In the United States, standards-based education as well as standardized testing as we know it has existed for about 30 years, with the intent to make teachers, schools, and school systems more accountable for student learning, to set meaningful standards to which students, teachers, and schools can aspire, and to be used as feedback to shape instruction in our classrooms (Herman and Golan 2). Educational reform in our country has tended to focus on a "one size fits all" approach to address educational inequity issues, allowing for a more level playing field in our extremely diverse and broad educational system. This is accomplished primarily through universalized core standards and curriculum that emphasize students' cognitive growth in core areas like math and science (Townsend). Student performance on standardized tests based off these standards and curriculum, which are meant to be effective measurements of academic performance and indicative of teacher performance, has become a key objective for our school systems. However, the validity and value of standardized testing seen today are the subjects of increasing debate (Herman and Golan 3). Studies suggest these tests are putting unnecessary pressure on teachers and students and may not be truly effective in motivating students to perform better and indicating improvement in learning. The bottom line is that our current educational system isn't working. We as a country are witnessing our educational system fall behind those of other countries. What we need is our government and our schools and teachers to work to better educate and prepare students to compete on a global stage. However, the solution isn't marked improvement on standardized test scores. Instead, experts agree that it is time for a redefinition of the ultimate purpose of education, an end to the high stakes testing movement, and investment in a new approach that will help students grow in a variety of ways, in a way that promotes differentiated instruction for a diverse group of learners rather than over-universalized curriculum and support for underachieving students (Townsend). 

According to literature, "a driving force for standards-based educational reform was the 1983 release of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" (Moon et al. 1).  This report called for the beginning of a high stakes testing movement with the intent to drastically raise our nation's standard of achievement. This report was published in accordance with the mounting beliefs that our educational system was in need of drastic reform to improve student and school performance and that teachers were unqualified to educate students appropriately on their own. Literature on the subject concludes, "these forces combined to spur the development of educational standards, tests, and assessment policies by state educational bodies" (1). As the high stakes testing movement gained steam, standardized tests increasingly became, "a tool for reform through their use as a measure of the quality of the education system, and as the foundation for curriculum and instructional practices" (2). Since 2002, standardized tests have taken on an even greater role in our educational system with the introduction of federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind, requiring schools to give annual tests and publically report the results (Toppo). Still today, standards-based education and high stakes standardized tests exist as a fundamental part of our national education policy. However, although proponents of high stakes testing today believe it motivates students to study, learn, and achieve more, studies and reports have raised questions about the effectiveness of these tests and point out many problems associated with the United States' current system based on high stakes, standards based education and testing. 

Studies have shown that what is known as "high stakes testing" seen in our current education system can have a variety of negative impacts on students and teachers alike. This term was coined by George Madaus to refer to, "testing which promotes pressure and behavior change by associating test results with important consequences" (Herman and Golan 6). It is well documented that school administration officials and others use standardized test scores to evaluate schools, teachers, and educational programs as well as students. These scores are commonly used to make a variety of decisions that directly impact students and teachers, such as allotment of funding for programs and promotions (5). The findings of several studies indicated that the termed "accountability pressure" associated with high stakes testing felt by teachers resulted in more drill and practice type of curriculum and instruction, with emphasis put on getting through the allotted material and getting students best prepared for standardized tests (Herman and Golan 8; Moon et al. 4). In a study investigating the impact of standardized testing on teacher instruction, researchers found that at each grade level studied, the majority of teachers sampled reported that, "state testing programs caused them to teach in a manner which did not accord with their own view of what constitutes good educational practice" ("The Impact of High Stakes Exams" 12). In other words, teachers today are being told they can't teach the way they feel is best, they must get through the allotted material and focus on getting their students best prepared for examinations. When the results of such examinations were used to evaluate their performance and directly linked to rewards or sanctions, one study found a narrowing of curriculum and instruction resulted (Herman and Golan 8). In a different study, researchers noting this phenomenon concluded, "The greater the consequences attached to the test, the more likely it would be to have an impact [on teaching]" (6). However, despite the many potential adverse effects associated with high stakes testing and accountability pressure, the Obama administration has actually upped the importance of the results of such tests in recent years by rewarding school systems which tie student test scores to teacher evaluations (Toppo). High stakes testing and the resulting accountability pressure can have an impact on students, as well. One study found that although accountability pressure was found to affect students as a whole, the pressure had a greater impact on students in disadvantaged schools, and the pressure felt by gifted and talented students to perform on these tests had the potential to disengage them from the learning process (Moon et al. 217). Research on the adverse effects of accountability pressure also suggests that it may have an impact of teachers' sense of professionalism and pride in work, with one study finding a negative relationship between teachers' sense of professionalism and the pressure they feel to improve test scores. The study also noted a relationship between teachers' sense of professionalism and engagement in questionable test preparation or testing associated activities (Herman and Golan 10). In a different study, researchers found that teachers were commonly frustrated by the notion that that what they did in the classroom had to be dictated by what needed to be covered for testing purposes and felt as though they were simply preparing students to perform on evaluations (9). The perception of many teachers is that high stakes testing seen today compromises their effectiveness in the classroom as well as their sense of professionalism. Many teachers also argue that these tests many not be truly indicative of their own ability as teachers and don't accurately reflect on their students' learning advancement and cognitive growth. This is an understandable concern, considering the ever-growing importance of such tests with regard to how teachers, schools, and students are evaluated based on test scores. Often teachers who experience the consequences of testing firsthand are most opposed to it (Jones et al. 11). In addition to the aforementioned negative impacts resulting from the pressures and limitations associated with high stakes standards-based curriculum and testing, there is also the question of the validity and meaningfulness of these tests and whether or not standards-based testing is a reliable measure of students' improvement in learning and teacher ability. 

Standardized tests in general must be valid, reliable, and meaningful, and in an educational system like ours where they are so heavily relied on this is of the upmost importance. However, according to one report on the impact of standardized testing, the viewpoint of teachers regarding the validity of standardized testing ranged from concern to distrust, with findings from one study which,  "indicated that teachers were concerned about the utility of mandated tests, their appropriateness for some students, and the impact of testing on instructional time and student self- confidence (Herman and Golan 10). Similarly, a different study reported that teachers were pessimistic about what scores reveal. Less than one-fifth of the teachers interviewed felt that results from the mandated, standardized test used in their schools accurately reflected their students' learning for the year (10). Researchers have also identified other potential factors which can result in distortion of test scores and evaluations, such as questionable test preparation practices, accountability pressure previously discussed, and repeated use of the same forms, which can contribute to problems such as score inflation (11). A different report noted the interesting findings of a study, which indicated, "Increases in test scores appear to be temporary and artificial, suggesting that students on the receiving end of teaching to the test do not acquire general knowledge about a discipline, but rather knowledge that is specific to a particular test" (Moon et al. 4). The combined results of these studies raise concerns that standardized test scores may reflect teaching to the test rather than overall student learning and suggest teachers feel these tests aren't accurate indicators of overall learning. 
It is clear that standards based education and accompanying standardized testing has resulted in a whole host of problems for our educational system. For better or worse, educational standards, high stakes tests, and assessment policies have become an integral part of how we hold teachers and students accountable for their work and determine student achievement and quality of education. In a time when educational reform is needed more than ever, the question is how can we rebuild and fix the current education system. Experts, like former IBM CEO and published author on the subject Louis Gerstner, concur that putting high academic standards in place as well as a sensible curriculum that allows students to meet them is essential in driving students to succeed and perform better. A new system also needs to be put in place that will effectively measure whether students are meeting these standards, with one suggested approach being broad-based assessments involving multiple measures of what a student has learned based on teacher evaluations, teacher-made tests, student demonstrations, and so on in place of high stakes testing (Merrow). Better teachers in our schools and simply more on task time devoted to meeting these standards are also fundamental changes that would help close the achievement gap ("How to Fix the Education Crisis"). Finally, support for underachieving students and investment in extracurricular programs that can help students develop skills that can transfer to their academic, social, family, and professional life also are important (Townsend). 

I believe music education and use of music in the classroom can be a part of this solution. As noted by Shields, "It is commonly accepted and documented by research results that the arts provide an effective framework and appropriate curricular point of departure for reaching the at-risk student" Researchers in an early study reported, "teachers also mentioned the importance of performance, feelings of success and satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-confidence that spring from participation in the arts, creative and expressive activities, and keen interest in the subject matter of the arts as key for at risk students" (Shields 274). Another report highlighting the consequences of curtailing music education points to the ability of music programs to motivate students, the development of social skills associated with collaborative efforts such as performances, and potential for increased cultural identification resulting from awareness culturally embedded music traditions (Catterall). Playing certain types of music in the classroom is another potential way music can be a part of the solution. Studies show that teachers can use background music to help students get in an engaged learning state, have a more positive attitude, and relieve anxiety prior to examinations, among other things (Haynes 40; Brewer 5). Results of a study in which the amount of time 5th graders spent on task was recorded with the use of background music and without "indicated that the use of easy listening background music was effective in increasing the on task performance of students... it would seem that providing easy-listening background music in the classroom would be a plausible, yet inexpensive technique for increasing the amount of time in which students are actively engaged in learning" (Davidson and Powell 32). Another found an observed 2/3 reduction of off task behavior over a nine-week period with the implementation of background music in a classroom (Schofield 1). Results obtained by literature regarding music education and the use of music in the classroom suggests music has the potential to address some of the current problems in our schools. Especially in early education and disadvantaged schools, I believe music education can result in students' cognitive and non-cognitive growth and can motivate them to succeed in a way that fosters positive attitudes and creativity.
