Two friends got together to address an important topic for readers of the blog. Yong Zhao is a much-published international scholar based at the University of Kansas. Bill McDiarmid is Dean Emeritus of the College of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
They write:
COVID-19 has disrupted schooling in its traditional sense. It has also disrupted other school related activities such as state standardized testing. As schools return to “normal” thanks to vaccination, many states are already pushing to resume standardized testing as part of the “normal” operations of formal education and to assess the so-called “learning loss” (Zhao, 2021). Resuming standardized testing is perhaps one of the worst things that can happen to children, especially after more than a year of social isolation and unprecedented disruption.
Standardized testing in schools has been criticized repeatedly for multiple reasons. A decade and a half ago, Sharon Nichols and David Berliner clearly articulate the damage to American education caused by standardized tests in their book, Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). Dan Koretz has cited mounting evidence to show that test-based accountability has failed to significantly improve student performance in his recent book The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better(Koretz, 2017). State-mandated high-stakes testing has led educators and educational authorities to cheat, reduced education to a narrow band of the knowledge spectrum, demoralized educators, and failed to significantly close the opportunity and results gaps that marginalized students and their families continue to endure (Emler, Zhao, Deng, Yin, & Wang, 2019; Tienken & Zhao, 2013).
The negative impact of standardized testing on students cannot be overstated. First, testing discourages many students, especially historically marginalized students who may not do well on the tests for reasons outside their control. These students, primarily because of where they happen to live, have performed worse on standardized tests than their counterparts from wealthier, suburban, and mostly white neighborhoods. The results, then, are often used to hold them back or relegate them to remediation. Consequently, they miss opportunities to participate in more meaningful activities that could nurture their talents, interests, and, thus, their engagement with school.
Second, standardized testing for each grade is designed to measure students learning for that year in school. The learning thought to be measured for a given year, however, may be less important than other knowledge, skills, and dispositions students may have developed that will serve them better in their lives. For example, although students may have not mastered certain mathematical formulae measured on the state test, they may have improved their talents, curiosity, confidence, or collaborative skills which are valuable in life (Zhao, 2018). Opportunities to build these essential skills may be rare. Mathematical formulae, on the other hand, can be retrieved online as needed. Assessment in education has been heavily focused on short-term instructional outcomes and knowledge while largely ignoring non-cognitive skills and skills needed to be life-long learners. In a world in which workers will be changing jobs four or five times and established industries will die out and new ones arise, students will need the skills suited to frequent self-reinvention.
Third, standardized testing has typically focused on two subjects: literacy and numeracy. Other subjects and domains of knowledge have been slighted or ignored. Equally important it fails to offer students opportunities to demonstrate their learning in activities and domains that are of greatest importance to them and in which they may excel. As a result, although testing results show students’ talent in taking tests in mathematics and language, it says nothing about students’ strengths and their potential to be not only good but, potentially, excellent at whatever are their innate talents and interests (Zhao, 2016). Many examples exist in multiple areas of human achievement of people who tested poorly in school but made extraordinary contributions to our world. Testing does nothing to further educators’ efforts to deploy strength-based practices that encourage and support interest-driven learners.
After years of criticism from many students, families, and educators, and exposure of the corrupting and distorting effects of high-stakes testing, many policymakers, educational authorities, and members of the public cling to test-based accountability. Although ESEA has reduced testing requirements, the change is minimal. U.S. students may face fewer tests than a decade ago but, except for the pandemic period, students are still over-tested.
Some argue that testing is necessary to figure out if school systems are addressing the persistent failure to justly serve marginalized students and communities. This could be accomplished, however, without high-stakes consequences for schools, educators, students, and families. We can also imagine assessments that place as much emphasis on the skills needed for the rapidly evolving world of work as on the legacy curriculum subjects. According to the World Bank, McKinsey, the OECD, and other crystal-ball-gazingorganizations, if students are to succeed in the future, these include creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, as well as non-cognitive skills such as persistence, teamwork, and conscientiousness. Some researchers are currently testing surveys that provide reliable data on these skills (STEP, 2014).
In line with “never waste a crisis,” the current moment of disruption is the time for us to radically rethink our addiction to high-stakes assessments. It won’t be easy. Many are heavily invested in the testing status quo. At the very least, we need a conversation that includes the voices of all concerned – students, educators, families, communities, and policymakers.
References:
Koretz, D. (2017). The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Manyika, J., Lund, S., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Batra, P., . . . Sanghvi, S. (2017, November 28). Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. McKinsey Global Institute.Retrieved 03/25/21 from:https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
STEP skills measurement surveys : innovative tools for assessing skills (English). Social protection and labor discussion paper, no. 1421. Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. Retrieved 03/25/21 from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/516741468178736065/STEP-skills-measurement-surveys-innovative-tools-for-assessing-skills
Tienken, C. H., & Zhao, Y. (2013). How Common Standards and Standardized Testing Widen the Opportunity Gap. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance (pp. 113-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Zhao, Y. (2016). From Deficiency to Strength: Shifting the Mindset about Education Inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 72(4), 716-735.
Zhao, Y. (2018). What Works May Hurt: Side Effects in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zhao, Y. (2021). Build back better: Avoid the learning loss trap. Prospects, 1-5.
Yong Zhao
Foundation Distinguished Professor
School of Education and Human Sciences
University of Kansas
Professor in Educational Leadership
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
University of Melbourne
and
G. Williamson McDiarmid
Dean Emeritus
College of Education
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you for this review on the limitations of and misinformation on the impact of standardized testing. As someone that taught culturally different students, I never found any value in standardized testing, and I have noted its many flaws discussed in this post. Some teachers of second language learners believe that these vulnerable students will be “forgotten” unless we test these students. Perhaps this is Dr. Cardona’s belief, but I never found this to be true in my long teaching career. When standardized testing is used to rate, rank and deny students access to public schools and other programs, it causes far more harm than good. There is no legitimate evidence that shows that closing neighborhood schools and replacing them with privatized schools has any inherent value to students. Like standardized testing it is highly disruptive, and it does not improve outcomes for students. It wastes time and resources, and as this article shows, it can damage students’ self-esteem.
Competent teachers of the vulnerable spend so much time working to build these students up only to see them crestfallen when faced with a test that is far beyond their language and skills. According to noted language researcher Stephen Krashen, it takes five to seven years for students to become a coordinate bilingual, but the testing mandates require students to face this demoralizing testing long before they are ready. This is educational malpractice promoted by both the federal government and the states. In response to Dr. Cardona’s false belief, it has nothing to do with equity. It is simply unjust policy, and he is helping to perpetuate it.
As someone that taught culturally different students, I never found any value in standardized testing”
I’d guess that that was precisely because the tests are biased toward the language and customs of one culture (WASP culture) and that was just obvious to you because your students were largely unfamiliar with the “standard” culture
I really dislike the “never waste a crisis” mentality.
It’s from Wall St. It gives the wealthy license for a “smash and grab” in order to make money at other people’s expense.
More than two decades of being tortured by high-stakes rank and punish standardized tests have done more damage to this country’s children and teachers than one year of surviving this pandemic ever will.
Is there a widely accepted, precise definition of a “high stakes” test?
Not sure if there is a precise definition, but a test to see if someone is a vampire is a good example of a high stakes test.
Also, surveyors do high stakes tests in brushy areas so they can see the tops of their survey stakes.
Hope that helps
Illinois is spending $52.2 million over 3 years (2020, 2021, 2022) on the tests. Money goes to Pear$on.
I’m sorry: this information came from The Chicago Tribune. Again, the Chicago Teachers Union is hosting a Zoom for parents (on how to opt out) tomorrow night. Go to Illinois Families for Public Schools to register. info@ilfps.org (I think the website is http://www.ilfps.org–I put it up on an earlier post.)
IL parents: Opt OUT!
What would Jesus do?
Give a man a formula
And he can do a test
Teach a man to formulate
And he can do his best
A senator told me we need to call our local legislators and congress members about this, not just those who are already sympathetic. They basically tally opinions to determine the seriousness of an issue. No calls. No action. Here’s the congressional switchboard that will put you in touch with yours: 202-224-3121.