fact, perpetuates -- an inequitable educational system. Educators, parents, and others concerned about high-stakes testing can become involved in their communities. To learn more about local efforts and to find out how to get involved, visit the Assessment Reform Network website at http://www.fairtest.org/arn/arn.htm.
A start, but by no means an end, to achieving high standards for all children will involve: offering effective professional development for teachers; eliminating tracking practices; implementing a rigorous curriculum that encourages problem solving, critical thinking, and in-depth learning; redistributing economic resources to schools most in need; shrinking class size; and ensuring that all students have access to higher education. Such reforms offer authentic steps towards the goal of "leaving no child behind", and will best be supported by full implementation of curricula such as Investigations, which advocates for high standards for all students, and by the elimination -- and not the perpetuation -- of high-stakes testing.
Christina Perez, TERC
December 2001
* Note: Interactive instruction was characterized by: teachers coaching and posing questions that ask for explanation and may have multiple answers; and students discussing answers with their peers and the teacher, and applying and interpreting knowledge into prior understanding.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the opinions of TERC, Inc.
This article was based in part on the leader guide to "Measuring Student Achievement: The Impact of Standardized Testing on Equity and Excellence in Mathematics", available at http://www.terc.edu/wge/testingsession.html.
Christina Perez is a research and development specialist at TERC, Inc. on a NSF-funded project (#9714743) titled "Weaving Gender Equity into Math Reform". The project is partnering with several NSF-funded elementary math curricula to expand the equity content of their professional development materials and workshops.
Endnotes:
- Kohn, Alfie. (2000). The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Stoskopf, Alan. (2000). "The Forgotten History of Eugenics." in Kathy Swope and Barbara Miner, Eds. Failing Our Kids: Why the Testing Craze Won't Fix Our Schools. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, LTD.
- Haney, Walt. (2000). "The Myth of the Texas Miracle." Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 8, No. 41.
- Smith, Julia, Valerie Lee, and Fred Newmann. (2001). Instruction and Achievement in Chicago Elementary Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
This information was reprinted with permission of CESAME, Northeastern Univ., and the Educational Alliance, Brown University.
