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 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,” which is what the main points of his test circulated around (Styron, 22). 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 in order to improve 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 of distinguishing recruits 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 for each child representing how well or how poorly the student retained information. It became standard for schools to use these intelligence tests for their students, hence the name “standardized testing.”

After passing the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1964, 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 who instead, believed children who possess low intelligence are morons that 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. After standards-based education was formed, the curriculum, teacher instruction, and examination all became connected and this form of education is still increasing presently in America.

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 and standardized tests in schools have created problems with student efficiency and performance, initiating a modification in teaching methods and school designs, which further inhibits students from learning life lessons. With proper integration of standardized testing, incorrect teaching methods will be reduced, overall increasing the quality of education in America.

In understanding the implementation of standards in schools, we start 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 for 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” (“Standards-Based Education” 16). Educators in this 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 these national programs 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 on 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 use standardized tests, concentrating on certain standards for each grade level. School principals also see this focus and begin 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 ask students 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 about improving their children’s test scores. They take the quick and easy route to raise scores, and most find this the ideal strategy. 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 amount of skills 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 is typically successful 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 redesigned 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 feel pressured to start teaching from the test, using test questions and sample problems in instruction. This was a temporary solution, as student test scores jumped drastically and teacher success rates increased. Was this because of teaching to the test or because student performance growth was sincere? The answer is unclear due to the lack of evidence schools provide for the 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.

The design of many schools is what misguides teacher practices in the classroom. Schools turn their attention toward promoting the placement and measurement of students through the use of standardized testing. When this emphasis occurs, schools unintentionally establish a rank for their students. Academic achievement tests are put into place, like the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA.) These tests focus too much on critical thinking skills and “ignore social skills, moral development and creativity as important outcomes of public education” (Sahlberg, 9). Kids are labeled with a number that determines their intelligence, as previously mentioned. This number has a more powerful effect comparing scores internationally, causing a false sense of truth. Ted Dintersmith speaks about this effect in his TED Talk about standardized testing. He brings to light the problem of school design and this wrong sense of focus. Schools need to shift from valuing test measures and cherishing a student when they complete a certain standard to instead, encouraging the creative characteristics of students and engaging them in instruction. In this way of learning, students are not drilled on the trifling standards 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). Teachers can start by developing confidence in students; letting them know that it is not the end-all-be-all in their career as students. Teachers should 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.

According to Kamentez, once teachers have managed the test, they can move forward to managing 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 in the classroom, providing a more positive learning environment. Students feel better and thus, learn better.

With regard to managing self-motivation, Kamentez suggests teachers to 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 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). Setting up the playing field for students to play on should be the teacher’s focus, which leads us to managing one’s tone.

Teachers can manage tone by “focusing on [their] own attitude and the messages [they’re] sending” as a teacher, instead of preparing them for a test. (Kamentez, 196). Rather than preparing them 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). Teachers can give students peppermints as a recognition tool when taking tests as well as emphasizing how important sleep and nutritional food is to their test-taking abilities. Deep breathing is another good mental technique when battling preparation for standardized tests as it sets a positive tone in the classroom.

While many agree that teaching to the test is corrupting the education system, some believe the method is an effective way of teaching. Walt Gardner firmly believes that teaching to the test is indeed beneficial in the classroom. He argues that “the villain is the test itself,” but not to forget that it is “impractical to assess all curricular aims,” so we must recognize the precedence in these objectives (Gardner). Teachers teach to the test more often than we think, and Gardner provides ample examples of what teaching to the test could look like in various classrooms. When teachers give multiple practice essays to prepare for similar essays included in standardized tests, this method demonstrates teaching to the test at a small scale. Gardner brings a significant point to attention: all teachers teach to the test, it’s unavoidable and in truth, effective. Maybe it’s why America is promoting standardized testing to such a large extent.

The United States is one of very many countries with a poor education system, with standardized and high-stakes test scores being among the lowest in the world. Many suggest this weak education system is due to the lack of merit pay in America’s teachers, and begin to move in the direction of standardized testing to solve the country’s low test scores. This situation is exactly what the US needs to run away from, not vice versa. Finland demonstrates an excellent example of a successful education system, in comparison to America’s failing one. As Pasi Sahlberg tells us, “Finland [is a] nation that lacks school inspection, standardized curriculum, high-stakes student assessments, test-based accountability, and a race-to-the-top mentality” (Sahlberg, 5). Finland moved away from standardized testing when they realized that the tests were causing teachers to teach to the test. The National Matriculation Examination is an assessment that Finnish students take before entering post-secondary education, after all prior necessary schooling is complete. Finnish schools and their teachers all reveal that the examination causes teaching to the test and “thus narrows curriculum and increases stress among students and teachers” (Sahlberg, 25). So why is the United States pushing standardized testing so much if Finland proves it to be an incorrect way of assessing students? Let’s briefly address Finland’s educational history for clarity. 

In the mid-20th century, Finland had a very strict education system, with lesson plans being handed out to teachers every week. Teachers did not get a choice on how to teach their lessons or even when they wanted to teach certain lessons. This firm ideal changed in the 1990s when “Finland’s teachers and students were insisting on more flexibility and freedom in deciding how to design instruction, what to study, and when” (Sahlberg, 2). Finnish teachers started encouraging education to all children, and this became the goal for the country. Finland started to build teacher education programs and raised teacher pay. Teachers could now decide what curriculum to teach their students and have a say in school improvement. Finland’s schools became schools that believed in “cultivating trust, enhancing autonomy, and tolerating diversity” (Sahlberg, 7). In fixing their mistakes of competition among students and allowing teachers more freedom in their curricula, Finland’s education system became a healthy one, where every child has an equal opportunity to learn and succeed. 

So can America follow these same steps to get student performance levels back up to par globally? Yes and no. Since America is more heterogenous and has over 58 times the population of Finland’s, these methods have potential to fail. Finland is a more homogenous country, with only about 5 million people, compared to America’s 318 million. Finland believes that education is a “public good and is therefore protected as a basic human right to all in the constitution” (Sahlberg, 10). Teaching children is also considered a respectable career in Finland, making it the most competitive career in the country. If the United States could somehow increase the value of the teaching profession to in turn increase student interest as well as integrate educational rights into the constitution, it can work. But with the way America is promoting standardized testing, teaching to the test is only set to skyrocket in the future. Things are starting to change with educational-related decisions being returned to the state’s responsibility and this can be a good thing. With the states deciding when and what to test their students on, the country shows diversity in test scores. Teachers suddenly don’t have the pressure of getting their students to pass a certain test; they can actually teach their students important life lessons. Students can take their creativity and their passions with them to their careers as adults. 

Teaching isn’t about knowing how to solve for a variable or even about knowing how the American Revolution began in the 1770s. Teaching is about developing the naïve minds of young learners into the bright minds of America’s future. Because if teachers can’t teach, children can’t learn. If children can’t learn, they can’t grow. Standardized testing results in a numerical score. Some might value this score, this number, much higher than others. But at the end of the day, a number is just a number. And a child is worth more than a number, right?
