The Disconnection Standard in Standardized Tests

Matthew said:
As I was reading your blog, I began to think about my high school experience in taking test, more specifically standardized test. While I usually succeeded on the test, I always found it strange the material I was tested on. There seemed to be a major disconnect between what I was learning in school and what I was being tested on with the standardized test. I understand now this was a lack of knowledge of the audience the test was made for. As a result, the standardized test never seemed to serve its purpose, which in my mind was to see how much I and the other students had learned. Do you have any experience with addressing these issues? If so, what initiatives are being done to correct the problem?

A Double-Edged Sword
Standardized tests are one of the most controversial issues in education, particularly in the high-stakes testing era that we are currently in. With the No Child Left Behind Act (another extremely controversial issue), the results of standardized tests now have huge implications not only for student achievement, but for schools’ success and their ability to get funding. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any good way (yet) to ensure students are getting the education they should, without just giving them all the same test and seeing how they perform.

The tests are ideally designed and executed to measure students’ mastery and knowledge, but the material tested and the material students have been taught often seem disconnected. This disconnect isn’t the result of test-makers not understanding their audience; it’s a result of a lack of communication between test-makers, state departments of education, school districts, curriculum designers, teachers, and ultimately, students.

In my experience, standardized tests serve one of two main purposes: to measure students’ knowledge (tests such as the ACT and SAT, which are designed to just see how much you know) or to ensure understanding (state tests, which are designed to make sure schools are helping students master the state standards).

Measuring Students
Tests like the ACT, SAT in particular have direct ramifications for students more than for the students’ schools. True, the scores will be used to measure the success of the school. But they are not necessarily linked directly to the school’s report card, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measurements, or funding. It is more difficult to teach directly to these tests, since they test a national group (rather than a state-specific group) and measure general understanding (rather than mastery of specific educational standards). Connecting such large-scale tests to specific classroom experiences is also an extremely challenging task, since the tests attempt to measure knowledge across the entire country. The test-makers, in this instance, have to set their own standards of what students should know and be able to do, and then measure students against these standards.

Measuring Schools
State testing is designed more as a check-up on students, teachers, and schools, to make sure students are being taught what the state has determined they should be taught. States set educational standards and then use state testing to see if students are meeting these standards. There should, ideally, be less disconnect between the test and the audience in this instance, because the standards being tested are the same standards that teachers are expected to teach in that state, and these standards are communicated directly to schools. The downside of this testing, though, is that many teachers feel constrained to “teach to the test.” They know what their students will be tested on, and they know that the students’ success or failure will tie directly to school funding and AYP. Many teachers feel that there is no room in the curriculum to do anything other than teach students to the test.

Making Standards Part of the Curriculum (Instead of the Curriculum)
SREB’s High Schools That Work initiative has recently published a guide to help teachers design lessons that lead to student mastery of standards, while still engaging students in authentic assignments and tasks that make learning more interesting. The publication, Planning for Improved Student Achievement: Ten Steps for Planning and Teaching Standards-Based Units walks teachers through a process for planning units of study that are built around state standards, but don’t just “teach to the test.” The intended outcome is a sort of “best of both worlds” goal, in which test-makers and test-takers both understand what should be tested, but teachers are able to do more than drill students with test materials.

Teachers Can Teach Us More
Standards-based planning and teaching is just one initiative that I know of to better connect standardized testing to true student understanding and knowledge. I’m sure there are many teachers who would be able to shed much more light on the complications of standardized testing and the high-stakes testing era, and I encourage you to weigh in on this subject. Like Matthew, I would love to know of other efforts and ideas to help make standardized testing a better measure of students’ knowledge.