Standardized and high stakes testing has become extensively integrated into America’s education systems. With its foundation in Boston, Massachusetts around 1845, written examinations were administered to all students attending Boston schools. The Boston Survey included sections for mathematics, science, grammar, and geography and averaged at about 154 questions. Horace Mann, the creator of the Boston tests, was concerned about the poor quality of learning in Boston schools, which in turn inspired him to make the test (Mathison, 3). His research findings on student learning reveal that students were only able to regurgitate information that was excessively repeated in classroom instruction. They could not seem to “answer questions that implied knowledge of the content being studied,” (Styron, 22) which is what the main points of his test circulated around. Joseph Rice followed in Mann’s footsteps and formed tests in a multitude of school systems that focused on spelling and arithmetic. Rice wanted to standardize the education system; he wanted to see improvement in student achievement across the nation (Mathison, 3). 

The first national achievement tests were created by Lewis Terman, and were called Army Alpha and Army Beta. These tests were administered to the military in hopes to distinguish the recruiters as officers or as army men, testing more than 1.5 million recruits in less than two years (Mathison 4). The term “IQ” was coined after Terman created his Stanford Achievement Test, which tested gifted children and their intelligences. After seeing such high intelligence quotients from children, the Rockefeller Foundation gave Terman a grant to test all children’s mental abilities, believing that intelligence tests were the key to success (Mathison 4). The Stanford Achievement Test was modified to include an academic aspect with the creation of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test in 1916. This test enabled the process of tremendous amounts of data in schools, which furthered the results of student achievement and the “readiness” of a child’s learning. These intelligence tests were used to measure student progress and provided educators with a number to each child representing how well or how poorly the student is retaining information. It became standard for schools to use these intelligence tests for their students, hence the name standardized testing.

Through the passing of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, all states were required to administer intelligence tests for comparison. Alfred Binet, a French psychologist, believed that children should not be measured in such a way, but he was ignored by American hereditarians that instead, believed children who possess low intelligence are morons who have learning disabilities and lack self-control (Mathison 5). At this point in the 20th century, the purpose of standardized testing was to identify the misfits and help them get back up to par with their peers. They then formed standards-based education, connecting the curriculum, teacher instruction, and examination and is still increasing in today’s wide use. 

The problem lies within the tangled web of test scores, student achievement, and teaching methods. The good intention of standardized testing escalated into ranking students based on their academic skills. Instead of improving the overall quality of learning, standardized testing has blurred the lines of the American education system, devaluing the quality of learning along the way. Teaching methods significantly transformed from focusing on the quality of learning in students to focusing on student performance and student achievement. “Teaching to the test” is a teaching method used to teach students based on the state standards that are given to teachers each academic year. These standards correlate to the material on standardized tests, which students take each year. This method of teaching is wrong, in that it directs teachers to focus solely on the standards they are given, putting their quality of teaching aside. If their students meet the goal they set for the test, the teacher has succeeded; if their students do not meet the goal, the teacher has failed. The implementation of standards in schools has misguided teachers in their careers. The application of high-stakes standardized tests in schools have created problems with student efficiency and performance, creating a modification in teaching methods and school designs, which further inhibits students from learning life lessons.

The implementation of standards in schools starts with how standards were viewed, and how these views have changed in recent times. In the mid-1900s, standards were not associated with student success or student achievement. When teachers spoke of standards, they used it as a foundation of comparison. James Popham explains in his article on standards-based education that if a teacher “was thought to have ‘low standards,’ then the level of that teacher’s aspirations for students was not sufficiently high” (Popham, “Standards-Based Education” 16). Educators in the time period employed objectives and goals for their curricula. Their ambitions for their students did not rely on standards set by others, but instead looked to what they wanted their students to learn. The definition of standards started to change when standards-based education programs were made mandatory nationwide in the early 2000s. These programs include “No Child Left Behind” and “Common Core” and were made federal laws in 2001 and 2009, respectively (Popham, “Standards-Based Education” 16). The definition of standards was then split into two categories: content and performance. Content standards are “based on the knowledge and skills that students are supposed to learn in school” while performance standards are the “level at which content standards are supposed to be mastered by students” (Popham, “Standards-Based Education” 17). Educators now refer to their aspirations for their students as content standards due to these standards-based education programs and their requirements for school districts. 

Standards-based education programs were created to strengthen America’s education system. If a state’s education system was beginning to fail, the national programs would be introduced in hopes of improving the poor conditions. This is where the national program could go awry. If a standards-based educational program has the wrong groundwork, it could essentially dig a deeper hole, and this is America’s current dilemma. Standards-based education programs are setting their focus to be the curriculum and the aims for the curriculum. This focus relies too heavily on standardized tests and examinations, making no room for improvement. District superintendents see this focus and they are given standardized tests, focusing on certain standards for each grade level. School principals also see this focus and start making standards mandatory in student learning, optimistic of successful test scores. Teachers start forming their lesson plans around the standards that come from the assessments, hence the birth of “teaching to the test.”

When a teacher begins to take questions very similar to or identical to the standardized test items, the teacher is “teaching to the test.” This type of teaching is known as “item-teaching,” as told by Popham (“Teaching to the Test.”) Item-teaching occurs when teachers feel stressed on improving their children’s test scores. They take the quick and easy route in raising scores, and most find this the ideal way to take.The other type of teaching is curriculum-teaching. In this type of teaching, teachers “direct their instruction toward a specific body of content knowledge or a specific set of cognitive skills represented by a given test.” (Popham, “Teaching to the Test.”) Teachers are not necessarily teaching from the test items, but rather teaching from test content and concepts. 

Recall that standardized testing was formed to allow teachers to weigh a student’s level of performance in a specific skill. The large amount of skills that teachers impart is much too large for standardized tests to include, so the tests take a sample of skills to assess. This method gives a valid interpretation of student performance, and typically is a success in doing so. The problem occurs when teachers start to invalidate their student’s mastery of skills by using questions similar and identical to the standardized tests. Because of the redesign of school curricula, teachers are reprimanded if their students do not meet the school’s standards. Students raising their test scores was “the single most important indicator of school improvement” (Styron, 23.) Teachers are pressured to start teaching from the test, using test questions and sample problems in instruction. This is a temporary solution, as student test scores jumped drastically and teacher success rates increased. Was this because of teaching to the test or because the growth of student performance was sincere? The answer is unclear due to the lack of evidence schools encompass on teaching methods teachers use in their classrooms. Popham discusses that he has found “no practical procedures to detect teachers who are using inappropriate test preparation” (“Teaching to the Test.”) With this stalemate in the education system, we must look elsewhere for solutions.

Many schools’ designs are what misguide teacher practices in the classroom. Schools turn their attention to promoting the placement and measurement of standardized testing. When this emphasis occurs, schools are unintentionally establishing a rank for their students. Kids are labeled with a number that determines their intelligence, as previously discussed. This number has a more powerful effect on students and teachers than we would think. Ted Dintersmith speaks about this effect in his Ted talk on standardized testing. He brings to light the problem of school design and this wrong sense of focus. Schools need to change from valuing test measures and cherishing a student when they complete a certain standard and instead, encourage the creative characteristics of students and engage them in instruction. In this way of learning, students are not drilled on the trifling standards that tests dictate, but obtain sufficient, lifelong lessons they can apply in their future careers. When teachers teach lessons that are worthwhile and independent from test standards, their students, as well as themselves, truly learn. 

Teachers can utilize strategies to slowly walk away from the practice of teaching to the test. These strategies are deliberated by Anya Kamentez in her book on standardized testing. She uses the acronym, TEST, to manage the test itself, emotions and energy, self-motivation, and tone. Teachers can manage the test by “realizing what the tests are for and how they work and come up with a strategy to take them well” (Kamentez, 195.) Start by developing confidence in students; let them know that it is not the end-all-be-all in their career as students. Do not present students with answers, but do ask them questions. Teaching in this manner will stimulate brains, teaching students critical and innovative thinking, rather than the standards and test items themselves.

Teachers can manage emotions and energy by “using good habits to manage [the student’s] emotions and energy” (Kamentez, 195.) Meditation, as strange as it sounds in a school setting, is beginning to be taught in schools. “Quiet Time” schools practice this method of calming the mind, and it works! “Quiet Time schools have seen a sharp drop in violent conflicts and school suspension rates as well as improved teacher morale” (Kamentez, 203.) Meditation slows the distractions and stress the mind encounters when preparing for a standardized test. When teachers and students meditate together, stress is reduced from the classroom, providing a more positive learning environment. Students feel better and thus, learn better.

Teachers can manage self-motivation by “setting their own goalposts instead of abiding by external marks… step back and allow children to take the lead in discovering their own interests” (Kamentez 195.) Letting a child explore their interest while learning is called interest-based learning. It is much more effective than choosing topics to teach on since it lets students to choose their interests and learn in that manner. “Interest-driven learning is not something we can force on our kids, rather it’s something you can create the conditions for” (Kamentez, 212.) 

Teachers can manage tone by “focusing on your own attitude and the messages you’re sending” as a teacher, instead of preparing them for a test. (Kamentez, 196.) Instead of preparing students for standardized tests, teachers should take a step back and examine their mentality towards their students; it might be causing students as well as teachers to fail. Do not let the “testing culture [get in] our heads” (Kamentez, 216.) 

While many agree that teaching to the test is corrupting the education system, some believe there is good to the method. *note* this is where I stopped. I am going to continue the assignment with the counterargument given that teaching to the test is a beneficial teaching method and eventually a conclusion that teaching to the test is overall a negative teaching method and should not be used schools.
