Ali Hamidi
ENGL 1102
Professor: Rebecca Weaver, PhD
April 19, 2023
Are standardized tests effective in determining a student’s aptitude and academic performance?
Introduction
In 1905, French psychologist Alfred Binet developed a standardized test to measure the intelligence of children, known as the Binet-Simon Scale. This test was the first to use standardized procedures for administration and scoring, and it established the foundation for future developments in standardized testing. Standardized tests measure student aptitude and academic performance in schools worldwide. These exams objectively assess a student’s knowledge and abilities in particular subject areas. The results are frequently used to make crucial educational decisions like selecting students for admission to colleges and universities, giving scholarships, and gauging the effectiveness of teachers and schools. However, there is disagreement among educators, decision-makers, and parents over how well-standardized exams measure students’ aptitude and academic success. In this paper, we will evaluate the pros and cons of the effectiveness of standardized tests in determining a student’s aptitude and academic performance.
Discussion
An article titled “Standardized Testing Pros and Cons – Does It Improve Education?” discusses the pros of standardized testing in detail. One of the pros listed is that “Standardized tests offer an objective measurement of education and a good metric to gauge areas for improvement.” this articulates that standardized testing completes its job in some way to measure what students need to improve. The ability to monitor student performance objectively is one of the significant benefits of standardized testing. Standardized tests are created to be fair and consistent, in contrast to teacher evaluations, which can be subjective and open to bias. To determine areas where students might need more help, educators might compare student performance across schools and districts. Standardized testing also has the benefit of holding educators accountable for their student’s academic progress. Another advantage is “Allows for comparisons of student performance across different schools, districts, and states, providing valuable data for policy-making and resource allocation.” which means that policymakers can motivate academic institutions and instructors to concentrate on enhancing student outcomes by linking money and other resources to test scores. This is particularly crucial in underprivileged places where pupils might not have access to the same resources as their counterparts who live in wealthier neighborhoods.
However, there are also some disadvantages, and some argue that standardized testing doesn’t measure education quality. The article “Standardized Testing Pros and Cons – Does It Improve Education?”, talks about the cons of standardized testing. One of the listed advantages is that “Standardized tests only determine which students are good at taking tests, offer no meaningful measure of progress, and have not improved student performance.” this articulates that many factors, including hunger, stress, and tiredness, easily influence test scores. The tests merely highlight which students are best at studying for and passing the exams and do not reveal any potential knowledge gaps. One of the main complaints of these exams is that they prioritize rote memorization and test-taking abilities above creative problem-solving and critical thinking. This may result in a constrained curriculum emphasizing exam preparation over more profound learning opportunities. In the article “What Standardized Tests Do Not Measure” by Peter Murrell Jr., he says, “Much recent research on intelligence and human cognitive development suggests that standardized tests are not valid as measures of excellence or scholastic aptitude.” Schools that place an excessive emphasis on standardized exams and “test-wise” instruction expose kids to ways of thinking that not only devalue knowledge but are also entirely unrelated to addressing problems in the real world. Finally, there is a worry that standardized tests could maintain current educational inequities. Due to variables like poverty or a lack of resources, which can widen success inequalities, students from disadvantaged families may be less likely to perform well on these exams. Furthermore, schools will likely concentrate on boosting test scores at the expense of other crucial subjects like the arts or physical education.
One great example that Peter Murrell discussed in his article is that, for instance, let’s say a child takes the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, a nationally recognized assessment of reading proficiency, and has trouble blending letter sounds. Even though this test gives precise diagnostic data, it does not provide the child with the knowledge required to correct the learning processes that have gone wrong due to her inability to blend. In reality, many of the abilities necessary for success on standardized tests are ones we would never consider teaching students. Think of problem-solving skills. The ability to identify and describe an issue, acquire pertinent information, and work on it until they are confident they have found the best answer is something we want students to be able to do. In sharp contrast, standardized examinations urge students to choose the best response and move on without knowing whether the answer is accurate to “ready-made” problems with little to nothing to do with their real-life experience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Using standardized exams to assess students’ aptitude and academic achievement is a contentious topic with solid arguments on both sides. Standardized exams have the potential to reveal important information about student accomplishment. Still, to provide a more complete and accurate picture of a student’s capabilities, they should be utilized in concert with other student learning and growth indicators. Additionally, to increase the usefulness of standardized exams for enhancing educational results, policymakers and educators should aim to overcome their potential biases and unfavorable effects. However, critics contend that standardized tests can be unfair, support a limited curriculum, and promote teaching to the test. Additionally, there are worries that stress and anxiety brought on by standardized testing may harm students’ mental health and well-being. In the end, even though standardized testing might yield some vital information, it should be utilized with other student learning indicators rather than serving as the only barometer of student achievement or teacher effectiveness.
Sources
Naughton, James “Testocracy: The Undemocratic System of Standardized Testing in the United States” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 31, Issue 2 (Spring 2022), pp. 263-296
Popham, W. James. “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality.” ASCD, https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/why-standardized-tests-dont-measure-educational-quality
Murrell, Peter, and Peter Murrell. “What Standardized Tests Do Not Measure.” Rethinking Schools, 6 Sept. 2021, https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/what-standardized-tests-do-not-measure/#:~:text=Much%20recent%20research%20on%20intelligence,of%20excellence%20or%20scholastic%20aptitude.
“Standardized Testing Pros and Cons – Does It Improve Education?” Standardized Tests, 17 Feb. 2022, https://standardizedtests.procon.org/