Anyone who participated in the United States’ public school system has had a run in with a standardized test. What is felt about that run in can vary immensely from person to person, but the general consensus from my experience and the experiences of those around me is that they did not feel necessary or enjoyable. Regardless of what students may feel, the standardized test has become this thing that we all must slog through for the greater good of the education system. In the name of gathering data we sit students from 3rd grade all the way to high school down in front of a computer for hours at a time. It is a noble cause to try to see what our nation’s children have learned and then use that information to expand that knowledge even more, but what if the way we are pursuing this currently isn’t giving us what we need?

In order to understand and answer this question, it is important to first understand what I mean when I refer to a standardized test. The Glossary of education reform defines a standardized test as, “any form of test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students.” (Great Schools Partnership). They are also primarily associated with the large state or nationwide test of this kind, which is the kind I will mainly be focusing on. Especially when it comes to younger students in elementary school, giving them a standardized test as a form of assessment doesn’t necessarily give an accurate read on student learning. There are many other factors not related to knowledge that can affect scores on these very structured tests. Also, with how many schools structure curriculum and teacher achievement solely off of standardized tests, this brings about a decline in the depth and quality of teaching educators are able to provide. It is also entirely possible that the scores we get back from these tests don’t accurately reflect student knowledge at all due to the nature of the tests and how students take them. As the years go by and we gain more knowledge of standardized testing itself, it is becoming more and more clear that current standardized testing practices are not effective for assessing elementary school students.

Standardized testing hinges on the idea that every student will take the test under the same circumstances, and that the score will solely be a reflection of the students taking them. This, however, is not realistically possible and there are many other factors outside students’ control that can noticeably affect standardized test scores. A study conducted by Ulla Haverinen-Shaughnessy and Richard J. Shaughnessy of the Indoor Air Program at the University of Tulsa gathered data from 70 Southwestern United States elementary school districts on classroom environments and standardized test scores. They closely monitored the amount of air ventilation and the temperature of classrooms and then analyzed the scores of standardized tests taken in the varying conditions. It was found that there was a significant difference in test scores between students who were taking a standardized test in a well-ventilated and comfortably heated classroom and students who were not. It was estimated that there was an 11 point increase on a mathematics standardized test for every liter per second increase in ventilation rate and an average increase of 12-13 points for every 1°C decrease in temperature (Haverinen-Shaughnessy). Those are some major differences in scores compared to small differences in a testing environment that is not within control of the students or even teachers.

It was concluded that, “Maintaining adequate ventilation and thermal comfort in classrooms could significantly improve academic achievement of students,” (Haverinen-Shaughnessy). Classrooms across the country will not always have the same or even favorable conditions to take a standardized test in. Imagine you are a 4th grader in Texas about to spend a full school day taking the end of year standardized tests. In your geographic location summer is in full swing and that means the air is sweltering even indoors. Are you going to be able to remember how to add fractions or use proper grammar if you’re uncomfortably sweating and all you can think about is a cool breeze? It might be beneficial to have a few accommodations for students in unfavorable environments but because a standardized test has to adhere to strict standards dictating time and materials, this isn’t a possibility. Something as small as air ventilation or temperature that can vary widely from school to school having a noticeable difference on data that is supposed to be standardized reveals the flaws in the way these test scores represent student knowledge.

Another research study by Dorian Marrone Gemellaro sought to further analyze influences on standardized test scores by calculating the significance of certain factors and their effect on Mathematics and Language Arts standardized test scores. Data and scores from the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge were looked at in connection to variables like, instructional minutes, student-faculty ratio, eligibility for free lunch, teachers holding master’s degrees, and attendance rate. Out of all of these statistically significant variables, it was found that qualification for free school lunch was the variable that would be the greatest predictor of scores, (Gemellaro). Those who didn’t qualify for needing free lunch were more likely to score better on their Math and English assessments and those who did didn’t do as well on their standardized test. What this tells us is that the students whose families do not make enough income to provide them with consistent nourishment have a harder time showing their knowledge in these types of tests.

This compounds the growing evidence that Socioeconomic Status (SES) is one of the highest predictors of standardized test scores, with students of a higher SES doing better on these tests and students of a lower SES not doing as well. This leads to the bigger point that Standardized Tests and the standards behind them will inherently be unfair because majority demographics are the ones creating these tests so students who are not white upper-to-middle class monolingual Americans tend to not do as well because they do not cater to their experiences and strengths, (Ford). Students can be left behind thinking that they are not as intelligent just because there are factors outside of their control that affect their ability to perform well on standardized tests. From the classroom environment to the SES the tests are catered to, there are other factors significantly reflected in scores that don’t have anything to do with a student’s learning and that can affect how especially elementary students view their ability to learn in a discouraging way.

Elementary students themselves are not the only ones that experience the negative effects of Standardized testing. The current structures are actively making it more difficult for teachers to provide effective, high-quality education to their students.The No Child Left Behind Act brought with it the idea of Merit pay which is the idea that teachers are compensated financially for effective teaching (Teachers Question). How do they decide if a teacher is effective and performing well at their job? By looking at the standardized test scores of their students. Essentially, a teacher’s salary and success is based on how their students perform on standardized tests that we’ve already established have many other variables affecting them that don’t include student knowledge or teaching quality. This incentivizes a lack of teaching depth as teachers desperately try to cater to a test that will determine how they are paid. If a teacher is trying to cover everything that could possibly be on the test, they won’t have the time and energy to dive deep into the things the students are interested in and the experiences that will stick in their memories. Instead, classroom time must be spent only on what the test covers without going into things pertinent to the students’ lives and communities.

This environment can put a lot of stress on a teacher, which can affect their ability to teach effectively. A study published in the journal Psychology in the Schools conducted by professors from several universities examined the levels of testing anxiety among students and their teachers. The study focused on two types of assessment, a regular classroom test and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) standardized achievement tests. Data was gathered through surveys on the levels of testing anxiety felt for each type of assessment. Results on these stress levels found that teachers were significantly more anxious about student performance for a standardized test than in class assessments and that, “Teacher anxiety may indirectly influence the manifestation of student test anxiety” (Segool). A student, especially in elementary school, looks to their teacher as the head of the classroom to help them decide how to feel about what happens in it.

When a teacher is more stressed, the students will be too, and both will feel the negative effects associated with that. This is not an effective environment for an elementary school classroom when teachers and students are catering to standards that will not benefit them overall. A classroom for children should be a welcoming, happy, and stress free space to enable a nourishing learning environment. This cannot be achieved if an educator is in constant fear of student failure and their salary. Teachers are well-educated individuals who spend hours a day with their students. They should be given credit for knowing and reporting what it is their students know. When people assume that it is beneficial for teachers to be rewarded based on students’ standardized test scores this, “flows from flawed logic and several troublesome assumptions: that teachers lack motivation and supposedly need financial awards to give students what they need.” (Gratz). Most teachers do not do this job solely for monetary benefits and don’t need their livelihood at stake to convince them to do it well.

On the other hand, any good teacher will tell you that assessment is a crucial part of the teaching process. You can’t teach a student without knowing what it is the student knows. You especially can’t improve your teaching without knowing where it worked or where it didn’t based on information gathered through assessment. Improvement can only come after understanding where a student’s knowledge is currently and where you want it to be. In fact, this need for improvement is more important than ever when it comes to The United States school system. The U.S. in recent years has consistently underperformed when it comes to our youths’ education compared to other industrialized countries coming, “38th in math scores and 24th in science” (World Population Review). According to Wang, Beckett, and Brown in their article “Controversies of Standardized Assessment in School Accountability Reform: A Critical Synthesis of Multidisciplinary Research Evidence” , “These less-than-encouraging assessment outcomes have prompted many to view standardized testing as a potentially major force for school improvement,”(Wang, 5). This is because by seeing the gaps in student performance, positive changes to curriculum can be made based on data from standardized tests that should reinforce those areas of concern.

The whole purpose of the standardized test is to gather data on a large scale to be able to find out what students have learned, and what they still need help with. However, current standardized tests are far from perfect when it comes to telling us exactly what students do know. Standardized tests are designed to mostly assess procedural knowledge, which means that if you can follow steps and procedure, it is possible to get the right answers without necessarily knowing how you got there. This is particularly true of mathematics with “assessments primarily test(ing) children’s procedural and skill-based knowledge of mathematics, and often allow(ing) children to arrive at a right answer in absence of understanding,” (Manouchehri). In other words, you can get it right, without knowing why.

I have experienced this result of a focus on standardized testing in our education myself, but didn’t necessarily realize it until I got to college. In 5th grade, like everyone else, I learned how to divide fractions in problems like 5/7 ÷ 3/2. They taught us the procedure of flipping one of them and then multiplying across like we’d already established. Since I memorized that method I passed all my quizzes on the subject and did well in the math portions of standardized tests. So by all measures of what the school saw, I understood how to divide fractions. However, in taking a class on Algebraic Thinking for Teachers in college, I realized I did not in fact know what it meant to divide fractions. It was difficult for me to understand practical applications and word problems that would result in this kind of equation and I had no idea why this procedure worked to get the right answer. I wasn’t alone in this and we spent three days of class just trying to wrap our heads around the concept of dividing a fraction by a fraction. Those three days of class where we focused on the why and understanding the theories behind the mathematics were more helpful for developing my mathematical knowledge than all my years in elementary and middle school where the focus was on learning the procedures to be able to pass the tests. I’m a fairly good test taker and was able to get through tests showing proficiency while not even knowing myself that there were some basic skills I lacked. Unfortunately not every student is someone who does well with high pressure testing, especially in elementary school. Elementary age students are often not very emotionally developed or mastered in self-control. So, for students who are affected by the stress that comes from standardized tests, “it is possible that students experiencing greater cognitive symptoms of test anxiety also experience associated impairments in test performance.” (Segool). Putting young students who are not yet able to deal with effects of stress and fear into a situation where these are prevalent, and then expecting them to accurately show what they know is not the most logical of situations for testing.