Lynn Kusmin
3/31/15
Red Group

Critical Thinking Paper:
Standardized Testing
By Lynn Kusmin

Standardized testing is perhaps the one aspect of the American education system despised almost as vehemently by teachers as it is by students, and for good reason. Although it began with good intentions of improving education and ensuring equal opportunity for children, standardized testing has many grievous flaws which render it more harmful than beneficial. As it is not an accurate measure of intelligence or achievement, it takes away valuable learning time, it fosters a curriculum which teaches nothing of real life applicability, and it is harmful to students and to the learning environment, the United States Department of Education must end high-stakes standardized testing.High-stakes standardized testing is a relatively new phenomenon, for which wide-spread support began with the Reagan administration's A Nation at Risk, published in nineteen eighty-three (Wetzel). A Nation at Risk discussed the "mediocre educational performance" of American schools and the fact that "our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them" (United States). The report "[sought] to generate reform of our educational system in fundamental ways" (United States) In Wetzel's words, A Nation at Risk was "a report that pushed for more exams as the answer to education's shortcomings," and was responsible for the United States' "nearly uninterrupted support for widespread testing," a feeling which was federally reinforced nineteen years later, when the Bush administration reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) under the name No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB's mission statement declared that it aimed "to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind" (United States). This sounds like an admirable goal; however, as standardized testing "creates a mythical standard or norm which requires that a certain percentage of children fail," it is also one which is inherently flawed (Armstrong, 117).The Obama administration has made attempts to remake the system that calls for high-stakes standardized testing but not, as is necessary, to end it. The administration's blueprint for reform of the ESEA discusses diverse learning and a so-called complete education, but not in full and not the ways in which these are harmed by high-stakes standardized testing. The proposal regarding diverse learning discusses, as it should, children whose situations make school a challenge for them, such as English learners, migrant and homeless students, and students with disabilities. It does not, however, seem to take into account the fact that all children, regardless of circumstance, have different strengths, struggles, interests, intelligences, and learning styles, as is discussed below. The blueprint's discussion of a complete education is lacking as well; although it mentions subjects such as history, foreign languages, and the arts, it focuses only on literacy and STEM subjects, the two subjects most tested on standardized tests. Suggestions made as to how to strengthen the former are as vague as "provide competitive grants. Although this is the same suggestion as is made for the latter subjects, much more space is devoted to the specifics of the latter. It is clear from these proposals that the Obama administration means well for the nation's students and wants what it thinks is best for them, but does not actually know anything about students or the harmful effects of the standardized system on them.High-stakes standardized testing reinforces harmful ideas about intelligence in parents, teachers, and students alike. The standards demanded by such tests, and the severe consequences of not meeting them, create in schools a climate which stresses reading, writing, and math above all else. This same climate punishes and labels 'unintelligent' children who do not excel in these areas, regardless of their other abilities. If one looks at the theory of Multiple Intelligences and overlays the institution of standardized testing, one can see that testing is not likely to be an accurate measure of intelligence or achievement for any given child.
The theory of Multiple Intelligences, or MI theory, developed by Dr. Howard Gardner in 1983, suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence...is far too limited(Armstrong). MI theory proposes instead eight different intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and natural. Though there is hardly space in a single paper to discuss in depth the intelligences identified by Gardner, it is important to note that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence (Armstrong). The heavy emphasis placed on "only what is tested on an exam" in students' curricula is detrimental to those who are not [linguistically or logically-mathematically intelligent] (Armstrong, 117) (Wise). This can be seen as early as elementary school: all students spend multiple hours a day on reading and math, as opposed to forty-five minutes a week on art, gym, or music. In high school, English and math classes are required courses in all four years, while physical education, fine arts, and social studies classes are considered electives. A survey conducted by the Center on Education Policy found that, after the institution of standardized tests under No Child Left Behind, "71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music[,] and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math" (Dillon). In Thomas Armstrong's book Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, Armstrong criticizes the standardized education system, and the standardized test in particular, as "treat[ing] all students in a uniform way rather than as unique human beings, and this insistence that every student study hard and perform well in English and math only confirms his criticism. In short, the relationship between MI theory, student individuality, and the flaws of standardized testing can best be summed up in a quote by physicist Albert Einstein: if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.The most direct way to solve the problem of high-stakes standardized testing is, of course, to end it; however, there are several obstacles in the way of achieving this. One cannot be sure which of these obstacles has the Department of Education convinced that standardized testing is a necessity. It is certain, however, that were these obstacles identified and removed, the ending of standardized testing would be a much more achievable goal. There are two obstacles in particular which the author of this paper suspects to be major roadblocks to the end of standardized testing: teacher accountability and the assessment of progress.If teacher accountability is the reason for the emphasis on high-stakes standardized testing, then the Department of Education needs to reconsider its thinking. As Research Professor of Education Diane Ravitch says in her piece The Teacher Accountability Debate, "there are so many assumptions embedded in [teacher accountability] that it is hard to know where to begin to deconstruct them". The two assumptions which most concern the topic of this paper are "the assumption that the tests are scientific instruments that measure what matters most in education" and "the assumption that raising test scores is the same as improving education" (Ravitch). Both of these assumptions are deconstructed somewhat in the discussions of the Obama administration's revisions to the ESEA and of MI theory in relation to the environment of the standardized test. Education is a complex and multifaceted concept, and while "what matters most" is a matter of opinion, most reasonable people would agree that anything which "focuses on lower order learning skills", "encourages extrinsic learning" and "judges [children] without providing suggestions for improvement" cannot be measuring whatever it is that matters most (Armstrong, 117-118). These flaws, particularly the former two, can be seen in the standardized system even outside of testing. In summary of discussions earlier, a truly improved education would be a well-rounded one in which each student was treated as an individual and allowed to pursue and excel at their interests. This might or might not raise standardized testing scores; however, as Ravitch points out in her piece, there is no real correlation between improvement in standardized testing scores and improvement in education.
If assessing progress is what concerns the DoE, then there are several alternative ways in which to do this. These alternatives all fall into the category of authentic assessment, defined by Jon Mueller as "a form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills". The most popular of these authentic assessments is the portfolio, which is advocated by such people as director of Armstrong Creative Training Dr. Thomas Armstrong and founder of Students Against Testing Bill Wetzel. Like all methods of authentic assessment, the portfolio includes higher order thinking skills, puts [emphasis] on [students'] strengths, and examines students in unobtrusive ways (Armstrong, 117-118). The portfolio is already used as a way of measuring progress in many classes and programs, including in Montgomery Blair High School's own Communication Arts Program. Its fairly widespread use can be attributed to its convenience and authenticity. If the DoE were willing to adopt portfolios as its method of measuring progress, then there would be no significant obstacles between current circumstances and the abolition of the high-stakes standardized test.The consequences of high-stakes standardized testing are already visible in students' educational experiences. As was discussed earlier, curricula are being narrowed in order to devote more time to the subjects tested on standardized tests. The intense focus on these subjects, however in no way prepares students for the real world. Dr. Thomas Armstrong provides perhaps one of the most accurate criticisms of standardized testing and the standardized system when he says that it is generally limited to reading, listening, and marking on a piece of paper, whereas authentic assessment and the authentic system [involve] creating, interviewing, demonstrating, solving problems...and engaging in many other active learning tasks (117). The latter is obviously a much better sample of the kinds of things one is required to do as an adult. Even when the subject matter taught for standardized tests is relevant, the ways in which it is taught and applied are not, and the same subject matter could be taught in a more applicable way under an authentic system. Standardized tests and the consequent system rear students for whom eighteen years of a so-called 'quality education' has not in any way prepared them for adult life.
Standardized testing is hated by students and teachers alike, and for good reason. Despite its good intentions, it is an institution too heavily flawed to be fixed without being torn down completely. High-stakes standardized testing is not an accurate measure of intelligence or achievement, takes away valuable learning time, and has no real life applicability. For all of these reasons, the Department of Education must put an end to it once and for all.

Works CitedArmstrong, Thomas. "Multiple Intelligences." American Institute for Learning and
Human Development. N.p., 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. - - -. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994. Dillon, Sam. "Schools Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math." The New York
Times. New York Times Company, 26 Mar. 2006. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Mueller, Jon, ed. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Jon Mueller, 2014. Web. 29 Mar.
2015. Ravitch, Diane. "The Teacher Accountability Debate." Bank Street College of
Education. Wetzel, Bill. "No More Tests!" Mothering Nov.-Dec. 2002: 68-71. SIRS Researcher.
Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Wise, Julie. Multiple Intelligences Theory. Serendip Studio's One World. Bryn
Mawr College, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.

Annotations

Armstrong, Thomas. "Multiple Intelligences." American Institute for Learning and
Human Development. N.p., 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Armstrong's online
article provides an overview of Dr. Howard Gardener's theory of multiple
intelligences. The first half of the article introduces the seven
intelligences and relates them to learning and development in an
instructional setting; the second half gives examples of how to teach to
the different intelligences.
The text of the article is simple and easy to understand. Though not the
most interesting read, the information presented is relevant and concise.
The author's credentials inspire confidence in the reliability of the
source.
This text could be used as an introduction to MI theory. In addition,
Armstrong has written numerous books about the multiple intelligences in
and outside of the classroom, listed at the bottom of the page, which could
be used for further research.

- - -. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994. Print. Armstrong's book
offers a fascinating and multifaceted discussion of MI theory in relation
to schooling and maximizing the value of children's education. The book
discusses such topics as MI and curriculum development, MI and
classroom management, and MI and assessment, and is sure to relate each
topic to each of the eight intelligences.
The book is thorough and well-organized, with a forward, preface, and
introduction in addition to the main content of the book. The same
description of reliability applies to this source as to the previous one,
as both were written by Dr. Thomas Armstrong.
This book could be used for further research by anyone interested in
learning more about MI theory, specifically as it relates to education. The
book contains a list of references at the end, as well as several
appendices with suggestions for further reading.

Dillon, Sam. "Schools Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math." The New York
Times. New York Times Company, 26 Mar. 2006. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.
Dillon's article discusses the effect of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on the
makeup of school days in low-performing schools. Focusing on a junior high
in Sacramento, California, Dillon uses statistics and a plethora of quotes
to establish varying opinions on whether the sacrifice of a diverse
curriculum is worth increasing achievement in tested subjects.
The article is thorough and well-written, and, though many opinions are
expressed in the piece, the author himself steers clear of bias. One can be
assured of its reliability as well, as it was published on the official
website of The New York Times.
This article could be used for further research by anyone interested in an
approach to the subject of NCLB which focuses more on individuals and
situations than on statistics and ideologies. Unfortunately, the author
used few outside sources, and no list of references accompanies the
article.

Mueller, Jon, ed. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Jon Mueller, 2014. Web. 29 Mar.
2015. Mueller's website offers an introduction to authentic assessment. In
a straightforward and highly informative style, he provides information
such as what authentic assessment is, why it's used, and how it's done.
Workshops are also provided on the website for educators interested in
authentic assessment.
The website's content is thorough and well-organized, and the layout and
design are such that they do not distract from that content. Like
Wikipedia, each section of the content has a clearly labeled subsection
linked to the top of the page, so that one can find what one is looking for
without having to skim everything.
As implied in the description of the workshops above, this website would
be of most use to educators interested in trying out authentic
assessment; however, its sections 'What is it?' and 'Why do it?' are
valuable for anyone who desires thorough information about authentic
assessment.

Nelson, Howard. Testing More, Teaching Less: What America's Obsession with
Student Testing Costs in Money and Lost Instructional Time. N.p.: American
Federation of Teachers, 2013. Print. Nelson's pamphlet provides, among
other things, facts and statistics regarding the costs of standardized
testing. The pamphlet addresses many aspects of the aforementioned costs of
time and money, specifically in respect to to its two case study "mid-size
urban school districts", which it uses to draw conclusions about national
losses due to standardized testing.
The pamphlet is well organized. Though the information is perhaps overly
thorough, titles and subtitles make it easy to find what one is looking for
without having to read the whole thing. Charts and graphs are effectively
used to enhance the reader's understanding of the content.
As it was published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), much of
the information presented in this brochure is of interest only to
educators; however, the charts and graphs in particular offer important
statistics about the costs of standardized testing. For anyone interested
in doing further research, the pamphlet contains a list of references at
the back.

Ravitch, Diane. "The Teacher Accountability Debate." Bank Street College of
Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. Ravitch's article explores and
deconstructs the assumptions upon which support for teacher accountability
is based. Ratvich provides first a brief description of the allure of
accountability, and then delves in to all the flaws in its logic. She
offers readers a strong opinion, but backs it with equally strong
reasoning.
The article comes from a reliable (.edu) source, and the author's
credentials are firm. It is also well organized- the main content of the
article is divided into five sections, each deconstructing a different
assumption about teacher accountability.
This article could be used for further research by anyone specifically
interested in the subject of teacher accountability. It is, as mentioned
above, a piece from a reputable source and by an established author. A
short list of references is included at the end of the article.

United States. A Nation at Risk. Washington: GPO, 1983. U.S. Department of
Education. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. The Reagan Administration's A Nation at
Risk discusses the condition of the United States school system in 1983.
The report includes the identification of an underachievement problem in
the system, the detailed findings of an 18 month study on the subject, and
suggestions for solutions to the underachievement problem.
A Nation at Risk is, like most government documents, well organized. Its
introduction lists the charges of the Commission by which it was written,
as well as the five main sources from which information was pulled. The
main content is divided into three sections: A Nation at Risk, Findings,
and Recommendations. One can be assured of the document's reliability, as
it is archived on the Department of Education's official website.
The document is useful for anyone interested in the origins of the
standardized testing craze.

- - -. No Child Left Behind. 107th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: GPO, 2001.
U.S. Department of Education. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. The Bush
administration's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discusses Bush's plan to close
the achievement gap. The legislation includes such titles as 'Improving the
Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged' and 'Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Educational Agencies".
The legislation is well-organized, like all government documents. All
titles, chapters, parts, subparts, and sections, are listed in link form on
the main page of the document. At the top of the same page, a PDF of the
legislation's public law print is provided for anyone who is interested in
reading the legislation in full.
This legislation is a useful resource for anyone interested in the
specifics of NCLB, as well as the associated standardized testing, which
has defined the most recent generation of students.

- - -. United States Department of Education. A Blueprint for Reform: The
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington:
GPO, 2011. U.S. Department of Education. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. The Obama
Administration's Blueprint for Reform discusses proposed revisions to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Proposals on many topics,
including accountability, a complete education, and diverse learning are
included, as well as research supporting the aforementioned proposals.
The blueprint is a reliable source, being an official document of the US
government. It is also well organized- all proposals and research are in
the form of clearly-labeled PDFs.
This document could be used for further research by anyone interested in
the roots of the standardized education system and standardized testing. It
is a thorough and official primary source, and is closely related to No
Child Left Behind (NCLB), which established many aspects of modern
standardized testing, including many state standardized tests, such as the
MSA.

Wetzel, Bill. "No More Tests!" Mothering Nov.-Dec. 2002: 68-71. SIRS Researcher.
Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Wetzel's article details the idea of learning without
testing as a better educational system than the one currently in place. The
article offers a brief history of both high-stakes standardized testing and
the movement against it, as well as a vision of what could be achieved in
the absence of high-stakes testing. "5 Ways to take Action" in the
protesting of high-stakes testing are also suggested.
As it is an Op/Ed piece, Wetzel's article takes a strong side on the
subject of the debate which it discusses; however, it provides more than
sufficient evidence to give it credibility. In addition, the piece is a
dynamic read, and its points are made with humor as well as logic.
While not heavy in concrete facts or statistics, Wetzel's article provides
much food for thought and makes good suggestions as to how and why to solve
the problem of high-stakes testing. Wetzel also includes a comprehensive
list of sources for those who desire further information about the
consequences of standardized testing, or the movement against it.

Wise, Julie. Multiple Intelligences Theory. Serendip Studio's One World. Bryn
Mawr College, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. Wise's paper offers an introduction
to MI theory and to each of the multiple intelligences, as well as a brief
history of the reactions of educators towards the theory. It also
summarizes the opinions of Dr. Howard Gardner, the father of MI theory,
towards the effects of such on education, particularly in colleges.
The paper is well-researched and concise. Despite being written by a
college student, it is fairly professional, although its organization is
slightly bland.
This paper is not necessarily a useful source for anyone who also
possesses access to any of Dr. Thomas Armstrong's more official writings on
the subject of MI theory, however, some readers might prefer Wise's style
of writing.