Standardized Tests

Recently, in our Academic Leadership class, we saw the school in Seattle that is boycotting standardized tests, more specifically the MAP (Measures of Academic Progress). Having studied in a Brazilian school all my life, I have always been prepared to take two standardized tests: the Vestibular and the ENEM. I never quite agreed with those, and the preparation that comes along with them, but it wasn't until I came to ISC that I learned what standardized tests are actually about, and I can now say that I completely disagree with them. 

In my opinion, there are several problems that come with standardized testing, and the situation in Brazil is one of them. 

I have studied in five Brazilian schools in my life, and it was always the same thing: large classes, little individual attention, and no answering questions. If we asked anything that was not in the textbook, the teachers could not answer it, but told us it wasn't important, since "it wouldn't be in the Vestibular anyway." Since 7th grade we received materials that contained Vestibular or ENEM questions, and were supposed to study out of those for our tests. That always annoyed me, and I didn't like that I couldn't ask questions, but I also wasn't curious enough to go and look for answers on my own. Teaching had one purpose only: to make as many kids as possible to do well in the national tests, with no concern of teaching us to think for ourselves, or any lifelong skills. In fact, everything we studied seemed to fly away at night. Many of us asked the teachers when any of that would be useful for us in life, and the aswer was again "for the Vestibular." The most daring would ask if there was anywhere else, but the teachers just smiled and moved on. 

For me, that represents one part of standardized tests, where students are put completely "in the box" and do not have access to anything but what is in it. They don't know how to solve a practical problem, they learn not to ask questions, because they know their questions won't be answered. They are not stimulated to learn. It is all an endless sea of memorizing with no actual learning, researching and questioning. They don't find the subjects interesting, see them as an obligation, don't study, fail the tests, and the government's only solution is to create more tests, or change the already existent tests, and start the cycle all over again. 

Another type of standardized tests are the ones that have the intent of keeping track of student progress. That is one of the flaws that Garfield High School (plus student government and PTSA) points out in the MAP test. It doesn't take into account the different curriculums of different schools, or the method of teaching of the teacher and of learning of the students. The name itself "standardized test" already presumes that all the kids in the country learn the same way, and all the teachers teach the exact same thing. Therefore, the difference in curriculum of schools is considered to be bad, or less effective, because it is not based on the content of the test. According to Jesse Hagopian, one of the teachers of Garfield High School who is boycotting the test, teachers are not even allowed to know what will be on the test, to prepare the students.

It also doesn’t take into consideration the different strengths different people have. In one article, Jesse Hagopian said that taking the test when he was a student made him feel “unintelligent” because it didn’t take into consideration what he was good at. So apparently, all students have to be good at the same things, and no individualistic traits are encouraged. Different people learn in different ways, and some of us don’t do well in tests, even though we know the content. Pressure, anxiety or personal problems on the day of the test can affect the student’s performance, and that is also not taken into account.

Besides, the MAP test has the intent of evaluating teachers. Not only the students don't care about it, and click on random buttons, affecting the accuracy of the test, (the MAP doesn't affect their tests scores- there is nothing in it for them, so why bother?) but it is not an effective way of analyzing teachers. Whether students learn or not is not a matter only if the teachers are doing their job correctly, (although that is a huge part of it). But we can't ignore that student conduct in the classroom depends on him or herself, not the teacher, and they can't force anyone to learn anything. They might be doing the most wonderful job, but if the student really doesn't care and doesn't pay attention to what is being taught, there is nobody in this world that can make him learn. Standardized tests, therefore, are not the most accurate way of keeping track of student progress or of the level of competence of a teacher. 

One solution some of the teachers at Garfield have come up with is the creation of portfolios- that way students would be able to include their works over the year, and what they were taught, in addition to their effectiveness at learning it, would be apparent. Portfolios would also take into consideration the curriculum of the school, solving another problem the teachers at Garfield have pointed out.

Basically, my opinion on standardized tests is that not only it is not an effective way to evaluate students and teachers. Everyone is different, and standardized tests encourage one type of collectivity that should not be encouraged. I think academic portfolios are the best option: I really like working on mine, and I think it reflects what I am learning more effectively. I am not saying that we should get rid of standardized tests completely- they are a fast way of overall analyzing the quality of a school (nobody would take the time to read every portfolio of every student in every school in the country) but it shouldn’t be the big deal it is now, but only another resource.

Honestly though, if it wasn’t such a big form of profit to companies that make the tests would anyone defend them? 

Garfield High School students opinion on the test: